What did we learn in week 3? (1 Viewer)

[RyanK23]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

I think your statement says "and lost" but you then come to the conclusion that they can win. Only the final score counts. Denver has lost to Seattle twice in seven months in two different seasons. If they were going to win they'd have done it.

"Averaging 4.7 yards per play, the Broncos offense wasn't any more effective than the one that was stymied in the Super Bowl XLVIII rout. Until Denver's defense came through with a safety and an interception in the fourth quarter, the offense had run only one play in Seattle territory since a first quarter field goal. Nearly every catch was contested." Link

If you don't think Denver proved they have the ability to beat Seattle, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I think most reasonable people who watched that game saw two evenly matched teams, and came away believing Denver has the ability to beat Seattle. The fact that in this particular game they didn't beat them says nothing of what they can do in the future.

I guess I am not a reasonable person or I am one of the exceptions. Denver took the game to OT, barely, I will give them that. But it was last second prayers that sent them to overtime. If they could really beat Seattle they would have never ended up in that hole in the first place and would not have needed to force OT. But Denver had to force OT and got their chance. Their defense could not stop the touchdown. The offense choked all game long until the last minute and the defense choked at the end. They cannot beat Seattle.

 

[RyanK23]

After 3 weeks, I've come to the conclusion that FF has become too random to be enjoyable anymore. The RBBCs, ridiculous number of injuries, bizarre coaching decisions and out of the blue poor performances (studs) are killing the fun.

I'm moving on to daily fantasy and retiring from this redraft bulls#it.

New excuses, same boohoo'ing.

Right. The playing field is the same for everyone. EVERY year first round RB goes down. Not even the biggest fantasy expert can boast over %70 success rate when predicting players. That's why you roster a whole team. If you miss on a couple guys you make up for it with depth, and win your league by being the 2-3% better at picking players than your opponents.

I'm not complaining that I lost, I'm complaining about the reasons for the losses. I spend a considerable amount of time scouting, researching, working the wire, negiotiating trades, etc. and just about every week my losses result from obscure situations which couldn't be accounted for, which I listed in my post above. It's rarely due to poor roster management or a weak roster, which are certainly understandable and not worth complaining about.

Every year, FF is becoming more and more about luck where the % of skill involved is being slowly phased out by the sheer randominess of the league. I know daily has it's flaws can be frustrating in many ways but I'm going to take a year off from redraft and focus on those instead.

theres always been a ton of randomness in ff. in past years, i bet you didnt realize how lucky you were getting.

One of my leagues has a 5 point home field advantage (which I think sucks). So there is some randomness from a schedule standpoint. That same league I had McFadden in this past week. He was arguably robbed of a TD run for 6 points. I already had a 5 point disadvantage from being the visiting team and possibly got robbed for 6 more points from a bad call. I lost the game by 7 points when some might say I "should" have won by 4 points. I get that it is frustrating when it is not in your control, but that's how it goes sometimes. Maybe next week I get redemption. Maybe not. It is what it is.

 

[RyanK23]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

Very much agreed.

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

I think your statement says "and lost" but you then come to the conclusion that they can win. Only the final score counts. Denver has lost to Seattle twice in seven months in two different seasons. If they were going to win they'd have done it.

"Averaging 4.7 yards per play, the Broncos offense wasn't any more effective than the one that was stymied in the Super Bowl XLVIII rout. Until Denver's defense came through with a safety and an interception in the fourth quarter, the offense had run only one play in Seattle territory since a first quarter field goal. Nearly every catch was contested." Link

Surely you realize that not doing something doesn't mean it is impossible.

CIN hasn't lost a game, therefore it is not possible for them to lose a game. Somehow that logic doesn't work, same as "DEN lost, therefore they cannot win [against SEA]" does not work

I agree that theoretically any team can beat any other team "on any given Sunday" and that Denver, being a great team, is more likely to beat a great team like Seattle than many others would be. But after having been beaten twice in a row, one of those times in the biggest game of the year, I don't think it makes sense to say that Denver has shown they can beat Seattle. I think they've shown that they can lose to them.

Not that it matters, but neither of those franchises are "my team", I'm just offering my opinion.

This

 

[spodog]

Denver can't beat Seattle

They played them to a draw for 4 quarters IN Seattle and lost on a coin toss. I think it's safe to say they proved they CAN beat them.

LOL. I was going to comment on this, but I think this will do: link

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I learned Seattle isn't as good as last year and that the Bengals D looks dominant.

seattle dominated the game till the 4th quarter. Denver has gotten better om defense. seattle is still elite.

