This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Anti-tanking rules shouldn't let other owners make Who To Start decisions for a team IF the players in question are starting for their real NFL team.
reread what he wrote. He considered Keenum a "risky" start, but Cutler wasn't winning him any titles. He rolled the dice that some unkown quantity might be a golden ticket....
I just dont think playing an unknown QB that was named the starter over Cutler is tanking. Who cares how other people had them ranked, all it would take is for Keenum to have 1 more TD than Cutler and he would have likely outscored him. That wouldnt be that unlikely. I think tanking would be playing a RB that averages 3 touches a week over a guy that gets 20 on average or playing a teams 3-4th WR that gets 1-3 targets a game over a guy that gets over 10 a game. Or playing a guy that was ruled inactive or on a bye and saying you didnt know. Keenum was a riskier start because it was unknown how he would play, but Keenum was playing for his future. This 1 start meant a lot towards whether or not he would he would ever get a future chance to start in the NFL. Its not like Keenum had already proved he sucked as a NFL QB, this was his him chance to show everyone what he could do. Look at his college stats, hes a smart player, a baller, that knows how to put up big numbers for stats. I just dont think that it should have been tanking.
I think you found the line, and crossed it.
Thanks to that line of thinking, his league's entire season is now taintedI think you found the line, and crossed it.
"Having something different to cheer for" is not the same as starting your best players. You ALWAYS need to start your BEST players, the players you think are most likely to put up the most points. There is some room for starting high-risk, high upside guys over lower risk, possibly lower upside guys in certain situations, but honestly, it doesn't REALLY sound like that was the case. You tip-toe around that, but I don't get the impression you really think Case gave you the best chance to win this week. More likely you felt that he might do "surprisingly" well and bail you out on an otherwise obviously poor decision.
I do hate it when guys call you out for decisions on middle/bottom tier guys, and no, external rankings shouldn't be viewed as some definitive tanking guideline, especially when the guys in question are reasonably close. But to sit a guy who was comfortably in the top 10 year to date for a completely unknown first time starter facing a very tough matchup is not in one of those categories. The league was right to call you out on it IMO, and I generally tend to fall on the other side of that coin.
Your own honest rankings. Who you honestly think is most likely to score the most. From what you said previously, it was Cutler.
I think QBs can be a crap shoot each week unless you have one of the top guys, Cutler was ranked like Qb16 in my league going into that week so he wasnt exactly a stud QB. I thought Keenum would do well and not do much worse if at all than Cutler. The reason Cutler was the "better" play is because all the experts had him ranked higher. But we all know how accurate weekly projections are. Im surely many people have lost weeks blindly following FBGs weekly rankings. I just dont think its tanking when i wasnt trying to lose, I truely wanted Keenum to have a huge game. Just cause u start a guy ranked lower by the so called experts doesnt mean you are tanking. I dont think leagues should force you to play your players based on what Doods is projecting. Keenum was a viable starting QB, its not like I started a guy that wasnt playing, there was a lot of talk about how smart he is and how the coaches love him and that he had a lot of promise. I just think there should be some leeway in choosing your own lineups
horrible
Beat it geeks and lets get back to discussing the man and soon to be legend, Case Keenum.
When you're ahead you play conservative and when you're behind you throw Hail Marys.
And 2 weeks ago it was Foles soon to be a legend. This guy could faceplant just like Foles.
Yes I probably would have started Cutler cause I would have wussed out and gone with what the experts said instead of going with my gut, the problem is that the guy who beat me is in a close battle for a playoff spot with several other teams and my original lineup would have beaten him, That "cheap" win could easily be the difference in him making the playoffs over another team, and It could also earn me a better undeserved rookie draft position for next year, so some league members are complaining. Just a dumb rule to enforce, I could see making a change if you start an inactive guy or a guy on a bye, but not something close. Too much can go wrong
And 2 weeks ago it was Foles soon to be a legend. This guy could faceplant just like Foles.
And this my friend is why they pay me the big bucks....Easily bought for cheap/free agency at time of post. Keenum reminds me of A. Rodgers mixed with a dash of Brady and a hint of Russell Wilson (moxie).
