Leaderboard

  1. Boudewijn

    Boudewijn

    Established Members


    • Points

      8

    • Content Count

      5,312


  2. tonycpsu

    tonycpsu

    Moderators


    • Points

      5

    • Content Count

      6,397


  3. PlayTheWaivers

    PlayTheWaivers

    Established Members


    • Points

      3

    • Content Count

      3,820


  4. Gohawks

    Gohawks

    Established Members


    • Points

      2

    • Content Count

      9,810



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/26/2020 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    That's not a thing you can do with football stats. There's only a limited number of games, and a limited number of snaps in those games, and a limited number of targets in those snaps etc etc - to try and exclude the good games from the bad (or vice versa) and then try to draw conclusions on what is left, is not very useful. The whole nature of (Fantasy) Football is that we're betting on something highly volatile - which is also the attraction and the reason Karen in accounting can win the Championship when she drafted a kicker in the 8th round (bitch). But it also means that the game of "yeah but when he wasn't good he was bad" is a very risky one. Again, he wasn't a WR1 and he's not expected to be one. But he has sneaky upside at limited cost, and that was the point.
  2. 2 points
    He is basically Fitz' Brandon Marshall...just throw it up and get it. BTW- he performed pretty good against White and Gilmore last year. And Casey Hayward. Only concern is volume going down with Tua probably more smartly moving the ball, as well as target distance. There is risk here with a QB change since Tua is not a guarantee...and if Fitz turns back into the pumpkin as usual. I like him though- he's a physical force
  3. 2 points
    Bob Nightengale of USA Today reports that MLB owners have approved to a proposal to give to players which includes a "sliding scale of compensation." What won't be included is the 50-50 revenue split which was agreed to by owners two weeks ago but never formally introduced to the union. Under this new proposal, the players making the most money will take the biggest paycuts while those earning the least will receive most of their guaranteed salaries. The specifics involved aren't yet clear, but players already agreed in March to be paid on a pro-rated basis, essentially forgoing half of their salaries. This new plan was supposed to be sent to the MLBPA in the afternoon as the two sides try to come to an agreement on a possible start date for the season following the coronavirus shutdown. The goal has been a mid-June spring training 2.0 and an early-July Opening Day. SOURCE: USA Today May 26, 2020, 11:14 AM ET
  4. 2 points
    I went wr wr wr last year and ended in 3rd in a 12 man .5ppr league. I found my team was pretty boom or bust although the busts were scoring low 100s while my average was high 120s. It wasn't bad at all but i found it was really annoying struggling for rbs and it was harder to get rbs than i thought. Although i still had really high scoring games so would do agian
  5. 2 points
    To be fair, Vaughn wasn't a thing before he was drafted into Tampa. Nobody said before the draft "oh I can't wait to see who gets Vaughn, that's going to be amazing". Vaughn is only interesting because of the crappy RB play the last 2 years in Tampa, for various reasons. I'm honestly interested though why TS starts topics on a guys who are around 400-500 in ADP in May, including guys that may never see the field again. Again, and I'm not trolling this time, I assume your league must be crazy deep. There are legit 24/32 team leagues out there, but to most of us, including dynasty teams, these guys belong on the wire.
  6. 2 points
    No how in the **** did dmb3684 weasel his way into that draft?
  7. 2 points
    Brady’s forte has joined. His username is @TBB
  8. 2 points
    https://www.vikings.com/news/lunchbreak-pff-provides-inside-look-at-thielen-s-slot-success article says 2017 and 2018 Thielen took 52.7 % of his snaps in the slot. I'm not pro or against Thielen just sharing info that I have found or that I actually seen but with Kubiak and Stefanski bribing in a completely different offense last year he took 29.3% of his snaps in the slot. I also remember at times watching him abuse linebackers, safeties and zone during his dominant runs but one game I seen the Saints say no to this and had Lattimore follow him around, Gilmore does this, Chris Harris but most top CB's stay outside no matter what. This is why Kupp was such a threat in 11 personnel but in 12 personnel his numbers suffered dramatically and he is overpriced this season. I believe Thielen is a good value in the late 4th/early 5th but to expect 2017 and 2018 numbers with the above aforementioned info and the fact that they threw 527 times in 2017 and 606 in 2018 but with the new regime only 466 and similarly to what the Rams moved more to they also now use lots of 12 formations with 2 TE's on the field.