Last 5 games at home, 1 loss, 1 win in OT, 2 wins by 1 score with the other team having a shot at the end zone on the last play, 1 convincing win. On the other hand, that's 4-1 vs playoff and playoff caliber teams.

 

[RyanK23]

I'm not getting the argument that Denver hasn't shown they can win. Denver played an away game with the most home field advantage in the league and they took them to overtime. If those aren't two evenly matched teams I don't know what you are watching. Denver's defense has improved greatly from last year.

I guess if you are all about pimping Seattle then you can't have an objective view. It was a great game. You should look at it from both sides.

I just think someone needs to actually win to show they can win. I've never been sold on sugarcoating losses (even close ones) by what you define as "having an objective view" so that I can feel better about my team. That seems less objective and more biased if anything. In my post above, I said Denver cannot beat Seattle. That was not in terms of any given Sunday (i.e., if they play 10 times, Denver may win twice) and maybe I should have clarified that. Any team can beat Seattle "any given Sunday." I will say that Denver has a better shot than most teams to beat Seattle regular or post season, but that's where it ends. They have a more favorable chance than most teams, but so far have shown they cannot do it. That's just my opinion, and no I’m not all about pimping Seattle, they have just shown to be the better team.



The only pimping I see here is from people saying Denver can beat a team they keep losing to. BTW, someone disagreeing with your POV does not automatically make your view objective and theirs not.

 

[cvnpoka]

By being as close as they were and Denver's last drive, they showed they have the ability. One break in their direction and they won that game. Frankly, I was very surprised to see it as close as it was. Seattle has shown that they can be beat. It takes a great game to do so, but they're not the lock many thought they were to go back to the Super Bowl. (favorites, but far from a lock) They're still the best team in football.

seattle will come back down to earth once the refs stop allowing them to get away with murder mauling the receivers. its a complete joke that they get to play by different rules than the rest of the league. if that doesnt change, then you may as well hand them the trophy.

 

[Widbil83]

SF D definitely isn't worth a roster spot, Chris Johnson is basically the 3rd string RB on his own team, Rashad Jennings looks like a cow running back and Austin David some how scored more pts than Rodgers and Stafford combined this week.

 

[cvnpoka]

I'm not getting the argument that Denver hasn't shown they can win. Denver played an away game with the most home field advantage in the league and they took them to overtime. If those aren't two evenly matched teams I don't know what you are watching. Denver's defense has improved greatly from last year.

I guess if you are all about pimping Seattle then you can't have an objective view. It was a great game. You should look at it from both sides.

I just think someone needs to actually win to show they can win. I've never been sold on sugarcoating losses (even close ones) by what you define as "having an objective view" so that I can feel better about my team. That seems less objective and more biased if anything. In my post above, I said Denver cannot beat Seattle. That was not in terms of any given Sunday (i.e., if they play 10 times, Denver may win twice) and maybe I should have clarified that. Any team can beat Seattle "any given Sunday." I will say that Denver has a better shot than most teams to beat Seattle regular or post season, but that's where it ends. They have a more favorable chance than most teams, but so far have shown they cannot do it. That's just my opinion, and no I’m not all about pimping Seattle, they have just shown to be the better team.

The only pimping I see here is from people saying Denver can beat a team they keep losing to. BTW, someone disagreeing with your POV does not automatically make your view objective and theirs not.

you think denver only wins 2 out of 10 times against seattle an then think the other guy lacks objectivity?

 

[RyanK23]

I'm not getting the argument that Denver hasn't shown they can win. Denver played an away game with the most home field advantage in the league and they took them to overtime. If those aren't two evenly matched teams I don't know what you are watching. Denver's defense has improved greatly from last year.

I guess if you are all about pimping Seattle then you can't have an objective view. It was a great game. You should look at it from both sides.

I just think someone needs to actually win to show they can win. I've never been sold on sugarcoating losses (even close ones) by what you define as "having an objective view" so that I can feel better about my team. That seems less objective and more biased if anything. In my post above, I said Denver cannot beat Seattle. That was not in terms of any given Sunday (i.e., if they play 10 times, Denver may win twice) and maybe I should have clarified that. Any team can beat Seattle "any given Sunday." I will say that Denver has a better shot than most teams to beat Seattle regular or post season, but that's where it ends. They have a more favorable chance than most teams, but so far have shown they cannot do it. That's just my opinion, and no I’m not all about pimping Seattle, they have just shown to be the better team.

