Have you seen enough yet? I have. With Odell already on both of my PPR teams, and Sheperd on one, I initiated giving up Doug Baldwin to acquire Sheperd on my other last night.
Redskin RCB Breeland is terrible. Week one, Big Ben torched him. I'm not throwing Josh Norman under the bus, he's played well in both weeks. But if he is going to shadow Odell, Eli is going to torch the shit out of Breeland and the rest of that secondary trying to guard Sterling & Victor (who I'm also considering playing in my 2nd flex spot over Lockett & Golden Tate).
We can't run, and hopefully McAdoo learned last week, that running for 1-3 yards on 5 consecutive first downs in the 2nd half, was not the smartest play calling.
I'm a big fan of Darian Thompson. But his injury only adds to the shootout possibilities.
Sterling the real deal, and perfectly matched with our quick release offense.
Well... not that you would drop a kicker for one game. However, how much offense did you expect from Houston this week? They are traveling on a short week to New England. Going up against a coach who may be the best in history. A coach who is a defensive mastermind AND has to dial up the defense in a week where he is starting his #3 QB.
This past week aside, I would not own a kicker who plays on an offense that will have trouble moving the ball. Their QB looks like shit right now and Elway's decision not to sign him was Brilliant (yes I know only 3 games in).
It was Julian Edelman and Sterling Shepard for Allen Robinson - non-PPR.
Why wouldn't I do that? And would I do it now, that Edelman has already played and plug Shepard in this week?
Miller got me a few points
Ill get smoked this week and not worry about it for once.
i like Pitta as long as he's healthy which probably won't be long.
Goose egg for Gronk and 5.6 for Hopkins.
I was high scorer each of the first two weeks, but looks like I will be 2-1.
It was Julian Edelman and Sterling Shepard for Allen Robinson - non-PPR.
Why wouldn't I do that? And would I do it now, that Edelman has already played and plug Shepard in this week?
Tough call. I admit I'm not chasing Sheperd in my Non PPR league. But PPR I love him.
Quote:
From the kicker. I hope Houston loses every game
Well... not that you would drop a kicker for one game. However, how much offense did you expect from Houston this week? They are traveling on a short week to New England. Going up against a coach who may be the best in history. A coach who is a defensive mastermind AND has to dial up the defense in a week where he is starting his #3 QB.
This past week aside, I would not own a kicker who plays on an offense that will have trouble moving the ball. Their QB looks like shit right now and Elway's decision not to sign him was Brilliant (yes I know only 3 games in).
I would have been happy with 2 field goals. At least 6 points
Oaklands been getting torched, so I really like Walker. Flacco doesn't have much besides Pitta (unless Mike Wallace is really revived), but I never like Flacco on the road. We might see why a lot of us wanted Myles jack, in that game.
Was wondering the same, with a guy making his first start no less. I've been saying it for weeks, with the Pats winning, there's zero incentive to give Gronk significant time until week 5 when he's back with Brady. Gronk probably plays more snaps next week, but I still likely don't start him (unless Garappolo is back).
Can you Flex a TE?
Quote:
Would be very limited?
Was wondering the same, with a guy making his first start no less. I've been saying it for weeks, with the Pats winning, there's zero incentive to give Gronk significant time until week 5 when he's back with Brady. Gronk probably plays more snaps next week, but I still likely don't start him (unless Garappolo is back).
Because he is by far the best TE, IMO.
Because I drafted him early and the streaming options weren't great, IMO.
Because the Texans are supposed to be a good team which should have kept the game close and not given the incentive to sit him.
Because the shitty QB needed an outlet and Gronk seemed like a good choice.
The first time the needed a TD they went right to him (and he was overthrown). Then the game got out of hand and the Texans did nothing on O so they could sit him.
Quote:
Would be very limited?
Was wondering the same, with a guy making his first start no less. I've been saying it for weeks, with the Pats winning, there's zero incentive to give Gronk significant time until week 5 when he's back with Brady. Gronk probably plays more snaps next week, but I still likely don't start him (unless Garappolo is back).
Pitta came back after a longer layoff and did fine. If Gronk was playing I'd start him, everyone has a crystal ball the day after the game.
But the Pats are just a team I don't trust in fantasy unless its Brady, he's the only guy where you know what you are getting 100% of the time. Gronk coming back from an injury that they don't want to linger, coupled with a 2-0 record at home against a below average QB on a short week spelled a disastrous scenario for Gronk owners. As I said previously, I'm not so sure I even start him next week.
