Refresh
and your WRs' QB.Since we all get a free pass this week, the best you can hope for is injury-free games from your players
Foles' backup played pretty decent. Then again KC's secondary are not world beaters.and your WRs' QB.![]()
of:
Defenses don't get points for safeties - I think that rule changed last year IIRC.Hiya @Steeler I calculate the Jets defense as having 17 points - calc-o-matic has only 15. Is it missing the safety that was scored?
1 sack, 2 interceptions, 2 fumble recoveries, interception return td, safety = 1+4+4+6+2 = 17
Thanks![]()
-QG
Defenses don't get points for safeties - I think that rule changed last year IIRC.
If directed at me, I'm just excited that the lower guys I picked look like they are going to be involved in their offenses and seem like solid picks. I will need them as I have a shorter roster than usual. Also Kyler showing good potential in his first game makes me feel better about pairing him with Goff. Today is a perfect example of why I was uneasy about Goff.It’s clear proof that going off for me this week means it’s a direct indication of what’s to happen for the rest of the season. Simultaneously, laying a turd for me this week is clear proof that they’re “due” and will go off every week from here on out.
It’s basic math.
I didnt see that either, but its a joke a Defense wouldnt get credit for it, its better than a turnoverDefenses don't get points for safeties - I think that rule changed last year IIRC.
weirdDefenses don't get points for safeties - I think that rule changed last year IIRC.
Not directed at you any more than anyone else, including me (I posted a big score myself, and am apparently going to add to it tonight). This board is no different than the talking heads for every professional sport who overreact to every single outcome.If directed at me, I'm just excited that the lower guys I picked look like they are going to be involved in their offenses and seem like solid picks. I will need them as I have a shorter roster than usual. Also Kyler showing good potential in his first game makes me feel better about pairing him with Goff. Today is a perfect example of why I was uneasy about Goff.
Heres hoping my guys dont lay an egg next week![]()
What a strange rule. Why would someone put energy into arguing against defenses getting the 2 points?I didnt see that either, but its a joke a Defense wouldnt get credit for it, its better than a turnover
Could use it myself good luck allSomeone have the calcomatic link?
I'm around 248 with Fairbairn and Denver going. Decent but not championship material
That's a good thing IMO. Your studs will stay true to their averages. The fact that your cheap guys can fill in is great to seeIt's probably not a great sign when you get exactly zero points from your top QB, RB, 2 WRs, TE, kicker and defense.
Scored 213 entirely on the backs of cheap guys (Carson being the most expensive counting)
Top scores other than Lamar were from a $10 and a $9 TE.
you sure did! Lamar and Hollywood will make or break you in the tough weeks i predict. I scored 223 (at this point) with Maholmes, McAfrrey, DeseanJax, Crowder and TE Engram leading the way. My big miss was having both Bear RBs (Montgomery and Cohen) combine for 13. I guess Duke Johnson will surpass Cohen's 5 to give me 230+Shot my wad this week with no help from my RBs: 289.7
Lamar
Guice/Sproles (Jacobs tonight)
Watkins/Desean/Hollywood Brown
Andrews/Hooper
Prater
Colts
I think people are overreacting a bit to the high scores. I am at 189 and feel fine, as weekly cutoffs are sure to plummet. My 2 QB's blew chunks though - Goff & Winston. As long as neither loses their job, they will bounce back. Let's see how week 2 goes.Pretty Anemic....183 + Kamara - 14 + Duke Johnson - 12 heading towards mediocrity.
Higher scores due to monster games from a handful of highly owned players. My guess is cutoff for week 2 will be 160ish. Last 5 years week 2 cutoff has been 164, 139, 147, 146, and 140.chocula said:Do you guys think the higher scores this week are due to smaller, more stud filled teams? I assumed scores would go down since the margin of error on our teams would make it tougher (due to less players). I guess the stud filled line ups worked in week 1
I don’t think so. I have a 24 man roster and was at 269. It was just (a) highly owned guys going off and (b) a lot of guys going off. I had an unused 32 and 29 @ QB, for example. Lots of guys had big QB scores this weekchocula said:Do you guys think the higher scores this week are due to smaller, more stud filled teams? I assumed scores would go down since the margin of error on our teams would make it tougher (due to less players). I guess the stud filled line ups worked in week 1
My feelings exactly. I'm at 196 with sub-standard weeks from Goff/Ben and Kelce. On the other hand, all 5 of my RBs and 5 of my 7 WRs scored in double figures (and MVS just missed that cut). I'll take steady, sustainable totals over unlikely to be repeated huge scores at this point.TheWinz said:I think people are overreacting a bit to the high scores. I am at 189 and feel fine, as weekly cutoffs are sure to plummet. My 2 QB's blew chunks though - Goff & Winston. As long as neither loses their job, they will bounce back. Let's see how week 2 goes.
Everyone of my position players scored double digit points along with my K and D. I would have been eliminated if this was week 2.My feelings exactly. I'm at 196 with sub-standard weeks from Goff/Ben and Kelce. On the other hand, all 5 of my RBs and 5 of my 7 WRs scored in double figures (and MVS just missed that cut). I'll take steady, sustainable totals over unlikely to be repeated huge scores at this point.