HarddTimezz
Footballguy
"Trotting" a player out there is a bit ridiculous
Maybe my favorite. Some "expert" on Yahoo is going to tell me how to draft my team. If he was a real "expert" , he wouldn't be working for Yahoo."Expert"
This is remarkably untrue.I’m a bit over when people say they’ve been buying or selling a player “in a few places”. I think it’s irritating because it makes it sound like you can just go out and do what you want in all these leagues whereas my experience is that trading is pretty hard in a lot of leagues.
But the big one for me is saying as a throwaway piece of analysis that “I like him in best ball”. It always makes me groan because hardly anyone outside of a few industry people actually plays best ball. So it’s pointless to express that view as analysis. It’s also kind of a lazy way to hedge your bets on a player if you’re not sure (which is a lot of players).
I guess I was basing my comment on nothing....but I don’t know anyone personally who plays best ball and it seems like it’s only analysts who talk about it around MFL10 time. Even if plenty of people do play it, would you agree that it’s a fairly minor chunk of the fantasy league pie? If so then my comment about the value of that analysis is still valid.This is remarkably untrue.
It's all good we're only yapping about cliches and phrases. But bestball is growing really fast. And to the point, I just drafted Tarik Cohen in the 6th in a bestball. A perfect example of a player that is better for that format.I guess I was basing my comment on nothing....but I don’t know anyone personally who plays best ball and it seems like it’s only analysts who talk about it around MFL10 time. Even if plenty of people do play it, would you agree that it’s a fairly minor chunk of the fantasy league pie? If so then my comment about the value of that analysis is still valid.
Certainly it is a smaller chunk. Not sure I'd call it minor anymore.I guess I was basing my comment on nothing....but I don’t know anyone personally who plays best ball and it seems like it’s only analysts who talk about it around MFL10 time. Even if plenty of people do play it, would you agree that it’s a fairly minor chunk of the fantasy league pie? If so then my comment about the value of that analysis is still valid.
Guilty! Sorry, but there was just no other way to describe Cohen’s usage in the Monty thread, even if it’s not truly identical.[Player x] will fill the [Player y] role in the offense.
I think we are all guilty of one or many of these, I know I am.Guilty! Sorry, but there was just no other way to describe Cohen’s usage in the Monty thread, even if it’s not truly identical.
small sample size
Sometimes this is a point which needs made. How should one make it?This is and always has been "he's never even played a down in the NFL".
Worst nonsense cliche there is.
Good point, but it might work as a name for a rock band."vacated targets"
But it is cliche to the extent it's used on these forums. Nobody is using the student's t distribution to test significance around here, so we don't know the real importance of any sample size. It's just something we say.Hey! Small sample size is a thing!
It is not a cliche.
For evaluation where statistical analysis is used, the size of the sample being evaluated is key to determining the validity of the result.
It’s precisely why I used it in my post.
Oh come on - if we’re discussing a RB who’s had 60 carries in his career & we say it’s a small sample size it’s absolutley being used in the proper context, and we absolutely know the real importance of it.But it is cliche to the extent it's used on these forums. Nobody is using the student's t distribution to test significance around here, so we don't know the real importance of any sample size. It's just something we say.
Your poor wife...Hey! Small sample size is a thing!
It is not a cliche.
On the other hand, we do get told at cliche-worthy levels that “the QB is the only player who touches the ball on every play.” Which cliche could be happily done away with, imo."Will be part of a RBBC"
I don't know many franchises that give the ball to one and only one guy.
Play in some deeper leagues. My primary league is a 12-teamer that starts 4 WRs plus a possible flex. I’ve also got an 8-teamer starting 6 WRs.when rotoworld or anyone else refers to a WR or RB as a WR4/5... nobod's starting requirements have 4 or 5 WR's as starters.... so in my eyes those WR's are just bench depth
Unless, of course, we are talking about Michael Gallup. Then it’s off to the races with this cliche!"Trotting" a player out there is a bit ridiculous
If any RBs do this and "add 10 pounds of muscle" in the offseason, they auto-rise to the top of my draft board so I can get as many shares as possible while fading the weaker non pass-catching RBs busts-to-be.I’m also nominating “so-and-so mediocre RB has really improved his pass catching this offseason.”
Never in the history of the NFL has a back failed to do this, and rarely does it result in any measurable uptick in receiving productivity.
Being a center really is a thankless job.On the other hand, we do get told at cliche-worthy levels that “the QB is the only player who touches the ball on every play.”
So if I said, “I see some white flakes on that player’s jersey - he could really use some Head & Shoulders for that dandruff” that would bother you?I believe in the man's talent....
...any phrase combining "talent" and "opportunity"
....and anything regarding Head & Shoulders offense/defense. Done with it. Flooding the market, are we P&G?
Oh so you think it's all about the defense?So if I said, “I see some white flakes on that player’s jersey - he could really use some Head & Shoulders for that dandruff” that would bother you?
I also believe it’s the defense, but I’ve heard the case for “it’s offense”Oh so you think it's all about the defense?
#tastesgreat #lessfillingI also believe it’s the defense, but I’ve heard the case for “it’s offense”
... weak case for the offensive team, imo
Hey man, at least I look for the ones where they show every play, not just the highlight reel (unless that’s all I can find, in which case that guy looks awesome!)After "studying the film" .... aka YouTube highlight videos.
Yes, one of the reasons I want to retire the cliche is it's wrong.Being a center really is a thankless job.
Always ironic when a random nobody that isn’t a top 100 guy in their own chosen profession is calling a guy that is actually in the top 100 of their profession “just a guy”.
Even worse is "what the heck flex". I’ve been a satisfied FBG customer for a million years, but when I read that in their newsletter comments, it makes my eyes roll. Jeez, 80% of all NFL players are what the heck flex plays.“Flex option” by far
Such a broad/safe statement to make.
Not to judge, but if I’m paying for premium content I want a “feel confident with this flex” guy, not a “what the heck flex.”Even worse is "what the heck flex". I’ve been a satisfied FBG customer for a million years, but when I read that in their newsletter comments, it makes my eyes roll. Jeez, 80% of all NFL players are what the heck flex plays.
That's always bothered me, but I guess it functions as shorthand for average. I dunno...never thought using it was too appropriate, but when in Rome...Always ironic when a random nobody that isn’t a top 100 guy in their own chosen profession is calling a guy that is actually in the top 100 of their profession “just a guy”.