Quote:
In comment 13137222 superspynyg said:
Quote:
Would be very limited?
Was wondering the same, with a guy making his first start no less. I've been saying it for weeks, with the Pats winning, there's zero incentive to give Gronk significant time until week 5 when he's back with Brady. Gronk probably plays more snaps next week, but I still likely don't start him (unless Garappolo is back).
Pitta came back after a longer layoff and did fine. If Gronk was playing I'd start him, everyone has a crystal ball the day after the game.
Ehh, it isn't all just crystal ball, the scenario was apparent enough that I'd be really skeptical of starting anyone in the Pats offense off an injury like that, or in the Pats offense period in some cases.
I did say the below on Thursday, still believe this is the case:
"Gronk, pissing fantasy owners off since 2012. He's starting to be more of an injury risk than Jordan Reed. They could also just be giving him extra time to pair with Brady in week 5, assuming they keep winning without both."
But the Pats are just a team I don't trust in fantasy unless its Brady, he's the only guy where you know what you are getting 100% of the time. Gronk coming back from an injury that they don't want to linger, coupled with a 2-0 record at home against a below average QB on a short week spelled a disastrous scenario for Gronk owners. As I said previously, I'm not so sure I even start him next week.
I wont start him until he plays the majority of the game, with or without brady. Even if he gets a TD, limited use means limited targets. 30-40-50 yard games are not when I need from him. So getting a fluke TD wont change my perspective. I screwed up last night. Losing Dorsett on a waiver and Langford being a ? put me in a huge bind. This is why I hate Thursday games. The games usually are bad, there are fantasy implications that need to be made, and I always choose wrong.
Agree, hate Thursday games.
It was Julian Edelman and Sterling Shepard for Allen Robinson - non-PPR.
Why wouldn't I do that? And would I do it now, that Edelman has already played and plug Shepard in this week?
Run to the computer and pull the trigger.
You also have to worry about Edelmans injury history. He's played in 9, 13, 11, 3 games each of the past 4 seasons and if he gets dinged, he will be treated like Gronk because they will likely have a fantastic record and won't need him.
I just really don't like Patriot players outside of Brady because they are generally wildly erratic.
You also have to worry about Edelmans injury history. He's played in 9, 13, 11, 3 games each of the past 4 seasons and if he gets dinged, he will be treated like Gronk because they will likely have a fantastic record and won't need him.
I just really don't like Patriot players outside of Brady because they are generally wildly erratic.
since edelman already played I'm trying to adjust it. I don't mind trading Robinson.
He had 15 targets week 1, but just 5 week 2 in a game they passed a lot more.
I get everyone saying he's a buy low target, but if you get Edelman and Shepard for him I'm not sure it's low.
You don't understand the purpose? They want more money. It's an easy way to expand. They basically had 8 hours on Sundays. Then they added MNF. Then SNF. Some expansion to Saturdays. Think of the ad revenue. Two MNF games are not going to take away TNF because they don't add TV time. They overlap.
Why do you think they are playing games in Europe? The main reason is so that they can glue people to the TV from 7:00 a.m. to midnight every Sunday.
Fantasy is the same thing. It keeps us worried about games with teams we don't give a shit about. Bears-Eagles? Who gives a flaming shit. Bears-Eagles, up three in your league with Ryan Mathews going against Alshon Jeffery? Damn right you will pay attention.
WR: Dez, A-Rob, Marvin Jones, Hilton, Taj Sharpe
RB: McCoy, D. Murray, Ware, De Washington (lost Abdullah and Woodhead)
TE: Pitta and Ebron
So between starting WR and Flex and byes I'd probably play Shepard and Edelman and having Marvin Jones and Hilton is good insurance or I could even flip Edelman for a RB.
Quote:
they need to be removed. I still have no idea what their purpose is in a league that is trying to cut down on injuries. Just put 2 Monday night games instead like they do in week 1, its an absolute no brainer.
You don't understand the purpose? They want more money. It's an easy way to expand. They basically had 8 hours on Sundays. Then they added MNF. Then SNF. Some expansion to Saturdays. Think of the ad revenue. Two MNF games are not going to take away TNF because they don't add TV time. They overlap.
Why do you think they are playing games in Europe? The main reason is so that they can glue people to the TV from 7:00 a.m. to midnight every Sunday.
Fantasy is the same thing. It keeps us worried about games with teams we don't give a shit about. Bears-Eagles? Who gives a flaming shit. Bears-Eagles, up three in your league with Ryan Mathews going against Alshon Jeffery? Damn right you will pay attention.
