High Stakes League with these Wideouts? (1 Viewer)

[Team Legacy]

http://forums.wcoff.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb...0124;p=1#000005

More discussion can be found above, but I really just want to see the votes.

Thanks guys!

 

[cracKer]

Far from awesome, further from terrible.

 

[coolnerd]

Average with with real good upside, but a horrible floor as well.

 

[nag']

Why is the choice "Terrible" explained as "Too much risk"?

Terrible could mean a 100 different problems, one of which is risk.

By the same token, a team with too much risk is not always terrible.

 

[Marc Levin]

Far from awesome, further from terrible.

I went closer to terrible, further from awesome - dependent, of course, on what you gained by sloughing off of WR until at least the 3rd.How's the TE? Does he make up for the lack of consistency at WR? If so, I'd go to war with a top-4 TE, those WRs and a top-3 RB backed up by a solid RB2.

 

[softball]

Far from awesome, further from terrible.

I went closer to terrible, further from awesome - dependent, of course, on what you gained by sloughing off of WR until at least the 3rd.How's the TE? Does he make up for the lack of consistency at WR? If so, I'd go to war with a top-4 TE, those WRs and a top-3 RB backed up by a solid RB2.

QB McNabb LeftwichRBs Portis Dom Davis Warrick Dunn Thomas JonesWRs Bolden Branch Bennett Edwards BryantTE LJ Smith

 

[Kleck]

Average to just below average. Three solid starting RBs make it a competitive roster.