Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda: Week 6 (1 Viewer)

[tdhartis]

For the record: I have not denied my self promotion, but where did I present myself as an expert? I do have a successful track record of making accurate predictions. If you check my history you will see this. As for my personal team, drafts and expectations can take a record elsewhere. As we all know, luck plays a larger role in fantasy sports than anything else. My ability to help someone else choose between who to start and sit for their respective rosters is vastly different, and should be treated as such: individually. As for Julius Thomas, look at the numbers. He has had 2 big games, that's it. Not seeing him as a great start this week is not as crazy as you would suggest.

He is a must start. Lets just take out 2 big games from every player in the first 6 weeks and see where they land. Don't be silly peoplez.

I am not advising not to start him. Unless you have Jimmy Graham or Jordan Cameron on your roster, Julius Thomas is more than likely your best TE and should start. In a general setting, having every player to choose from and not comparing for specific rosters, I am saying I do not think he will be the best TE this week. I thought that was fairly obvious to gather from what I wrote.

So if "Pass 'em" means that you are saying you "do not think he will be the best TE this week", does "Play 'em" mean that you do think they will be the best player that week? If that's the case, then every TE that you don't think will be the best TE that week should be listed as a "Pass 'em".

I don't think that's what you were trying to imply, and it's reasonable from the framing to infer you are advising to bench J. Thomas this week. For the record, I'll admit that Julius isn't likely the highest scoring TE this week, but I don't think it's wise to disclaim a player that is almost assuredly a top 5 play at his position any given week. Also, keep in mind Jimmy Graham isn't even playing this week. That leaves Jordon Cameron as your one TE you would have in over Thomas, and he has looked like trash since Weeden has taken over behind center. Just admit it's a bad call.

EDIT: Might I suggest that if you continue this as a weekly post, that you change the "Play'em" and "Pass 'em" language to something that implies that you're simply higher on one player than most, and you're lower on the other player than most. Kind of like how Yahoo! does their weekly "flames" and "lames" columns. I think that's more the message you're trying to convey.

 

[PeoplezPerspective]

For the record: I have not denied my self promotion, but where did I present myself as an expert? I do have a successful track record of making accurate predictions. If you check my history you will see this. As for my personal team, drafts and expectations can take a record elsewhere. As we all know, luck plays a larger role in fantasy sports than anything else. My ability to help someone else choose between who to start and sit for their respective rosters is vastly different, and should be treated as such: individually. As for Julius Thomas, look at the numbers. He has had 2 big games, that's it. Not seeing him as a great start this week is not as crazy as you would suggest.

He is a must start. Lets just take out 2 big games from every player in the first 6 weeks and see where they land. Don't be silly peoplez.

I am not advising not to start him. Unless you have Jimmy Graham or Jordan Cameron on your roster, Julius Thomas is more than likely your best TE and should start. In a general setting, having every player to choose from and not comparing for specific rosters, I am saying I do not think he will be the best TE this week. I thought that was fairly obvious to gather from what I wrote.

So if "Pass 'em" means that you are saying you "do not think he will be the best TE this week", does "Play 'em" mean that you do think they will be the best player that week? If that's the case, then every TE that you don't think will be the best TE that week should be listed as a "Pass 'em".

I don't think think that's what you were trying to imply, and it's reasonable from the framing to infer you are advising to bench J. Thomas this week. For the record, I'll admit that Julius isn't likely the highest scoring TE this week, but I don't think it's wise to disclaim a player that is almost assuredly a top 5 play at his position any given week. Also, keep in mind Jimmy Graham isn't even playing this week. That leaves Jordon Cameron as your one TE you would have in over Thomas, and he has looked like trash since Weeden has taken over behind center. Just admit it's a bad call.

