natti

Established Members
  • Content count

    2,711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

264 Excellent

About natti

  • Rank
    On the Ballot
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    No
  1. agreed. although he's had three terrible fantasy performances thus far, he's been banged up and two of those games were against top defenses (i.e., sea and stl). moreover, he has a history of starting slowly and finishing strong.
  2. it means that he might be active for this week's game.
  3. it's unlikely that it's the first time that he's had first team reps in practice. in fact, i saw pics of him taking handoffs from romo earlier in the season.
  4. it doubtful that he's active until someone gets hurt. they like their other 3 rbs and cmike doesn't play special teams
  5. it's definitely not a positive development for freeman, especially if he can't suit up this week. i mean, it's never a good thing when someone more talented than you is getting the first crack.
  6. Well then, in that case he has three unshakable players in front of him. Case closed. dmc is injury prone/ in decline, dunbar is nothing more than a cop back/ passing game specialist, and randle isn't "reasonably" talented, imo. Oh, so Randle isn't "reasonably talented" and to answer to that the Cowboys went ahead and named him their starter? They didn't stop there though, they were so concerned that they went out and flipped a conditional seventh round pick for a guy who may have hit wavers and who was unable to do absolutely anything in one of the strongest systems in the league? You know what, you guys are right I guess, the Cowboys are complete imbeciles? (1) it's been my understanding that the cowboys believed that their oline/ run system could make just about any rb into a superstar, even a jag like randle. (2) if they were so confident in randle et al, then they wouldn't have made the trade for cmike, been rumored to have interest in ball/ west, etc. (3) read the articles that i posted above. it explains why cmike lost favor in sea, and why he might be a better fit in dal.
  7. Well then, in that case he has three unshakable players in front of him. Case closed. dmc is injury prone/ in decline, dunbar is nothing more than a cop back/ passing game specialist, and randle isn't "reasonably" talented, imo.
  8. for those questioning why he played behind turbin, etc. http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/christine-michaels-inconsistency-proved-to-be-his-downfall-with-seahawks/?utm_content=buffer7f801&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=owned_buffer_sports
  9. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000523751/article/will-michael-emerge-as-no-1-in-cowboys-backfield
  10. for those still prepping for drafts, which round will you consider picking cmike?
  11. once they realize that it wasn't just the line last season (i.e., murray was a special player afterall), trust in cmike will come quite quickly. i mean, it isn't inconceivable that they lose to nyg and then get beaten by kelly/ murray in week two. opening the season with back-to-back divisional games is pretty rough.
  12. you, really, think it's that simple? I think it's even simpler than that. If Michael is better than the both of them, he becomes the workhorse, Randle goes back to being the 2nd string, and McFadden is given his walking papers. But what makes anyone think Chrissy will be better? I give Dunbar a better shot. Chrissy is, at least, a month and 3 screw ups away cmike is much less than a month away from being a potential contributor. the rb playbook is one of the easiest, if not the easiest to learn. hence it isn't rare to see fa or practice squad rbs signed on a tues and active on sunday.
  13. it was my understanding that they didn't go all-in on a top-tier fa (e.g., murray, mathews) because they felt the line could make anybody a superstar, even a jag like randle.
  14. it would be nice if the writer of the blurb was noted, say, by an initial at the end. i say that because i give more credence to the analysis from some writers than others (e.g., i prefer gallagher to bruski or doc).
  15. this^. bruski's nomination for fantasy bball writer of the year is more of an indictment on the fantasy bball expert community than anything. however, the dearth of competent expert analysis is part of why i like fantasy bball more than football and baseball. the latter two games are saturated with high-end analytical tools (e.g., writers and projection systems), so we have reached the point where a passive player can be highly effective just by following expert advise, etc. that's not the case for fantasy basketball, however, which opens up big profit opportunities for diligent players.