FBG Sleepers article (1 Viewer)

[Multiple Scores]

Sorry for the rant but this strikes me as odd that we pay for this. LeGarrette Blount is listed as a sleeper. There are other questionable sleepers (quite a few) but this is the most glaring.

152/2TDS over the past 2 weeks

Plays the Colts (last time I checked their Run Defense is garbage, stinky garbage at that)

Blount is somebody, drafted in rounds 2-4 of standard drafts.

Blount is ranked #10 and #11 this week by Dodds/Bloom.

Is the sleepers picks just getting lazy or did you run out of picks and wanted to fill a page? How is Blount a "sleeper"?

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Well most of them rated Blount really low in the preseason lists. Which I may have mentioned at the time.

 

[laughinboy_2000]

Sorry for the rant but this strikes me as odd that we pay for this. LeGarrette Blount is listed as a sleeper. There are other questionable sleepers (quite a few) but this is the most glaring.152/2TDS over the past 2 weeksPlays the Colts (last time I checked their Run Defense is garbage, stinky garbage at that)Blount is somebody, drafted in rounds 2-4 of standard drafts.Blount is ranked #10 and #11 this week by Dodds/Bloom.Is the sleepers picks just getting lazy or did you run out of picks and wanted to fill a page? How is Blount a "sleeper"?

This all depends on what YOUR definition of a "sleeper" is my friend. I can see where Henry is coming from in this article. Just read the first sentence. He has been up and down so far through three weeks, BUT he has his BEST match up of the year against the Colts this weekend, so owners should expect an uptick in production.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

There are plenty of other pay sites out there. Why not subscribe to the one that has predictions you agree with?

 

[mr roboto]

There are plenty of people who drafted Blunt as RB3 who may not consider starting him because they aren't as astute as you so clearly are.

 

[Sweet Love]

There are plenty of people who drafted Blunt as RB3 who may not consider starting him because they aren't as astute as you so clearly are.

I can see both sides, but I agree with Roboto in the sense that this is a sleeper article in who to play. If you do not have a flex position, and drafted Rice, Blount and Felix, I think the crux of it is, "find a way to get Blount in your lineup this week". I think of it less as a "sleeper with the ability to put up some points" and more so a "sleeper who has the capacity to finish in the top 5 of scoring this week" given the matchup.

 

[Multiple Scores]

There are plenty of people who drafted Blunt as RB3 who may not consider starting him because they aren't as astute as you so clearly are.

You really think anyone is not astute enough to play a RB against the Colts awful defense who has averaged 75/1 the past two weeks. I think your opinion of the common man is too low, people aren't as dumb as you obviously believe.

 

[Multiple Scores]

There are plenty of other pay sites out there. Why not subscribe to the one that has predictions you agree with?

You can't even get your facts right while making a lame comment. Pathetic.

 

[laughinboy_2000]

There are plenty of other pay sites out there. Why not subscribe to the one that has predictions you agree with?

You can't even get your facts right while making a lame comment. Pathetic.

Geez dude, who peed in your cereal this morning? Cheer up, the weekend is almost here!

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

if it's obvious that he should be starting, it seems strange to complain about the fact the article is saying you should start him.

there are all types of leagues out there. what applies in some may not apply in others.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Man oh man is MOP going to be pissed that JuSt CuZ got on the staff before he did.

 

[Donsmith753]

Man oh man is MOP going to be pissed that JuSt CuZ got on the staff before he did.

 

[The Jerk]

There are plenty of other pay sites out there. Why not subscribe to the one that has predictions you agree with?

You can't even get your facts right while making a lame comment. Pathetic.

Geez dude, who peed in your cereal this morning? Cheer up, the weekend is almost here!

The OP is not exactly looking like the Dale Carnegie of the Shark Pool.

 

[Multiple Scores]

if it's obvious that he should be starting, it seems strange to complain about the fact the article is saying you should start him.there are all types of leagues out there. what applies in some may not apply in others.

In just cuz sleeper thread there is alot of ridicule that hasselbeck is not a sleeper. Somehow everyone agrees there and nobody does about Blount. To me this doesn't make sense. I have a strong feeling criticizing a staff members articles is unacceptable but to rip a member is the thing to do. Hasselbeck is way more of a sleeper than Blount IMO. The sad thing IMO is that FBG is now more of a popularity contest than a place for real fantasy discussion. I think it's OK to be critical of paid content and hope for a continually improving product. The brown nosing and trying to go with the cool crowd isn't why I subscribe or use the forums. It's obvious that some come to the forums seeking acceptance.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

if it's obvious that he should be starting, it seems strange to complain about the fact the article is saying you should start him.there are all types of leagues out there. what applies in some may not apply in others.