Weren't you the one that said a couple weeks back that he injured his arm his senior year of college?
you folks sleeping on Case, talking about a QB you know little about is always great schtick in the Shark Pool.
I'm sorry to keep beating this horse, but i find this interesting and just wanted to point out something i haven't seen brought up: Guy would have won by 2 points going with Keenum. Reading between the lines, that means the whole rest of his lineup must have been engineered to win, not engineered to lose. so it's definitely a stretch to say things like he was definitely trying to tank. If you're trying to tank, don't you do a better job of it than that??
Not sure who you talking bout...I think I said he got injured in college and that his arm is stronger post injury. It's true. Dude has been pushing more weight than Colombia in the gym and much better deep ball than Schaub.Weren't you the one that said a couple weeks back that he injured his arm his senior year of college?
you folks sleeping on Case, talking about a QB you know little about is always great schtick in the Shark Pool.
Impressive!
Not sure who you talking bout...I think I said he got injured in college and that his arm is stronger post injury. It's true. Dude has been pushing more weight than Colombia in the gym and much better deep ball than Schaub.Weren't you the one that said a couple weeks back that he injured his arm his senior year of college?
you folks sleeping on Case, talking about a QB you know little about is always great schtick in the Shark Pool.
That's what I'm referring to, but it sure seemed like you were implying he injured his arm his senior year at UH.
Nah, you're way off base....stay focused on the topic at hand. Thanks guy!Not sure who you talking bout...I think I said he got injured in college and that his arm is stronger post injury. It's true. Dude has been pushing more weight than Colombia in the gym and much better deep ball than Schaub.Weren't you the one that said a couple weeks back that he injured his arm his senior year of college?
you folks sleeping on Case, talking about a QB you know little about is always great schtick in the Shark Pool.That's what I'm referring to, but it sure seemed like you were implying he injured his arm his senior year at UH.
You've said this at least three times now. We got it, guy.towney said:And 2 weeks ago it was Foles soon to be a legend. This guy could faceplant just like Foles.Major said:LawFitz said:
Yeah tdhartis, let it go. Most people know that the phrase "arm has healed" usually means a lower-body injury.Major said:Nah, you're way off base....stay focused on the topic at hand. Thanks guy!tdhartis said:Major said:Not sure who you talking bout...I think I said he got injured in college and that his arm is stronger post injury. It's true. Dude has been pushing more weight than Colombia in the gym and much better deep ball than Schaub.tdhartis said:Weren't you the one that said a couple weeks back that he injured his arm his senior year of college?Major said:
you folks sleeping on Case, talking about a QB you know little about is always great schtick in the Shark Pool.That's what I'm referring to, but it sure seemed like you were implying he injured his arm his senior year at UH.
Totally disagree. Keenum played well against KC and imo would have been the winning QB had the Texans not lost both Foster and Tate to injury. They had no threat at RB once those two were dinged and it allowed KC to focus its efforts on an aggressive pass rush.
Well, if you are a Brady or Eli owner these days, I'd say about 80 more yards worth of value, depending on your league rules.
Better deep balls, but also potentially fewer opportunities if Keenum doesn't lock in on AJ as much as Schaub did. I could see it going either way, or see the factors canceling each other out.
Peyton, Kapernick and Stafford owners could probably do worse than picking him up for their main QB's bye week.
How about starting both in a 2 QB league with manning on bye.
FWIW, I'm stuck between Tannehill vs. the Bengals D and Keenum vs. the Colts. It's not an easy decision.
at least it's an easy decision.How about starting both in a 2 QB league with manning on bye.
FWIW, I'm stuck between Tannehill vs. the Bengals D and Keenum vs. the Colts. It's not an easy decision.
worst coach in the NFL hands down.....part of me hopes they keep losing so he'll eventually get fired and my team will finally have a chance to get AJ80 a ring.
I've not felt like getting into this before, but you're not at all giving an accurate depiction of what Kubiak actually communicated.
