This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Talent-wise, they should be. Results-wise, not so far. But I don't think it's a bad bet, especially given their schedule.kyoun1e said:
Side bar here...we are playing in ESPN and if we have a guy on our bench whose team plays tonight, we can't drop him even though he isn't in my starting lineup. Is that normal?
Looking at the various rankings across the web the Vikings are the highest ranked and the Seahawks are the lowest ranked.I am really in a bind this week, some of these options............who would you roll with below?
Minnesota at Carolina
Cleveland vs. Arizona
Seattle at Pittsburgh
I think most sites are that way, with the rationale being that you shouldn't be able to drop a player who has played for the week because it gives you the advantage of having seen them play. It's not so much whether or not they were in your lineup, it's that they had the opportunity to be in your lineup. Being able to drop that player and pick up another is almost like having an additional roster spot.
It's a Yahoo thing. If the guy starts, you can't drop him until Monday morning. But if he's on your bench, you can drop him anytime.
On top of that, I seem to remember that the London fans (not all, but a lot) tend to pull for Jacksonville because they have seen them a bunch. I don't have the numbers, but doesn't JAC play in London basically every year? If there is any team that has an "almost homefield advantage" in London, it's them.
Ahhh, so it IS a Yahoo thing..............that's pretty much all I have used up until this year. So I'm not COMPLETELY nuts.
Yeah, I believe you would take a short (short of dropping Kittle, obviously). It makes it tricky with players playing on MNF, or even just in the late(r) games on Sunday. If I have a player who is legitimately questionable playing in a late game, I'm most likely not putting that player in my lineup unless I have another late player as a backup plan. If it's a TE or QB, though, that's pretty tough to do.
Funny, right after I posted that I was listening to a podcast where they were talking about Cleveland's injuries. Not clear to me how much that is expected to be a lingering problem throughout the season
Goff is usually good for a couple turnovers a game, that's all I got. Consensus ratings also prefer Cincinnati.Currently debating CIN @ DET or GB @ CHI....but that JAX analyses above has me contemplating them as well.
Sitting at 1-4 in this league, so looking for any kind of advantage
3 dud weeks in FF (& IRL) but still a ton of talent. Might be an ebb and glow thing, maybe if they get it together they do have a sweet Week 14-16 stretch.kyoun1e said:
honestly, I thought it was very premature to people to rank defenses and offenses based on first three weeks. Carolina and Denver had cake first three weeks. Teams like cowboys had difficult teams first three weeks. Now that we have 6 weeks behind us defenses should have faced good and bad offenses and we should have a better picture. Might be time to rerank all offenses and defenses for rest of year.
I gotta figure a way to hold DAL D while they are on a bye. I think they're too good to just let go. Team is beginning to gel and you can see confidence building. This team has no apparent weaknesses. The Defense is opportunistic and yes, Diggs is such a beast. That enthusiasm carries over. Definitely a hold, but not a pleasant drop in order to roster 2 defenses for week 7. I have 3 Williams on this team and it might have to be Darrel Williams who just put up 20.90 yikes. Appears D Williams has two more weeks left with the CEH injury. Gonna have to think about carrying two D's. Not gonna drop J Williams or M Williams.
Interesting strategy for sure. As a commissioner in one league we simply allow whatever the hosting site allows us to do. In this case it's Yahoo. So, yes, it certainly is a possibility to take a 0 and just leave DAL D right where it is. But, I will first drop the kicker for a second D and have an open kicker spot that could also end up being a 0. Or the 2 for 1 trade that most likely won't work in week 7 with all these byes and injuries. That's what I'm doing now lol.
There are too damn many RB3s named Williams, including two each of DWilliams and JWilliams! Fantasy hasn't been this confusing since the brief window in the late Aughts when both Steve Smiths and both Adrian Petersons were fantasy-relevant.
Good point. I had been planning on dropping them, but might make more sense to hold on for one more week. Saints are available, so if I can get them would prefer them to Denver, but might not be a bad backup plan
If Chubb and Hunt are out, I think Denver could be Ok if you can’t grab NE or one of the better plays on paper. Baker is banged up and isn’t elite even when healthy.
