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!
Until now. Now, "Portis" will say "Portis" is pissed at "someone" for trading for "Duckett" and that "Portis" will just have to score every time "Portis" touches the ball now. Man, I can't wait to see "Portis" play this year.
Isn't it illegal for NFL players to play fantasy football? You know, the whole gambling on your own sport issue.
Yes, Joe Gibbs has used GL specialists in the past. Off the top of my head, Gerald Riggs was the GL back the year they beat the Bills in the SB, I think that was 91. Byner was the HB.
Apparently not. The Washington Post ran a feature article last week about Chris Cooley being a long-time FFer. His big game against Dallas last year gave his opponent (who owned Chris) the FF win.
Duckett is a 260 LB RB who is a proven plunger, his success ration is better then Jerome Bettis in short yardage. Portis is 210 and has a banged up shoulder to boot. If the Skins throw a pass for a first down inside the 5..I highly doubt Portis will be on the field. Portis will play the role Warrick Dunn has the last 2 years in Atalanta. Rack up alot of yardage, but not get the TDS. Portis has struggled a bit in GL situations with the Skins the last 2 years anyway. That is Ducketts bread and butter.
And you're either a Bills homer or a a McGahee owner...so what?You're kidding yourself if you think McGahee is gonna put up any better numbers than he did last year with that putrid O-line and offense! The only guy I'd want from that lame excuse of a team is Lee Evans since they will have no other choice but to air it out since they'll be 20 pts behind every game. Can McGahee play QB or O-line? Then McGahee MIGHT be >>>>>>>>>> Portis!Answer honestly, are you either of the following?1. Portis owner2. Redskins fanYou're one of these two, fess up to which.
That is interesting, don't you think? I mean, shouldn't that be considered gambling on your own sport, especially with as many games are involved with each owner's team? Even if they don't play for money, it still can create a conflict of interest. I know if I was a coach, I wouldn't want my players doing this.Apparently not. The Washington Post ran a feature article last week about Chris Cooley being a long-time FFer. His big game against Dallas last year gave his opponent (who owned Chris) the FF win.
If a no-money ff league causes a conflict of interest for an NFL player, that player has HUGE problems. Seriously, I don't think there are any professional players that are going to mess up in their real life to win a ff league.That is interesting, don't you think? I mean, shouldn't that be considered gambling on your own sport, especially with as many games are involved with each owner's team? Even if they don't play for money, it still can create a conflict of interest. I know if I was a coach, I wouldn't want my players doing this.Apparently not. The Washington Post ran a feature article last week about Chris Cooley being a long-time FFer. His big game against Dallas last year gave his opponent (who owned Chris) the FF win.
Was your trade in a Redraft or Dynasty league?
Granted, but don't you think there are certain NFL players that do have HUGE problems? It shouldn't be a problem for players, but just the fact that it could create a problem is why it is wrong, IMO.I know the NFL is embracing its FF crowd, but it also has an anti-FF crowd or FF-neutral crowd that could be turned off by this.If a no-money ff league causes a conflict of interest for an NFL player, that player has HUGE problems. Seriously, I don't think there are any professional players that are going to mess up in their real life to win a ff league.That is interesting, don't you think? I mean, shouldn't that be considered gambling on your own sport, especially with as many games are involved with each owner's team? Even if they don't play for money, it still can create a conflict of interest. I know if I was a coach, I wouldn't want my players doing this.Apparently not. The Washington Post ran a feature article last week about Chris Cooley being a long-time FFer. His big game against Dallas last year gave his opponent (who owned Chris) the FF win.
Redraft. I personally think that the Skins would not sacrifice using a talent like CP on a full time basis. Betts is a FA after this year and has a desire to start, so Duckett is insurance. I think dropping CP to 23rd is absurd unless the guys know he is really out for an indefinite time.
The NFL is getting more and more involved with FF each year. If the NFL had a problem with it, they wouldn't offer it on their web site and promote the hell out of it.More exposure, more revenue, greater profits.That is interesting, don't you think? I mean, shouldn't that be considered gambling on your own sport, especially with as many games are involved with each owner's team? Even if they don't play for money, it still can create a conflict of interest. I know if I was a coach, I wouldn't want my players doing this.Apparently not. The Washington Post ran a feature article last week about Chris Cooley being a long-time FFer. His big game against Dallas last year gave his opponent (who owned Chris) the FF win.