In just cuz sleeper thread there is alot of ridicule that hasselbeck is not a sleeper. Somehow everyone agrees there and nobody does about Blount. To me this doesn't make sense. I have a strong feeling criticizing a staff members articles is unacceptable but to rip a member is the thing to do. Hasselbeck is way more of a sleeper than Blount IMO. The sad thing IMO is that FBG is now more of a popularity contest than a place for real fantasy discussion. I think it's OK to be critical of paid content and hope for a continually improving product. The brown nosing and trying to go with the cool crowd isn't why I subscribe or use the forums. It's obvious that some come to the forums seeking acceptance.

sure, there are usually some players that get included in the sleepers article each week that many people probably wouldn't classify as a sleeper.but, it's just one piece of information out of many. you can skip over it if you want and read the rest.like I said, there are many different types of leagues out there. I'm in one PPR league that doesn't require you to start any RBs but you can start up to 3 TEs each week. Blount probably would qualify as a sleeper in that league.I think Hasselbeck definitely qualifies, especially without Britt.nothing wrong with constructive criticism and providing feedback on subscriber content. just not sure why it upsets you when you basically agree with the idea that he's a strong start this week.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Indy's defense gives up the 10th most points to RB in standard scoring so far this year. They just held the Steelers to 23-52 (barely 2 yards per carry). Good matchup but not a slam dunk guy is going to drop 150 on them week in and week out.

 

[theoneandonly]

There are plenty of people who drafted Blunt as RB3 who may not consider starting him because they aren't as astute as you so clearly are.

Actually I am in a 12man ppr league where I have been debating all week if I should start Blount or Hightower at my flex. I also have only played Blount one week so far and that was week 1. Though in my other 2 leagues I would kill to debate starting Blount as a flex.

 

[schlesinj]

The way I read those articles it is just comparing players who have better weekly rankings vs the future rankings. The goal to give you a guy who may have a better week than what you would expect based on his future value.

 

[laughinboy_2000]

The brown nosing and trying to go with the cool crowd isn't why I subscribe or use the forums. It's obvious that some come to the forums seeking acceptance.

Got bad news for you brother. The FBG is a "community" and you will run into the occasional "Clicks", and again unfortunately, yes you will get ripped for posting comments. Shockingly enough there may EVEN be some people that are "brown nosers!" Then again, there are some good peeps in this place too. You started off this thread with YOUR opinion, and now we have forum members giving you their opinions. That's all they are... OPINIONS! Ultimately, it's up to you to make the decision on who to start, the FBG members are just giving you an educated "guess" on why he may be a sleeper. I will say this... and NO I'm not sucking up to FBG. These guys have the most fantasy content that I've seen. Rotoworld, fantasysharks, hardball, etc. That's why I pay money. Do I agree with some of their projections and articles? No... but find me a web site that you will like ALL of their projections and articles! You won't find one. Sounds like you've had a stressed out week man, so whenever I'm stressed out, I go to the fridge and open up a cold one. Hope things work out for you this week. Keep your chin up, and life will be good my friend!

 

[The Jerk]

The brown nosing and trying to go with the cool crowd isn't why I subscribe or use the forums. It's obvious that some come to the forums seeking acceptance.

I suppose that can be true from time to time, but no more so than some posters who start threads whose main purpose seems to be to grind an axe. Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it, and every post of yours in this thread seems to me at least to be angry. That's why I responded as I did and I'm pretty sure that's a motivating force for others.On to the idea of sleepers. People have differing ideas on what a sleeper is. Before the season, some people call sleepers a 10th round or later pick, others a 15th round or later pick, and others a likely free agent in most leagues. The thing is, they are all correct by SOME definition, but it's not the same for everyone. Part of that is due to league size and format, and others due to the perception of what a sleeper is. In smaller and/or PPR leagues, Blount is almost certainly worthy of being considered a sleeper, in particular in a start two maximum running back format.What's more is that Bob Henry started his writeup of Blount with:

Yes, Blount was likely drafted as a rock solid RB2 in your league, but the reality is that his value can fluctuate greatly from game to game if the Bucs are able to play with a lead, if they're in a close game or if they're behind and go away from the run.