I hear your logic on your breakdown of me personally, as well as what I said about Julius Thomas. I don't think you're all wrong, but you are definitely not all right. This post has now stimulated some playground name calling, but has also inspired some real debate, which is what I thought the forums were all about. You are implying I am advising people to bench Thomas, but if you read the full context of it, all I am saying is I don't love him this week. That is choosing from 30 TE's league wide (as you stated Graham has a bye, as well as Rivera). I highly doubt someone has Thomas as well as another elite TE, so between he and others (ex: Clay, Fleener, Rudolph) he is a start for his potential alone. I didn't just blindly list him, I offered my reasoning as well. Have I defended it enough now?

 

[T with T]

I saw it more as Berrys Love/Hate type of predictions. If you own him, you're starting him but peoplez happens to be down on him this week. Take that for whatever its worth.

yea this is coming from a guy that benched or had no faith in Blackmon LOL

 

[McGarnicle]

I highly doubt someone has Thomas as well as another elite TE

Really? You highly doubt it? Wasn't Thomas ranked simply as a strong sleeper in preseason, along with Cook, Sudfeld, Cameron, etc? There are lots of teams with Graham & Thomas, Davis & Thomas, even Cameron & Thomas if someone went very late with TE.

 

[T with T]

Jordan cameron has had 2 stinkers in a row... I think J.thomas is far more intriguing..

 

[PeoplezPerspective]

I highly doubt someone has Thomas as well as another elite TE

Really? You highly doubt it? Wasn't Thomas ranked simply as a strong sleeper in preseason, along with Cook, Sudfeld, Cameron, etc? There are lots of teams with Graham & Thomas, Davis & Thomas, even Cameron & Thomas if someone went very late with TE.

Yes, I do. I didn't say it was impossible, it is unlikely. And without question many teams probably do have he and another solid TE. I would venture it more in the minority however.

 

[McGarnicle]

Jordan cameron has had 2 stinkers in a row... I think J.thomas is far more intriguing..

Fact is, if you own Thomas, you're either starting him every week as your TE or flex, or if you lucked out with someone like Graham and him and can't flex a TE, you probably traded him already. Usually these kind of start/sit analyses exclude obvious studs because the information isn't very useful.

 

[McGarnicle]

I highly doubt someone has Thomas as well as another elite TE

Really? You highly doubt it? Wasn't Thomas ranked simply as a strong sleeper in preseason, along with Cook, Sudfeld, Cameron, etc? There are lots of teams with Graham & Thomas, Davis & Thomas, even Cameron & Thomas if someone went very late with TE.

Yes, I do. I didn't say it was impossible, it is unlikely. And without question many teams probably do have he and another solid TE. I would venture it more in the minority however.

It's not unlikely at all. A very common strategy is to target a top TE early and an upside sleeper later as a backup. Or, let's say you drafted Graham and Sudfeld. You saw Thomas week 1 and put in a WW claim for him. Such teams are going to be commonplace right now.

 

[tdhartis]

I hear your logic on your breakdown of me personally, as well as what I said about Julius Thomas. I don't think you're all wrong, but you are definitely not all right. This post has now stimulated some playground name calling, but has also inspired some real debate, which is what I thought the forums were all about. You are implying I am advising people to bench Thomas, but if you read the full context of it, all I am saying is I don't love him this week. That is choosing from 30 TE's league wide (as you stated Graham has a bye, as well as Rivera). I highly doubt someone has Thomas as well as another elite TE, so between he and others (ex: Clay, Fleener, Rudolph) he is a start for his potential alone. I didn't just blindly list him, I offered my reasoning as well. Have I defended it enough now?

I haven't done any playground name calling. I've been respectful and simply pointing out if you're holding yourself out as a fantasy "advisor" and post things like this, then you should expect the kind of commentary that comes with it.

I read the full context of your post, and I'm saying from the language of "Pass 'em" and your definition that that designation means the player is one "you may want to avoid", it suggests you should bench him. If that's the case, Julius Thomas is a bad call. So, if it means what you're now claiming to intend, I think you should change your language and/or definition to indicate the tag means you simply "don't love [that player] this week," because as it stands the language is misleading. As someone who obviously puts a lot of time and effort into this sort of a thing on a weekly/daily basis, constructive criticism shouldn't be a surprise, or unwelcome for that matter.