The only pimping I see here is from people saying Denver can beat a team they keep losing to. BTW, someone disagreeing with your POV does not automatically make your view objective and theirs not.

you think denver only wins 2 out of 10 times against seattle an then think the other guy lacks objectivity?

I think you may have misunderstood or maybe I was unclear. This was an example of what I meant when saying "any given Sunday". Given enough chances, any team will beat any other team eventually. I just picked the number 2 as an example, I wasn't trying to say that I think that's what Denver's win record would actually be if they played the 10 games.

I think if the teams played 10 times Denver would probably win more than 2 times. I do not think they would win enough of those 10 games to safely say they can beat Seattle regular or post season without them proving it first.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

I'm not getting the argument that Denver hasn't shown they can win. Denver played an away game with the most home field advantage in the league and they took them to overtime. If those aren't two evenly matched teams I don't know what you are watching. Denver's defense has improved greatly from last year.

I guess if you are all about pimping Seattle then you can't have an objective view. It was a great game. You should look at it from both sides.

I just think someone needs to actually win to show they can win. I've never been sold on sugarcoating losses (even close ones) by what you define as "having an objective view" so that I can feel better about my team. That seems less objective and more biased if anything. In my post above, I said Denver cannot beat Seattle. That was not in terms of any given Sunday (i.e., if they play 10 times, Denver may win twice) and maybe I should have clarified that. Any team can beat Seattle "any given Sunday." I will say that Denver has a better shot than most teams to beat Seattle regular or post season, but that's where it ends. They have a more favorable chance than most teams, but so far have shown they cannot do it. That's just my opinion, and no I’m not all about pimping Seattle, they have just shown to be the better team.

The only pimping I see here is from people saying Denver can beat a team they keep losing to. BTW, someone disagreeing with your POV does not automatically make your view objective and theirs not.

you think denver only wins 2 out of 10 times against seattle an then think the other guy lacks objectivity?

I think you may have misunderstood or maybe I was unclear. This was an example of what I meant when saying "any given Sunday". Given enough chances, any team will beat any other team eventually. I just picked the number 2 as an example, I wasn't trying to say that I think that's what Denver's win record would actually be if they played the 10 games.

I think if the teams played 10 times Denver would probably win more than 2 times. I do not think they would win enough of those 10 games to safely say they can beat Seattle regular or post season without them proving it first.

good lord

 

[FUBAR]

Ken Whisenhunt is either stubborn or stupid. Bishop Sankey is by far the best RB on the Titans roster (4.9 ypc over first 18 carries), yet he continues to run Shonn Greene and his cement feet out there. His reasoning...."Bishop needs to improve his footwork."

Or maybe he knows better than we do what's best for his team? I'm guessing Bishop will get more play when his full game develops.

 

[FUBAR]

We learned we should rename this thread.

 

[G-King]

Ken Whisenhunt is either stubborn or stupid. Bishop Sankey is by far the best RB on the Titans roster (4.9 ypc over first 18 carries), yet he continues to run Shonn Greene and his cement feet out there. His reasoning...."Bishop needs to improve his footwork."

Or maybe he knows better than we do what's best for his team? I'm guessing Bishop will get more play when his full game develops.

I learned that its going to take even less time for everyone in Tennessee to learn, what a joke of a coach Wisenhunt is.

Also learned that Kelvin Benjamin has a bright future in the NFL regardless who is throwing him the ball. The guy will break arms trying to fight you for the ball.

 

[Shutout]

I've learned that the "what did we learn" thread is really a thinly veiled "Venting/griping" thread.

 

[sdp1226]

I've learned that the "what did we learn" thread is really a thinly veiled "Venting/griping" thread.

Check in here Monday morning and it's very obvious to see who lost their matchups.

 

[Dienda]

That Floyd and Fitzgerald are not going to both have good fantasy games together. Have fun guessing which one is going to have great numbers each week.

That Floyd and Fitzgerald are not going to both have good fantasy games together. Have fun guessing which one is going to have great numbers each week.

most likely they'll split...whomever is dbl teamed will lag in points...so right gl guessing. Either way cards are playing great

 

[Dienda]

SF D definitely isn't worth a roster spot, Chris Johnson is basically the 3rd string RB on his own team, Rashad Jennings looks like a cow running back and Austin David some how scored more pts than Rodgers and Stafford combined this week.

They're pretty banged up right now, will get better as players retur.

