jwk1325

Members
  • Content count

    453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

About jwk1325

  • Rank
    Veteran

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

548 profile views
  1. Ever since that White for DJ trade thread, I can't tell whether your posts are legitimate or trolling. Regardless, having picked up Samuels for his TE eligibility (Yahoo), I hope you're right. But, like others, I'm curious where you're seeing a report that Conner is done for the fantasy playoffs. Could he be? Sure, but I don't think that's anywhere close to certain. Also, like we just saw with last week's "league winner"/"spend all your FAAB!!" addition (Ware), Samuels' value is even less certain. Winning 3-4 games in the playoffs is tough - give me the bye for sure.
  2. Jaylen Samuels as a TE

    Agreed, agreed. No chance I'd play in this league again.
  3. Need to start one in superflex PPR WHIR

    I've never played in a superflex league, but I feel like you have to go with Josh Allen, right?
  4. COMMISH TRADE VETO DECISION

    Unfortunately, this response kind of makes it seem like there was a particular answer that you were looking/hoping to get...
  5. I mean, I get wanted to play the matchups/go with your gut, but I just don't see any way you can bench the guy that got you to the playoffs once they finally start. As for your other positions, I think you look pretty set. Unless you play in a Yahoo league, where Samuels has TE eligibility. If so, I'd move him to TE and flex either Drake or Moore.
  6. COMMISH TRADE VETO DECISION

    Was a trade deadline agreed upon by everyone/a majority in the league and then simply not accurately set, or never discussed at all? For instance, our league agreed on November 10th as the deadline, and it wouldn't matter if one was somehow proposed/accepted thereafter - it would cancelled. If not, I don't think there is any way this can be vetoed. First, the 12th place team is technically still playing for something - I know I wouldn't want the loser's trophy. Second, the trade is not only fair but favors the Gus/Adams/Lockett side. If the 6th place team wants to unload his bench to stack his starting lineup for the playoffs, that's his decision. And if he's truly "unloading his bench", he's taking a big risk. I think he deserves to be rewarded for it. Letting the trade go through and changing the rules/settings next season is what will maintain the integrity of the league.
  7. If healthy, I think you have to go Adams. Alshon hasn't had a double digit PPR game since week 7. Might mean he's due, but I'd feel more comfortable with Adams. With that said, watch closely for any injury news and be ready to insert AJ quick if need be.
  8. 2019 Draft Strategy

    Agreed, 100%. This year, 14 RBs and 10 WRs were taken in the first 3 rounds of my draft, while 3 of each would've been if not kept (Gurley, Kamara, DJ, MT, Hill, Diggs). Of the 17 RBs, I'd label 9 as true "busts" (regardless of reason - holdout, injury issues or performance), and that's not counting Gordon and Hunt who provided great value for 12 weeks but have now crippled most owners at the worst time. Really only 5 backs (Gurley, Barkley, Zeke, CMC and Kamara) drafted in the rounds 1-3 have been true studs, with Mixon as a solid but not spectacular RB1/2. Of the 13 WRs, AJG is the only one who'd I'd call a bust (and even there, you got 8 straight weeks of top 5 value).
  9. While I get you're new to this, RunCMC, it won't take long for you to realize that the overwhelming majority of people in this forum agree that the number 1 characteristic of a "mickey mouse league" is vetoing trades for any reason except collusion. Regardless, I don't know how else to get across that this was a fair trade when it was made, and that you're only now able to say which side won. While I think a lot of fantasy "experts" are idiots, for our purposes, the weekly trade value charts put out by CBS and FantasyPros may help: Week 5, CBS had CMC at 32, Cook 18 and Ingram 17 (combined you get 35 to 32), while FP had CMC 58, Cook 29 and Ingram 22 (combined you get 51 to 58). Week 6, CBS had CMC at 35, Cook 23 and Ingram 17 (combined you get 40 to 35), while FP had CMC 58, Cook 35 and Ingram 18 (combined you get 53 to 58). Week 7, CBS had CMC at 35, Cook 17 and Ingram 29 (combined you get 46 to 35), while FP had CMC 52, Cook 18 and Ingram 39 (combined you get 57 to 52). Week 8, CBS had CMC at 29, Cook 15 and Ingram 21 (combined you get 36 to 29), while FP had CMC 39, Cook 13 and Ingram 35 (combined you get 48 to 39). Couple of important things here - First, notice how the ratings vary between the two sites? That's called a difference of opinion, and it can happen. Second, notice how the the ratings fluctuate week-to-week? That's because players experience both hot and cold streaks, and without the benefit of knowing what someone will do a month or 2 into the future, you have to rate them based on their performances in real time (this is also where the concept of "buy low"/"sell high" comes from - it's kind of like the stock market). Third, notice how both sites would have considered this trade fair, or even slightly in favor of the Cook/Ingram side. That's because it was. Now I know you're going to claim you didn't read this, and respond with something sarcastic that doesn't make sense or say "stfu bro!", but on the off chance you take the time to think this through and realize how wrong you are - about pretty much everything - you're welcome.
  10. Who to start for qb? Whir!

