Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Rodgers may very well play a full game and be the cheesus he has been. That said, if I had Cam I would be starting Cam.I do not, and the likes of Moore, etc have me thinking lets not get cute and just dance with the whore who got me here. In my league if the 9ers lose I am able to pick up Flyn and use him in a pinch before kick off, so im keeping that in my back pocket. However, as a previous poster said, if Rodgers is starting, im playing Rodgers. If I am going to lose, Id rather lose with him, then lose with me trying to guess what NFL staff are thinking and out smarting myself.
You'd start Cam with confidence over Rodgers?
Mike Patterson of CBS reporting that the 'word on the street' is that the packers will rest the starters for the second half if they are a'up big' which is fairly likely imho with a injury ravaged bear team with next to no offense.I guess you take the solace that if this scenario happens arog should at least have 150-200 and 2-3 tds, but food for thought.
Hmmm. Good info, thanks. Cam it is!
....not to mention his skills running the ball. He's always getting 20-25 yards rushing and gets plenty of GL looks. I've had a number of games where he didn't have a great second half, but the damage was done in the first half. If he gets me 20 pts (5 pts/TD pass, 6 pts rushing, 1 pt/25 yards) in the first half, and rest him, I can live with that over my other options, C. Palmer or R. Fitzpatrick. If I had Cam, I think that would be a no-brainer to start him this week over Rodgers.
Seriously? I have the same two options.Tebow is a "too cute move" for my taste. Good luck though...
I'd have no problem starting Newton to avoid this situation. I'm probably going with Romo over Rodgers. Am I crazy about sitting the guy that got me here? No. In this spot, without knowing the Packers' situation and without knowing if last week's poor showing was an anomaly without Jennings, I'd rather go with another proven option and not worry about it.Not only that, the Packer offensive line is a mess right now. How much of a factor will that be? Is it possible they play more conservative to protect Rodgers? Too many questions all of a sudden unless you don't have a solid option otherwise.
I'd do the same thing. But for those with someone like Cam? Cam is the choice.
I would agree if one owns Newton or Brees or even Brady or Stafford you would feel very confident starting any one of these QB's. Still Rodgers will be very productive this week regardless of if Seattle beats SF. The game plan is already written until the game this week is in good hands with a big lead going into the 4th quarter.
I hear ya kardplayer...better get another kicker for Cundiff...S Graham if available too?
Same situation and 80% sure I'm going to go with Stafford, I think....IMO Rodgers will start not matter what happens with the 49'ers but I think there is a strong chance that he is done at halftime. I would not plug in just anyone but Stafford should put up points.Main Factor:Rodger's ceiling is just a tad over StaffordStafford's floor is a lot higher with all things considered
Precisely, and this doesn't take the risk into account.
Yup. Me too. I've finally decided to roll the dice with Stafford because I need both Stafford and Calvin to have a huge game. And I am a little less confident in Rodgers without Jennings, let alone the San Francisco loss possibility. Across the board with the experts (consensus of 73 so called experts), they mostly list Rodgers and Stafford as 4/5 ranking for the week. But there is the downside risk to Rodgers.So far, I'm looking like a genius.
Grossman has a good matchup...
because trading in my league which is a keeper league where you can hold half your roster, nobody wants to give up equal value for a player. Sure I could of traded Stafford or Vick give them a starter and they give me two backups.