 

[Dienda]

Ken Whisenhunt is either stubborn or stupid. Bishop Sankey is by far the best RB on the Titans roster (4.9 ypc over first 18 carries), yet he continues to run Shonn Greene and his cement feet out there. His reasoning...."Bishop needs to improve his footwork."

No doubt in my mind he's stubborn

 

[Truman]

I'm not getting the argument that Denver hasn't shown they can win. Denver played an away game with the most home field advantage in the league and they took them to overtime. If those aren't two evenly matched teams I don't know what you are watching. Denver's defense has improved greatly from last year.

I guess if you are all about pimping Seattle then you can't have an objective view. It was a great game. You should look at it from both sides.

I just think someone needs to actually win to show they can win. I've never been sold on sugarcoating losses (even close ones) by what you define as "having an objective view" so that I can feel better about my team. That seems less objective and more biased if anything. In my post above, I said Denver cannot beat Seattle. That was not in terms of any given Sunday (i.e., if they play 10 times, Denver may win twice) and maybe I should have clarified that. Any team can beat Seattle "any given Sunday." I will say that Denver has a better shot than most teams to beat Seattle regular or post season, but that's where it ends. They have a more favorable chance than most teams, but so far have shown they cannot do it. That's just my opinion, and no Im not all about pimping Seattle, they have just shown to be the better team. The only pimping I see here is from people saying Denver can beat a team they keep losing to. BTW, someone disagreeing with your POV does not automatically make your view objective and theirs not.

you think denver only wins 2 out of 10 times against seattle an then think the other guy lacks objectivity?

I think you may have misunderstood or maybe I was unclear. This was an example of what I meant when saying "any given Sunday". Given enough chances, any team will beat any other team eventually. I just picked the number 2 as an example, I wasn't trying to say that I think that's what Denver's win record would actually be if they played the 10 games.I think if the teams played 10 times Denver would probably win more than 2 times. I do not think they would win enough of those 10 games to safely say they can beat Seattle regular or post season without them proving it first.

They can't beat Seattle, but they would beat them more than 20% of the time? Gotcha.

 

[mbrasi]

I'm not getting the argument that Denver hasn't shown they can win. Denver played an away game with the most home field advantage in the league and they took them to overtime. If those aren't two evenly matched teams I don't know what you are watching. Denver's defense has improved greatly from last year.

I guess if you are all about pimping Seattle then you can't have an objective view. It was a great game. You should look at it from both sides.

I just think someone needs to actually win to show they can win. I've never been sold on sugarcoating losses (even close ones) by what you define as "having an objective view" so that I can feel better about my team. That seems less objective and more biased if anything. In my post above, I said Denver cannot beat Seattle. That was not in terms of any given Sunday (i.e., if they play 10 times, Denver may win twice) and maybe I should have clarified that. Any team can beat Seattle "any given Sunday." I will say that Denver has a better shot than most teams to beat Seattle regular or post season, but that's where it ends. They have a more favorable chance than most teams, but so far have shown they cannot do it. That's just my opinion, and no Im not all about pimping Seattle, they have just shown to be the better team. The only pimping I see here is from people saying Denver can beat a team they keep losing to. BTW, someone disagreeing with your POV does not automatically make your view objective and theirs not.

you think denver only wins 2 out of 10 times against seattle an then think the other guy lacks objectivity?

I think you may have misunderstood or maybe I was unclear. This was an example of what I meant when saying "any given Sunday". Given enough chances, any team will beat any other team eventually. I just picked the number 2 as an example, I wasn't trying to say that I think that's what Denver's win record would actually be if they played the 10 games.I think if the teams played 10 times Denver would probably win more than 2 times. I do not think they would win enough of those 10 games to safely say they can beat Seattle regular or post season without them proving it first.

They can't beat Seattle, but they would beat them more than 20% of the time? Gotcha.

I'm thinking 22 out of a 100, but I think we'll need 1000 chances to get really accurate projections.

 

[RyanK23]

I'm not getting the argument that Denver hasn't shown they can win. Denver played an away game with the most home field advantage in the league and they took them to overtime. If those aren't two evenly matched teams I don't know what you are watching. Denver's defense has improved greatly from last year.

I guess if you are all about pimping Seattle then you can't have an objective view. It was a great game. You should look at it from both sides.