OUCH.
Everyone keeps saying this, I do agree. Let's not forget that about 1/2 of people are in dynasty leagues or keeper leagues.
not everyone plays FF for moneyThat is interesting, don't you think? I mean, shouldn't that be considered gambling on your own sport, especially with as many games are involved with each owner's team? Even if they don't play for money, it still can create a conflict of interest. I know if I was a coach, I wouldn't want my players doing this.Apparently not. The Washington Post ran a feature article last week about Chris Cooley being a long-time FFer. His big game against Dallas last year gave his opponent (who owned Chris) the FF win.
chris cooley didn't make the his league playoffs last year because of his 3 TD game, he was playing against the guy that owned him
I've still got to think this through. But I draft at 12/13 this weekend and may consider him there.btw, I don't know where it was seen that FBG has him at RB28, but while not everyone has updated since the news, there are only two 20+ rankings total. (the consensus ranking really won't mean anything til everyone updates)Wow, this is awsome news. I have a draft coming up and where I have the 9th slot. Now Portis will likely fall to me in the 2nd.
Dodds has him ranked as the 23 RB, but initially had him at 28. You're right, though; other writers on the site have had a more conservative view of Portis's demise so far.
it's been posted.
I don't think it is either or. I think that Portis' shoulder is hurt alot more than they let on and made the trade sto get a back who they think is capable of carrying the ball alot. If Portis is healthy... Duckett is almost a non-factor. If Portis wasn't hurt do you think they would have made this trade?
Receiving is where I think many Portis projections differ. Saunders and Skins RBs have said one of the things they've added to the offense is RB screen passes. This might be the main reason some people even had Portis #1 a few weeks ago. I think everyone agrees Portis will lose GL carries with Duckett in the mix. So, I agree, more or less, with your rushing projections. However, I think your receptions are low. I'm not sure he'll get many more rec TDs, but I could see Portis approaching 50 receptions for about 400+ yards. These screens should get Portis into open space where he can do what he does best. I think Portis would be perfectly happy with 17 carries and 3 or 4 receptions per game. He may touch the ball less than the last two years, but the quality of his touches (minus GL carries now with Duckett) could go up.
I like this analysis, and expect #8 to be more accurate than #12. I see Cooley taking a bigger hit than Portis with Duckett's arrival. Betts value is gone.
Partial dislocated shoulder or Sublux not separated.
Hell, Betts got a few, I think, too.
This right here is how I dominated one league last year. People let Portis slip to me in the 2nd (had the #2 overall pick) to add to SA.
I'm the one drafting late this year and trust me. I won't let this happen. 
Pondering the same thing in tonights draft (#9 slot)
Not just that, but also Saunders was raving about Betts, and Duckett means they either don't like Betts as much anymore, or the Portis thing is more serious or at least UNKNOWN and they need insurance.I would take him LATE second round at the earliest.
One opinion...I would prefer a top WR like Holt. You should still have a solid RB option in the 3rd.
We start 2RB/2WR/Flex(RB-WR) so I'm not sure there will be a solid RB left at the end of the third. RBs score more than WR with our scoring so they go fast.
Or, they feel they are in position to make a SB and they feel a 3rd-round pick is a reasonable price to pay to help them get there. Duckett will get some carries and TDs because a capable back on the team. However, I don't believe that says a whole lot about Betts or Portis. I think it mostly says something about Duckett and a 2007 3rd-round pick.stealthrunner said:
Eerie. That's almost identical to what I have for both, though I have Portis with two fewer TDs. And those are really tough to predict, in my opinion.Shooter McGavin said:I have them projectedortis - 268 car, 1226 yds, 9 TD, 36 rec, 268 yds, 2 TDDuckett - 118 car, 484 yds, 9 TD, 6 rec, 46 yds, 0 TDThat puts Portis as my #14 RBLuckily, I don't draft until the middle of next week, so there's time for more info to come out and clear this up a bit.
1400 and 15 td's !!!!!!!!!!MCGAHEE >>>>>>>>>> PORTIS Have a nice day.