Its tongue in cheek, of course I understand its money driven. My point is that it contradicts their efforts to make a safe p[laying environment. Giving guys less than 4 days in between games is ludicrous. They achieve the same damn thing, financially, putting an east coast game at 7pm on a Monday and a West coast game at 10pm. They can even bump it up to 9pm.
WR: Dez, A-Rob, Marvin Jones, Hilton, Taj Sharpe
RB: McCoy, D. Murray, Ware, De Washington (lost Abdullah and Woodhead)
TE: Pitta and Ebron
So between starting WR and Flex and byes I'd probably play Shepard and Edelman and having Marvin Jones and Hilton is good insurance or I could even flip Edelman for a RB.
I wouldn't be starting Shepard over Jones, but that's me. You can argue Edelman over Jones, especially when Brady is back, but Marvin Jones is going to be a really good fantasy player this year. I still think its too much to give up.
Quote:
In comment 13137337 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
they need to be removed. I still have no idea what their purpose is in a league that is trying to cut down on injuries. Just put 2 Monday night games instead like they do in week 1, its an absolute no brainer.
You don't understand the purpose? They want more money. It's an easy way to expand. They basically had 8 hours on Sundays. Then they added MNF. Then SNF. Some expansion to Saturdays. Think of the ad revenue. Two MNF games are not going to take away TNF because they don't add TV time. They overlap.
Why do you think they are playing games in Europe? The main reason is so that they can glue people to the TV from 7:00 a.m. to midnight every Sunday.
Fantasy is the same thing. It keeps us worried about games with teams we don't give a shit about. Bears-Eagles? Who gives a flaming shit. Bears-Eagles, up three in your league with Ryan Mathews going against Alshon Jeffery? Damn right you will pay attention.
Its tongue in cheek, of course I understand its money driven. My point is that it contradicts their efforts to make a safe p[laying environment. Giving guys less than 4 days in between games is ludicrous. They achieve the same damn thing, financially, putting an east coast game at 7pm on a Monday and a West coast game at 10pm. They can even bump it up to 9pm.
How many people in the west coast are going to tune In immediately with a 4:30 start and how many people in the east are watching a game that's starts at 10? 8:30 ET works perfectly for the entire country. You're maximizing viewers with 2 8:30 weekday games.
A happy medium is 2 Monday night games because it simply works. They wouldn't do it week 1 if it didn't.
The game last night had 12.5 million viewers. Week 1 MNF had 13 million for Pitt/Wash and 10.2 for LA/San Fran (2 awful teams with basically 1 player with star power between them in Gurley).
If they truly cared about health and the integrity of these games, TNF can be axed with very little financial downside. They can also alternate between 2 SNF games 1 week and 2 MNF games another week. There's so much they can do and they won't, which is sad.
The #s from 2 MNF games or 2 SNF games won't make them stop TNF. It will just mean they will do 2 MNF and 2 SNF in addition to TNF... and then 2 TNF games! C.R.E.A.M.
As for Edelman, I forget that many/most of you guys are playing PPR.
Can you Flex a TE?
I can flex a TE, but I have other options for flex. namely Lockett, Watkins, or Ajayi.
The next CBA will shake up the NFL and has the potential to make it more watchable. In this case, I can see them only keeping TNF if it comes after both teams BYE week as well as language that dictates atleast 6 days off in between games, keeping MNF in tact as is.
Not everything is up to the owners, they will need to concede some things moving forward.
Quote:
may not always work out on a week to week basis, but Walker is a must start against Oakland, IMO.
Can you Flex a TE?
I can flex a TE, but I have other options for flex. namely Lockett, Watkins, or Ajayi.
Watkins looks like will be out, so I'd scratch him off. So it comes down to one of the TE's and Lockett/Ajayi. That's a toss up for me right now, need to know more about injuries Sunday morning.
Quote:
In comment 13137279 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
may not always work out on a week to week basis, but Walker is a must start against Oakland, IMO.
Can you Flex a TE?
I can flex a TE, but I have other options for flex. namely Lockett, Watkins, or Ajayi.
.
Watkins looks like will be out, so I'd scratch him off. So it comes down to one of the TE's and Lockett/Ajayi. That's a toss up for me right now, need to know more about injuries Sunday morning.
Agreed, ass of now, I'm leaning towards Ajayi - Thanks for the input!
p.s.-- It's a 10-team 1/2 point PPR league.