 

[T with T]

I highly doubt someone has Thomas as well as another elite TE

Really? You highly doubt it? Wasn't Thomas ranked simply as a strong sleeper in preseason, along with Cook, Sudfeld, Cameron, etc? There are lots of teams with Graham & Thomas, Davis & Thomas, even Cameron & Thomas if someone went very late with TE.

agreed... Cameron was a later round te and J.thomas was waiver wire pick up week 1 for redraft... Certainly it's possible and likely.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I hear your logic on your breakdown of me personally, as well as what I said about Julius Thomas. I don't think you're all wrong, but you are definitely not all right. This post has now stimulated some playground name calling, but has also inspired some real debate, which is what I thought the forums were all about. You are implying I am advising people to bench Thomas, but if you read the full context of it, all I am saying is I don't love him this week. That is choosing from 30 TE's league wide (as you stated Graham has a bye, as well as Rivera). I highly doubt someone has Thomas as well as another elite TE, so between he and others (ex: Clay, Fleener, Rudolph) he is a start for his potential alone. I didn't just blindly list him, I offered my reasoning as well. Have I defended it enough now?

I haven't done any playground name calling. I've been respectful and simply pointing out if you're holding yourself out as a fantasy "advisor" and post things like this, then you should expect the kind of commentary that comes with is.

I read the full context of your post, and I'm saying from the language of "Pass 'em" and your definition that that designation means the player is one "you may want to avoid", it suggests you should bench him. If that's the case, Julius Thomas is a bad call. So, if it means what you're now claiming to intend, I think you should change your language and/or definition to indicate the tag means you simply "don't love [that player] this week," because as it stands the language is misleading. As someone who obviously puts a lot of time and effort into this sort of a thing on a weekly/daily basis, constructive criticism shouldn't be a surprise, or unwelcome for that matter.

Anyone with a computer can sign up for twitter and create a blog. I read the OP and got a good laugh out of it though, especially when I scrolled down to the sig. Can you imagine what this board would be like if each one of us made our own look at me "pass'em" thread.

 

[PeoplezPerspective]

I hear your logic on your breakdown of me personally, as well as what I said about Julius Thomas. I don't think you're all wrong, but you are definitely not all right. This post has now stimulated some playground name calling, but has also inspired some real debate, which is what I thought the forums were all about. You are implying I am advising people to bench Thomas, but if you read the full context of it, all I am saying is I don't love him this week. That is choosing from 30 TE's league wide (as you stated Graham has a bye, as well as Rivera). I highly doubt someone has Thomas as well as another elite TE, so between he and others (ex: Clay, Fleener, Rudolph) he is a start for his potential alone. I didn't just blindly list him, I offered my reasoning as well. Have I defended it enough now?

I haven't done any playground name calling. I've been respectful and simply pointing out if you're holding yourself out as a fantasy "advisor" and post things like this, then you should expect the kind of commentary that comes with is.

I read the full context of your post, and I'm saying from the language of "Pass 'em" and your definition that that designation means the player is one "you may want to avoid", it suggests you should bench him. If that's the case, Julius Thomas is a bad call. So, if it means what you're now claiming to intend, I think you should change your language and/or definition to indicate the tag means you simply "don't love [that player] this week," because as it stands the language is misleading. As someone who obviously puts a lot of time and effort into this sort of a thing on a weekly/daily basis, constructive criticism shouldn't be a surprise, or unwelcome for that matter.

I wasn't referring to you specifically with the name calling. And this is not the first time I have posted, there are several others and this column started at the beginning of the season. I certainly appreciate the criticism and use it to improve each and every time. It usually is stated as "One guy I like, and one guy I don't for the upcoming week". I took that out this week, so I apologize if it threw you or anyone else off.