I just think someone needs to actually win to show they can win. I've never been sold on sugarcoating losses (even close ones) by what you define as "having an objective view" so that I can feel better about my team. That seems less objective and more biased if anything. In my post above, I said Denver cannot beat Seattle. That was not in terms of any given Sunday (i.e., if they play 10 times, Denver may win twice) and maybe I should have clarified that. Any team can beat Seattle "any given Sunday." I will say that Denver has a better shot than most teams to beat Seattle regular or post season, but that's where it ends. They have a more favorable chance than most teams, but so far have shown they cannot do it. That's just my opinion, and no Im not all about pimping Seattle, they have just shown to be the better team. The only pimping I see here is from people saying Denver can beat a team they keep losing to. BTW, someone disagreeing with your POV does not automatically make your view objective and theirs not.

you think denver only wins 2 out of 10 times against seattle an then think the other guy lacks objectivity?

I think you may have misunderstood or maybe I was unclear. This was an example of what I meant when saying "any given Sunday". Given enough chances, any team will beat any other team eventually. I just picked the number 2 as an example, I wasn't trying to say that I think that's what Denver's win record would actually be if they played the 10 games.I think if the teams played 10 times Denver would probably win more than 2 times. I do not think they would win enough of those 10 games to safely say they can beat Seattle regular or post season without them proving it first.

They can't beat Seattle, but they would beat them more than 20% of the time? Gotcha

Read the post. Any team can beat any other team given unlimited chances. But obviously no team actually gets that many chances during a regular or post season. I could say the Jaguars would beat the Broncos 1 out of 20 times (again just an example), but it would probably never happen currently during the actual season or post season because they don't play each other that many times.

Sure, the Broncos CAN beat the Seahawks, but the number of games it would take them to do so removes most of the value from that claim.

Really not a hard concept...

 

[msudaisy26]

I learned we can unpin this thread

 

[Chaka]

I learned we can unpin this thread

We already have the venting/whining thread.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

I'm not getting the argument that Denver hasn't shown they can win. Denver played an away game with the most home field advantage in the league and they took them to overtime. If those aren't two evenly matched teams I don't know what you are watching. Denver's defense has improved greatly from last year.

I guess if you are all about pimping Seattle then you can't have an objective view. It was a great game. You should look at it from both sides.

I just think someone needs to actually win to show they can win. I've never been sold on sugarcoating losses (even close ones) by what you define as "having an objective view" so that I can feel better about my team. That seems less objective and more biased if anything. In my post above, I said Denver cannot beat Seattle. That was not in terms of any given Sunday (i.e., if they play 10 times, Denver may win twice) and maybe I should have clarified that. Any team can beat Seattle "any given Sunday." I will say that Denver has a better shot than most teams to beat Seattle regular or post season, but that's where it ends. They have a more favorable chance than most teams, but so far have shown they cannot do it. That's just my opinion, and no Im not all about pimping Seattle, they have just shown to be the better team. The only pimping I see here is from people saying Denver can beat a team they keep losing to. BTW, someone disagreeing with your POV does not automatically make your view objective and theirs not.

you think denver only wins 2 out of 10 times against seattle an then think the other guy lacks objectivity?

I think you may have misunderstood or maybe I was unclear. This was an example of what I meant when saying "any given Sunday". Given enough chances, any team will beat any other team eventually. I just picked the number 2 as an example, I wasn't trying to say that I think that's what Denver's win record would actually be if they played the 10 games.I think if the teams played 10 times Denver would probably win more than 2 times. I do not think they would win enough of those 10 games to safely say they can beat Seattle regular or post season without them proving it first.

They can't beat Seattle, but they would beat them more than 20% of the time? Gotcha

Read the post. Any team can beat any other team given unlimited chances. But obviously no team actually gets that many chances during a regular or post season. I could say the Jaguars would beat the Broncos 1 out of 20 times (again just an example), but it would probably never happen currently during the actual season or post season because they don't play each other that many times.

Sure, the Broncos CAN beat the Seahawks, but the number of games it would take them to do so removes most of the value from that claim.

Really not a hard concept...

There's much more value in the claim that they CAN win than the claim that they CAN'T as you have been making.

 

[Chaka]

I learned that more and more people aren't mentally able to cope with losing and the character that I see being revealed as a result is immature, shallow and ugly.

I've never seen it this bad as far as moping. It's probably because of daily leagues where people can lose money on a weekly basis instead of working trades or working waivers like normal.

This is what happens when you don't keep score in youth sports and everyone gets a self esteem trophy.

 

[doubletrouble]

Played against Donnell last night...again teams on paper don't win championships

 

[cloppbeast]

I would estimate 90% of what we've learned in week 3 will be unlearned by week 9.

The title of this thread should read "over-reactions of week 3".