Being critical of FBG articles is totally understandable. I find certain articles to be lacking in certain weeks. There was one article this week that seems as if all the writer did was look at stats, as some of the assumptions/conclusions made didn't hold up with games I had personally watched closely. However, maybe it's just that we have differing opinions, and that's what makes fantasy football an interesting game. If we all thought the same way, there would be no point to having a competition.On occasion, all of us get a little more frustrated than we should. I'm no exception. However, when I am critical with an article, a staff member, or just another FBG, I try to have more respect than anger in my words. I don't always manage that feat, but it's better for everyone when I do.

 

[ready5]

cliques, not clicks

 

[Multiple Scores]

Interesting that you caught the anger. I didn't realize I came off that way but when you're pissed you don't always realize it shows. $7600 car repair came to my attention yesterday so it's been on my mind. Time to take a break and hopefully some wins Sunday help the mood. 8 of my 9 leagues I happen to face Aaron Rodgers this week so not sure about many wins.

The brown nosing and trying to go with the cool crowd isn't why I subscribe or use the forums. It's obvious that some come to the forums seeking acceptance.

Got bad news for you brother. The FBG is a "community" and you will run into the occasional "Clicks", and again unfortunately, yes you will get ripped for posting comments. Shockingly enough there may EVEN be some people that are "brown nosers!" Then again, there are some good peeps in this place too. You started off this thread with YOUR opinion, and now we have forum members giving you their opinions. That's all they are... OPINIONS! Ultimately, it's up to you to make the decision on who to start, the FBG members are just giving you an educated "guess" on why he may be a sleeper. I will say this... and NO I'm not sucking up to FBG. These guys have the most fantasy content that I've seen. Rotoworld, fantasysharks, hardball, etc. That's why I pay money. Do I agree with some of their projections and articles? No... but find me a web site that you will like ALL of their projections and articles! You won't find one. Sounds like you've had a stressed out week man, so whenever I'm stressed out, I go to the fridge and open up a cold one. Hope things work out for you this week. Keep your chin up, and life will be good my friend!

 

[Bob Henry]

To address Multiple Score's original post here. I'll just say, fair enough. I understand your point and by all means you are fully entitled to express it. No worries on my side.The opening of the article pretty much covers my point of view on how I approach this article from week to week:

This weekly article looks at a variety of players at each position that have an opportunity to outperform their normal production, or at least expectations. Each position is analyzed by looking at the schedule, matchups, injuries and other factors such as coaching decisions or game conditions.Be forewarned. Not all of the players covered in this article are traditional sleepers. Some may be starters in your league who have a tricky matchup, while others might be deep sleepers in smaller leagues. Realizing that leagues and roster sizes vary wildly; your mileage may vary as well. Simply put, we do our best to identify a broad range of players that we hope will benefit all owners and league variances.Ultimately, we hope the analysis provided here will help you make those difficult lineup decisions just a little bit easier. Good luck and please know that your comments are always welcome.Email me at henry@footballguys.com or follow me on Twitter @bobhenry.

To further address your point, player evaluations and opinions vary greatly in the opening weeks of each season. Some players drafted in the first round aren't even ranked among the top 30 or 40 at their position. If I wrote about Frank Gore, for example, I'm sure that would not qualify as a sleeper, yet he hasn't done diddly squat this year. He's ranked 30th YTD. Blount is 23rd. Similarly, Mike Williams is WR59. Austin Collie WR75. A month ago, these two were widely viewed as strong WR2 options, but now owners may have dumped Collie, benched him until he has proven reliable or dealt him before his value has sunk to where it is. Every week we have more games, more data to work with and a bigger sample size. In the early weeks of the season, there is a huge variance in the opinion of some players, particularly those who were drafted high, but have under performed, as well as those who were not drafted high, but have exceeded expectations. Realize this, I try to write about a healthy number of players at each position each week. Filtering out both groups identified in the previous sentence would give us a small set of players to discuss, and quite frankly, it would narrow the focus of the article and help a lot fewer of our subscribers. Not everyone's league is 12 teams, standard scoring, 2 RB requirements. There are 10 team leagues that may only have to start 1 RB/2WR/1TE with 2 flex. The point is that Blount was not drafted so high as to make him untouchable or to revere him as an unquestionable starter every single week. Add in the variance in league sizes, lineup requirements and scoring and if I owned Blount I can guarantee that I'd much rather pick my spots with him than trot him out there blindly each week just because I took him in the 2nd or 3rd round. As I state in the opening of the article, your mileage may (and likely will) vary. I love to hear your opinions and welcome your emails. Perhaps the best way to address the Multiple Score's point is for me to consider changing the title of the article from Sleepers to something else. Maybe we can even have some fun with that. Heck, lets have some fun with it. If you have a good suggestion (most of your are more creative than I am), then shoot me an email, start a thread or pile on as you wish. Honestly, it's all good from my perspective. I'm glad you read the article. I hope it provides you with some value and perhaps gives you some data points you didn't otherwise have at your disposal. Carry on.