 

[tdhartis]

I wasn't referring to you specifically with the name calling. And this is not the first time I have posted, there are several others and this column started at the beginning of the season. I certainly appreciate the criticism and use it to improve each and every time. It usually is stated as "One guy I like, and one guy I don't for the upcoming week". I took that out this week, so I apologize if it threw you or anyone else off.

Even though it's short, I think that's crucial to include. Without it, it seems like a "Start 'em/Sit 'em" kind of thing. I appreciate the time and effort you put into your commentary. The more on the board, the better. Just be prepared for critiques and take it in stride.

 

[McGarnicle]

I'm loving AJ Green this week you guys. Word to the wise, if you own him, definitely start him, he's really good. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts!! TM

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I'm loving AJ Green this week you guys. Word to the wise, if you own him, definitely start him, he's really good. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts!! TM

What IF I said that I want to start AJ Green AND I'm going to, BUT I also would like a beer?

 

[McGarnicle]

I'm loving AJ Green this week you guys. Word to the wise, if you own him, definitely start him, he's really good. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts!! TM

What IF I said that I want to start AJ Green AND I'm going to, BUT I also would like a beer?

Then I would tell you about my Bird In The Hand Is Worth Two In The Busch Report TM -- brought to you by the good folks at Busch beer. But that would NOT be advertising, I'm just trying to help you win your league.

At this point I just have to acknowledge that I'm a complete ******* and smartass. It's meant in good fun though.

 

[The Jerk]

Peoplez,

Big A for effort. I don't care if you ARE advertising if you provide something useful to the Shark Pool without flooding us with 101 reminders of your contacts and social media links.

As to the content...

The intro is the best part of the article. It's nearly all business, and a mostly concise overview of the fantasy landscape as football enters Week 7.

The coulda woulda shoulda titles are, ahem, meaningless to say it nicely. I have no idea what any of them mean either by themselves or in relation to each other, and I'm also not sure they mean what you later claim them to mean in early responses to this thread. I'd strongly recommend finding something that's more informative. You know, if the content is good, the titles don't need to rhyme. But when the titles are interchangeable, then it almost begs the readers to move past the section to something that's not so difficult to comprehend.

I don't think Play 'em and Pass 'em are confusing, or I should say, I didn't think so at first. But your responses to some of the posted questions and critiques have now confused me, so at this point I'm not sure exactly what this means either. Not as bad as the "oulda's" but again eventually a point is reached where it's not worth the effort. It should not be nearly as difficult on the readers as you are making it. Beyond the format, and I may be mostly alone in this, I found your reasoning arbitrary and/or forced when it came to your selections. The Julius Thomas one is the most glaring... how will communication problems specifically hurt him? Couldn't that actually help him given the tight end has the closest and simplest routes on average? And how is the Arizona rushing defense overrated when they're 5th best out of 32 in rushing yards allowed per game and 3rd out of 32 in fewest rushing TDs allowed? It's not that you can't be right, but on some of these calls, you're forcing the issue at best, making things up at worst.

Thanks again for the effort.

 

[PeoplezPerspective]

All of the views and comments on this post are appreciated and welcomed. Nonetheless, the saying "you can't please the masses" holds true. There is a section right at the top that clearly explains the meanings behind "Coulda", "Woulda", and "Shoulda". Skimming through a post might prevent some from grasping all of the content, but again to those that get it and appreciate the effort, I thank you. This isn't for everyone, obviously, but this is the right venue to share it. Some of you need to work on your material, aka 'jokes', before you blindly criticize others, as they lack both humor and originality. Now I understand that comment will open up a whole new can of worms, but as you can see I am not here to mask my identity or get in to the juvenile bickering. I appreciate the constructive criticism and view it all as a learning experience to better my contributions. Only time will tell how accurate or off my proclamations are. I'm certain I am not the only "expert" you all will disagree with. Once again, thank you sincerely for taking the time to read through it.

