Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

EthnicFury

Members
  • Posts

    628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EthnicFury

  1. Yeah I drafted him late expecting to not even remotely consider starting him til at least like week 5 for that reason. Think he has potential to put up numbers but they gotta get on the same page first
  2. I don’t think last week showed us much between Alexander and the bizarre game script. Someone offered me Christian Kirk for him in dyno and I think I’m holding (in fairness that team is stacked and neither would likely ever start so I’m playing for upside)
  3. Value feels about right to me but I’m sure the people who disagreed with me preferring Lockett over Michael Carter will feel otherwise
  4. Think I’m starting him over Javonte and Laviska for volume reasons
  5. Yeah if you think the value increase is not sustainable or indicative of success vs real nfl talent taking a small profit seems fine to me. I wouldn’t pay a 1 for him and if you got him mid to late 2nd as a BPA you weren’t thrilled with/didn’t need I’d happily reroll and hope the new 2nd winds up early. ETA: he was 2.07 in my league and the visible tier break between a bunch of guys I’d trade him for in a heartbeat (Marshall/Moore/Moore/Rhamondre/Toney) and a bunch of guys I’m way less interested in (Gainwell/Amari Rodgers/Wilson/Mac Jones/Dyami/Chuba). I’d happily flip for a shot to land in the equivalent of that first group, unless I was confident his value would continue to rise
  6. I agree with most of this but did I miss Rountree’s value skyrocketing? I don’t have him remotely near Gus value (or a 2nd)
  7. Yeah the trade values I’ve seen have been rough for a 28 year old who was wr9 overall. Sure he was a little boom/bust, but I’m happy to have him if my roster is strong. Saw people talking about Julio or Michael Carter over him, which is wild to me. If a non-contender has him you may be able to pry him away for cheap.
  8. Yeah I completely agree that more descriptive/up to date thread titles would be hugely additive, but also am firmly in the camp that is not looking forward to the proliferation of extra threads. Realistically I never get past page 5, rarely page 3, unless I’m doing a search for some obscure sleeper. If we have threads for every little thing I’m going to miss a lot. I’ll also probably skim those headlines as the news and click into relatively few. Not my show, but I agree with the posters suggesting some sort of lower tier ‘thread title mod’ compromise might be the best way to go here. To Joe’s point about format being a self fulfilling prophecy, I worry that while this may have been a perfectly fine direction way back when, the people who wanted that format already left, and the new change may be a discordant fit with those who remain (myself included). If I wanted rotoworld I’d go there. That probably sounds harsher than I mean it to be—this is my first and most frequent fr stop, as it is now, and part of my concern is because it is one of the few places that work for me as constructed.
  9. So like every Faust post would be its own thread? Sounds like an absolute mess. IDK if it’s an issue of misguided instructions or misunderstood instructions but that sounds like a total disaster. If that’s not on you that’s not on you—I don’t mean this as a personal attack, I was just commenting on what feels like it’d be a navigable message board or not.
  10. I saw some commentary about how major breaking news developments like Akers’s Achilles tear belong in their own topics and I completely agree with that. Generic preseason ‘player x is struggling/crushing in camp’ feels like more of a fit for the player threads IMO. I didn’t clock what specifically was requested of you but absent explicit instruction one way or the other, there’s a judgment call to be made of what deserves a major breaking news update handling and perhaps more detailed guidelines could be helpful.
  11. Jax had a glut of decent/promising wrs last year so he didn’t get on the field much before getting hurt. Prior to that his worst season was more productive than Bisi’s best, and his other two seasons both eclipse Bisi’s career output by significant margins. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say he’s proven more on the field. Of course if he’s not healthy it’s a moot point, but it feels silly not to acknowledge the guy has shown he can produce at a wr3 level whereas Bisi and ISM both have yet to do so
  12. Oh sure, if ISM is something special Westbrook isn’t an insurmountable obstacle by any means. But he appears to be a much better player than Johnson if he’s on the field so I don’t see a materially different opportunity than I did a month ago
  13. Does it? I figured it was a wash with the Westbrook signing at best (but don’t have any inside knowledge)
  14. A sad day for play by play guys everywhere. The potential for endless “Butt leaking wide open down the seam” type lines, dead on the vine
  15. Dynasty I go Lawrence just from a risk standpoint. The difference in respective value/career implications drop from a potential blown knee this coming year is massive. Outside of that it feels close to a wash
  16. Undoubtedly. My point was only that one part of that was because Hill was heavily targeting MT. As a Kamara owner I’d still rather see Jameis but a Hill - Thomas combo likely means more targets than a Hill + Thomas combo
  17. Idk, it seemed like Hill locked onto Thomas pretty tightly at the expense of other targets when he played last season. That could be both a reason he’d end up spreading it around to others including Kamara more, as well as a reason to be less inclined to go with him as the starter if Thomas is out
  18. I’d take that for Akers easily. I think I’d take Moore straight up tbh
  19. I wound up fairly easily on the pick side of a similar debate when the return was an early second, but I’d probably pay a 3rd to stash him on IR and gamble on the as-yet-unseen combo of youth/talent/medical advances for an rb comeback from this injury. I agree it’s unlikely but at the price of a 3rd rounder that’s priced in
  20. Oh, sure, but Cam and White being on their last legs isn’t too big a reach. And Mac not running like Cam or being the greatest qb of all time also isn’t a reach. Set those variables aside and in the mid-to-long-term we’re basically looking at “he needs to be a good enough player to not demand replacement, and noticeably better than rhamondre” It’s certainly far from guaranteed and I can’t blame anyone for avoiding the pats backfield. I’ve mined significant value there successfully before though, so I’m interested at a limited investment level
  21. Oh yeah to be clear this is assuming he plays well NFL wise but the usage initially starts with the standard pats “maddening for fantasy” schtick. Say he’s the hoss between the 20’s but cam is vulturing TD’s and white is getting the 2-minute work so he’s putting up a bunch of 80 yd, no TD games on 5 or 6 ypc initially. Then they go away from cam and white retires, gets hurt or loses effectiveness. If rhamondre Stevenson turns out to be nothing special suddenly there’s a much more compelling opportunity here
  22. I actually kind of lean the opposite way. I’m not sure he will be super fantasy viable out of the gate but I think he’s the best back they’ve got and they won’t pay big to replace him so he could hold down his spot for awhile, possibly into a Mac Jones era that’s more run-centric than with Brady and less susceptible to QB TD vulturing than with Cam
  23. I’m stoked to have him as my rb4 in a league where I got him for nothing. If I had to start him every week I’d be sweating Fair value is prob a mid-2nd but a lot of prospective trade partners will want nothing to do with giving it to you
  24. Verboten? Harm done? Nah I just think everyone knows it already. I’m not gonna go to some financial advice board and post about buying 3 quarters for a dollar once in college because I needed to do laundry in the replies every time someone makes an investment that looks like it’s gonna lose em 25%. Yeah sometimes losing value makes sense for other reasons, we get it. It’s also a bad trade barring some weird, rarely applicable outlier situation
  25. I mean is there really value in a dynasty trade thread to reiterating on every trade that “sometimes your individual team situation makes it worth overpaying”? Im not sure we need to pump the brakes and say “well what if it was the best they could get and the last piece they needed to win the money” every time a valuation is bad. Yes, there may be times when a bad trade in a vacuum makes sense. But are we here to figure out rough player values or rehabilitate the honor of owners who might have made brutal looking trades for outlier reasons?
×
  • Create New...