 

[Donsmith753]

To address Multiple Score's original post here. I'll just say, fair enough. I understand your point and by all means you are fully entitled to express it. No worries on my side.The opening of the article pretty much covers my point of view on how I approach this article from week to week:

This weekly article looks at a variety of players at each position that have an opportunity to outperform their normal production, or at least expectations. Each position is analyzed by looking at the schedule, matchups, injuries and other factors such as coaching decisions or game conditions.Be forewarned. Not all of the players covered in this article are traditional sleepers. Some may be starters in your league who have a tricky matchup, while others might be deep sleepers in smaller leagues. Realizing that leagues and roster sizes vary wildly; your mileage may vary as well. Simply put, we do our best to identify a broad range of players that we hope will benefit all owners and league variances.Ultimately, we hope the analysis provided here will help you make those difficult lineup decisions just a little bit easier. Good luck and please know that your comments are always welcome.Email me at henry@footballguys.com or follow me on Twitter @bobhenry.

To further address your point, player evaluations and opinions vary greatly in the opening weeks of each season. Some players drafted in the first round aren't even ranked among the top 30 or 40 at their position. If I wrote about Frank Gore, for example, I'm sure that would not qualify as a sleeper, yet he hasn't done diddly squat this year. He's ranked 30th YTD. Blount is 23rd. Similarly, Mike Williams is WR59. Austin Collie WR75. A month ago, these two were widely viewed as strong WR2 options, but now owners may have dumped Collie, benched him until he has proven reliable or dealt him before his value has sunk to where it is. Every week we have more games, more data to work with and a bigger sample size. In the early weeks of the season, there is a huge variance in the opinion of some players, particularly those who were drafted high, but have under performed, as well as those who were not drafted high, but have exceeded expectations. Realize this, I try to write about a healthy number of players at each position each week. Filtering out both groups identified in the previous sentence would give us a small set of players to discuss, and quite frankly, it would narrow the focus of the article and help a lot fewer of our subscribers. Not everyone's league is 12 teams, standard scoring, 2 RB requirements. There are 10 team leagues that may only have to start 1 RB/2WR/1TE with 2 flex. The point is that Blount was not drafted so high as to make him untouchable or to revere him as an unquestionable starter every single week. Add in the variance in league sizes, lineup requirements and scoring and if I owned Blount I can guarantee that I'd much rather pick my spots with him than trot him out there blindly each week just because I took him in the 2nd or 3rd round. As I state in the opening of the article, your mileage may (and likely will) vary. I love to hear your opinions and welcome your emails. Perhaps the best way to address the Multiple Score's point is for me to consider changing the title of the article from Sleepers to something else. Maybe we can even have some fun with that. Heck, lets have some fun with it. If you have a good suggestion (most of your are more creative than I am), then shoot me an email, start a thread or pile on as you wish. Honestly, it's all good from my perspective. I'm glad you read the article. I hope it provides you with some value and perhaps gives you some data points you didn't otherwise have at your disposal. Carry on.

As suggested in the much maligned Just Cuz Sleepers thread how about "Players I like to have a good week and exceed average production who may or may not be good starts in your league depending on scoring and lineup requirements : Week 5"

 

[Warrior]

I agree with the OP. I don't need a 'sleeper' article to tell me to start my #2 RB, which was drafted in the early rounds, against one of the worst rush defenses in the league. Putting Blount in the 'sleepers' section is just being lazy. He's taking the place of an actual sleeper that I could pick up off the wire, or something actually out of the box that could help me this week.

Unless you play in a 5 team league, listing Blount as a 'sleeper' adds absolutely zero value, which is bad when it's a paid article.

With that said, I'm only disappointed because I think so highly of FBG and the paid content...this would be the norm for most sites, but from FBG I expect better...and almost always get it.

 

[footballnerd]

There are plenty of people who drafted Blunt as RB3 who may not consider starting him because they aren't as astute as you so clearly are.

You really think anyone is not astute enough to play a RB against the Colts awful defense who has averaged 75/1 the past two weeks. I think your opinion of the common man is too low, people aren't as dumb as you obviously believe.

Mendenhall begs to differ

 

[nyy45]

If you have depth at RB and you picks starters based on matchups, all the article was saying is that this would be a good week to start LeGarrette