Andy

 

[The Jerk]

All of the views and comments on this post are appreciated and welcomed. Nonetheless, the saying "you can't please the masses" holds true. There is a section right at the top that clearly explains the meanings behind "Coulda", "Woulda", and "Shoulda". Skimming through a post might prevent some from grasping all of the content, but again to those that get it and appreciate the effort, I thank you. This isn't for everyone, obviously, but this is the right venue to share it. Some of you need to work on your material, aka 'jokes', before you blindly criticize others, as they lack both humor and originality. Now I understand that comment will open up a whole new can of worms, but as you can see I am not here to mask my identity or get in to the juvenile bickering. I appreciate the constructive criticism and view it all as a learning experience to better my contributions. Only time will tell how accurate or off my proclamations are. I'm certain I am not the only "expert" you all will disagree with. Once again, thank you sincerely for taking the time to read through it.

Andy

Andy,

The point is that I should not need to keep referencing your grayed out "code key" to be able to gather the information you are presenting. I'm guessing a lot of people are like me in that they'll conclude it's not worth the effort. Your response reminds me of a recent article in which Nintendo keeps explaining why the WiiU console is a perfect device and at a good price point despite disappointing sales numbers, and how the problem is that consumers just aren't understanding how well-designed it is, and what a good value it is, too! You're obviously into marketing to some extent. I'm not as knowledgeable, but I recall the axiom that the customer is always right.

But by all means, feel free to ignore feedback offered in good faith.

Good luck to you.

 

[PeoplezPerspective]

All of the views and comments on this post are appreciated and welcomed. Nonetheless, the saying "you can't please the masses" holds true. There is a section right at the top that clearly explains the meanings behind "Coulda", "Woulda", and "Shoulda". Skimming through a post might prevent some from grasping all of the content, but again to those that get it and appreciate the effort, I thank you. This isn't for everyone, obviously, but this is the right venue to share it. Some of you need to work on your material, aka 'jokes', before you blindly criticize others, as they lack both humor and originality. Now I understand that comment will open up a whole new can of worms, but as you can see I am not here to mask my identity or get in to the juvenile bickering. I appreciate the constructive criticism and view it all as a learning experience to better my contributions. Only time will tell how accurate or off my proclamations are. I'm certain I am not the only "expert" you all will disagree with. Once again, thank you sincerely for taking the time to read through it.

Andy

Andy,The point is that I should not need to keep referencing your grayed out "code key" to be able to gather the information you are presenting. I'm guessing a lot of people are like me in that they'll conclude it's not worth the effort. Your response reminds me of a recent article in which Nintendo keeps explaining why the WiiU console is a perfect device and at a good price point despite disappointing sales numbers, and how the problem is that consumers just aren't understanding how well-designed it is, and what a good value it is, too! You're obviously into marketing to some extent. I'm not as knowledgeable, but I recall the axiom that the customer is always right.

But by all means, feel free to ignore feedback offered in good faith.

Good luck to you.

It was a blanket statement, not directed at anyone in particular. If you read all of the comments you will understand better. I appreciate your feedback and wasn't knocking it. Don't take it too personal bud

 

[PeoplezPerspective]

Any more abuse today? =D

 

[McGarnicle]

Any more abuse today? =D

You suck?

 

[ImTheScientist]

Any more abuse today? =D

You suck?

 

[PeoplezPerspective]

Close to 1k views and 100+ comments. Bumping this to give those who haven't read, or commented yet, a chance to do so. McGarnical already thinks I suck, so my day can't get much worse. Maybe a few extra reads and responses can make things better.