  9. 2 points
    I think he’s very much a buy in the double digit rounds. The injury and inconsistency is finally baked into his adp, which I doubt has ever been below the 7thish round that it was last year. He’s likely disappointed each and every one of us over that’s owned him other than his electric 2nd half of his sophomore season in ‘15 with Tyrod, where he was a top 5 WR for that stretch. He’s still an electric talent, proved that in the AFC champ game and the SB, and he’s still only 26. Burning Sherman on 3rd and 8 is the highlight people remember (rightfully so, it was the play of the game), but he absolutely balled out the entire game on the way to 6/100. He’ll have his duds, everyone you draft in this area will. He’s still the 3rd target on the most potent passing offense in football with size, speed, and route running savvy. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if one of these years he has an 1100/9TD season, then turtles into 550/3 the following year when the expectations return.
  10. 2 points
    What I was saying was that nobody knew for sure what level of response was warranted. I have zero problem admitting some measures had to be taken. I have zero problem admitting the measures have been effective in slowing the virus to some degree. From the beginning, the only thing everyone seemed to agree on was that it was too late to stop it, it was too contagious and difficult to detect to stop it, and so it was going to spread. It was going to infect a lot of people. It was going to kill plenty of people, no matter what we did. The question was, could we mitigate the damage - not by stopping it, which was never on the table. But by slowing it so that the healthcare system didn't get overwhelmed. That was it. That was the goal, and that was the rationale for the measures we took. And that's where the disagreements began. And that's where yes, lots of people immediately started to have questions about the tradeoffs we were about to make. And lots of people didn't - at least not right away. It's slowly dawning on people just how much suffering the lockdowns have caused, and continue to cause. Not just "people losing their jobs and having to collect unemployment". It's the people afraid to go the hospital for anything from important procedures to well checks where some of them are not going to find out they have a major problem until it's too late. It's increased child abuse, suicides, drug abuse, alcoholism, domestic violence, and other crimes that may be associated with the substantial economic reverses that the United States is enduring. Things that will be difficult to quantify but likely to be significant. And have been largely ignored or downplayed from the start by people desperate to justify the extreme nature of what we've done here. That's my main problem - the idea that we should have all just gotten together at the beginning and just agreed that there's this elite group of scientists who know exactly what we ALL ABSOLUTELY MUST DO WITH NO DISCUSSION, NO EXCEPTIONS AND NO COMPLAINING. Because they're the smartest and they know best. Sorry, not how it works. If you're going to destroy people's livelihoods, mental health, completely turn their lives upside down and inside out - by force - you really need to prove that these extreme, one-size-fits-all measures are absolutely necessary.
  11. 1 point
    No....no...no.....a no-brainier pick in the 2nd round is what I'm saying. No way I take him at number 7.
  12. 1 point
    I would be floored, personally.
  13. 1 point
    I would love to do a ffpc league that you are in just to compete with someone from this board and I will enter some yahoo leagues with you if you are using yahoo money? I try to avoid yahoo pro leagues to avoid the rake.
  14. 1 point
    Agreed, even more so if the NBA, NHL, NFL, NCAA, European soccer leagues, MLS, Nascar, UFC, PGA, etc etc are all happening during the pandemic. Baseball will not recover from that.
  15. 1 point
    Low-end QB1 is in his realm of outcomes as long as he's active and starts all year. The 20-40 rushing yards baseline already gives him a passing TD built in. And if he throws for say, 24-26 TDs and keeps the turnovers down, he can add a few rushing scores and be a QB1... He's one of the guys worth waiting on this year. I agree with the poster above that Daniel Jones and Minshew would be a Minshew safe / Jones upside combo. Also- vs Colts at home in JAX week 1. I know the Colts D is probably improved, but I'm sure they can be moved on. Potential for a 46-48 over/under.
  16. 1 point