    The fact that you asked means something made you think Brees was going to have a bad game. While a hindsight comment won't help you at all, keep in mind moving forward that sometimes you have to listen to your gut, regardless of what others might say.
  11. Pick my WR2 *WHIR*

    If your WR2 options are Lockett, Fitz and Reynolds in a 10-team league, my advice is to start working on next year's draft. Unless the consolation prize holds some sort of significant value for you.
  12. Your responses are almost as generic/idiotic as the display name you found in some Matthew Berry article. My guess? You did read my response. Worst case, you couldn't comprehend it. Best case, it made too much sense. Either way we're both wasting our time with each other.
  13. You start by saying I'm wrong, but continue on to essentially agree with/confirm everything I said. In hindsight, it's easy to now say that Cook has been a no-show bust. But much like the infuriating case with Fournette most of the season, MIN downplayed the severity of the situation, initially calling an injury that cost Cook 5 games week-to-week. Look at the way Fournette stormed back after his terrible/injury plagued start to the season. Considering Cook was drafted just outside of the top tier of RBs (and ahead of CMC in many leagues), it wouldn't be that unreasonable for someone to believe his initial week-to-week prognosis and think he'd produce back-end RB1 numbers once healthy. Again - as we both seem to agree - it all depends on the circumstances. But yes, I do want to talk numbers. Based on a combination of rationality - I doubt this trade was made recently with CMC scoring 124 points the past 4 weeks - and what looked to me like a chronological list, I guessed that the trade likely occurred around the middle of the fantasy regular season. After an inefficient/lucky 17.8 point performance in week 5, CMC's touches plummeted in weeks 6 and 7, resulting in 0.5 ppr point totals of 10.1 and 11, and, as I said before, he ended up on a whole lot of sell lists (and no, I'm not a CMC hater - I bought him during this stretch and have been smiling ever since). Meanwhile, Ingram stormed back from his suspension, getting 22 touches and 20+ points, before heading into his bye looking like the same 1B RB that he was to Kamara last season. That, combined with the potential upside of a healthy Cook, would make for a very reasonable/fair trade - at that time. With the exception of true win-win trades based on positional needs, trades occur because 1 owner thinks ABC and another thinks XYZ, and the entire point is to be the person that is right. Just because someone ultimately won the trade, it doesn't mean that the trade should have been vetoed. I apologize for veering way off topic, but the 2 things that really irk me on this site are bald/uninformed assertions about who won/lost a trade and comments on which non-colluding trades should've been vetoed.
  14. Trade Got Vetoed, WHIR

    This is one of the more ridiculous veto issues I've ever seen. Apparently some people don't understand how big a suspension is at this point in the season - and especially in these particular circumstances. There is 1 game left in the regular season, and it's win or go home for the Fournette owner. What good is he when he returns if the guy doesn't make the playoffs? Even if he was jockeying for playoff position, some may value 4 games of high-end RB2 production (after all, Michel did go off for 145 total yards and a TD in week 12, and was just removed from NE's injury report) over 3 games of RB1. What this sounds like to me is a bunch of immature league-mates crying because they didn't think to take advantage of the situation.
  15. It's always easy to say a trade was a robbery in hindsight. CMC did not look good weeks 5-8, and there was a lot of chatter about him being a player to sell. It's also tough to gauge without knowing all the circumstances, especially 2-1 trades at the same position. If someone is rolling out a terrible RB2, it might make sense for them to sell off a stud. While Proto definitely got the better end of the deal, it absolutely should not have been vetoed. Same goes for the Chubb and Cook for Hunt trade. Overall, this looks like a great job of drafting, playing the wire and aggressively pursuing/negotiating trades.