 

[iamkoza]

you are a brave soul for posting in here.... i would offer that the pass em section identify a QB who is typically a QB2 that you think will produce at a QB1 level this week... and the pass em be a QB1 who you think will struggle this week... (same deal for the rest of the positions) every one of your suggested play em's would be starting on 90% of teams already... i get that play em could just be a way to reinforce how much you like these players.... but we as readers already know which great players have great matchups.... it's the sleepers that I like to see recommended (w/logical reasons as to why as well)

 

[PeoplezPerspective]

you are a brave soul for posting in here.... i would offer that the pass em section identify a QB who is typically a QB2 that you think will produce at a QB1 level this week... and the pass em be a QB1 who you think will struggle this week... (same deal for the rest of the positions) every one of your suggested play em's would be starting on 90% of teams already... i get that play em could just be a way to reinforce how much you like these players.... but we as readers already know which great players have great matchups.... it's the sleepers that I like to see recommended (w/logical reasons as to why as well)

Duly noted, and what I usually try to do. Thanks for the read and the feedback

 

[chad in Indy]

I agree with some that this reads more like a mathew berry article. Fun to read, but slightly lacking some in depth analysis. Thinking some more on this, its almost a hybrid of Berry's Love/Hate and CBS's Start 'Em/Sit 'Em. Overall, thought it was worth the read and prob will read again next week. I did find myself referring to the "instructions" a couple times for clarification on the woulda v coulda v shoulda section.

One suggestion for the play or pass section may be to put the ECR weekly rank/projection and then your weekly rank/projection. This would give clear transparency as to expectations so its justifiable that, yes you obviously play Julius Thomas over a Dallas Clark, but your expectations are much lower/higher than the masses. Does that make sense? This may also help build credibility for you as it gives a quantifiable number to refer back to. (Also will open you up to guaranted criticism when you get one wrong. Lol.). Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I do respect that its very difficult to blend analysis with creative writing. Good luck as you tweak the format and kudos for subjecting yourself to all the blind scrutiny.

 

[PeoplezPerspective]

I agree with some that this reads more like a mathew berry article. Fun to read, but slightly lacking some in depth analysis. Thinking some more on this, its almost a hybrid of Berry's Love/Hate and CBS's Start 'Em/Sit 'Em. Overall, thought it was worth the read and prob will read again next week. I did find myself referring to the "instructions" a couple times for clarification on the woulda v coulda v shoulda section.

One suggestion for the play or pass section may be to put the ECR weekly rank/projection and then your weekly rank/projection. This would give clear transparency as to expectations so its justifiable that, yes you obviously play Julius Thomas over a Dallas Clark, but your expectations are much lower/higher than the masses. Does that make sense? This may also help build credibility for you as it gives a quantifiable number to refer back to. (Also will open you up to guaranted criticism when you get one wrong. Lol.). Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I do respect that its very difficult to blend analysis with creative writing. Good luck as you tweak the format and kudos for subjecting yourself to all the blind scrutiny.

Appreciate the support, and thanks for the great feedback. Good ideas that I will look to incorporate. It is a challenge to try to break in, and especially when someone like Berry has become so popular. Too often it becomes the model, but this is who I am as a born and bred New Yorker lol. Look forward to having you back!

 

[PeoplezPerspective]

For the Sunday readers

 

[Jayded]

Not to pile on, but I think the naming convention isn't really conveying your intent of the column (which is a retrospective on what someone should have done and why).

When I think of coulda, woulda, shoulda it reads more to me like (coulda) "Tweener I could have played that decided to go off on my bench", (woulda) "I passed on picking up this player on the WW and now he's going off on another team or on the wire", and (shoulda) "I tried to get cute by playing a Hail Mary player on my bench instead of a stud or someone consistent and that player blew up on my bench".

What I think may be more apt in labeling for you going forward as a retrospective column would be "good", "bad", and "ugly".

Ugly = Coulda - The guy you started but should have known better not to (aka David Wilson most of this season so far)

Bad = Woulda - The guy you thought about starting, but didn't, who went off on your bench (aka Vincent Jackson last week, folks worried about a rookie starter with a 20+ point performance by VJax)

Good = Shoulda - The guy you thought about starting, pulled the trigger, that paid off (aka Nick Foles last week)