    Rush is not a good source of information, since he only takes hitters. Every time I see his posts
  17. 1 point
    Ultimately it depends on what pick you have to even be able to attempt it. Not going to pass on the top 5-6 RBs.
  18. 1 point
    I mean if you need two 1B sure...If I just needed one, I wouldn't make the deal...I like Olsen but not totally sold on Bell
  19. 1 point
    I'm way ahead of you. In this chart you can see Dare's big day in the spotlight: I'm not kidding either. Dare had 5 rec against Indy when they were torching the Indy D for 500+ yards, and Winston threw 4 TD to his own team and a 5th one to the Colts for good measure. Winston threw it to his own team, to the Colts, cheerleaders, random people in the crowd, you get a target, she gets a target, everyone gets a target!!
  20. 1 point
    I have the #7 overall in a BB draft tonight. I have him in serious consideration for the pick. Know full well he won't make it back to me in the 2nd.
  21. 1 point
    I understand and others believe exactly how you do regarding politicians and the media, but I get the sense you blame liberal media and liberal politicians for our response and that's where you lose me. The virus is disastrous and because we were not adequately prepared and didn't take more drastic action early enough we were left with limited options and imo was going to be very painful no matter what. Herd immuity mentality response would've been impossible for our leaders to sell to the general public imo. Sure, in hindsight we could have done somethings differently, but in real time don't blame our leaders for making errors with no time to think through every possible consequence of these actions. Very difficult to be free and safe during a pandemic. My personal preference is to err on the side of less infections and death but understand you and others disagree and I'm empathetic to all dealing with economic hardship just no way to reconcile the two equally. Fear is a powerful emotion and I've always said what sex can't sell fear will. In regards to this virus and our response idk, I mean if you don't want the virus to spread and believe getting people to stay home is wise then some fear is useful. Would be great if we all responded to danger in the same way and be rational about things, and could say only the irresponsible stay home. Unfortunately we don't and couldn't so we to had convey a message of urgency to get the desired reponse to limit the spread the best we could. We were never under total lockdown with so many considered essential so the orders to stay home were to meant to be broad to get the rest of us to stay home as much as possible. Even now, we have to take in consideration how many people will take the necessary precautions to prevent outbreaks and unnecessary death when making decisions on loosening restrictions. Feel free to to respond, but I'm done on this subject. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the correct reponses to this crisis.
  22. 1 point
    If by "ignored or downplayed" you mean "asking those making claims of unspeakable harm to provide data to support their position", then that tracks with my experience as well. However, many of the things you've cited here aren't "tradeoffs" related to lockdowns -- they're things that would have happened as much or a lot more in an alternate scenario with no lockdowns. A massive amount of social distancing was already happening prior to lockdowns as people realized the danger. All shelter in place orders do is compel the most reluctant constituents to participate. Even without them, mass layoffs were going to happen as businesses dealt with a massive drop in business, a drop that we can easily see in data like restaurant bookings in the states that waited until later to implement lockdowns (or never implemented them): States can allow businesses to reopen, but they can't compel people to frequent businesses. Much of the economic harm folks like yourself are attributing to the lockdowns are actually attributable to the disease itself. Sweden famously hasn't locked down, and their economy is in the toilet, as bad or worse than their Scandinavian neighbors. As for people forgoing routine checkups or elective procedures: that's certainly a thing that happened at the peak times of outbreaks in certain hard-hit areas, but, again, with the hospitals already at or near capacity due to the virus, failure to social distance would have only made this worse and forced their hand anyway due to a lack of resources. How much of a difference is there between what would have been the natural amount of denial of service from an overloaded system as compared to the proactive reservation of the resources for COVID-19? I'd be interested in seeing data on that. But you can't just attribute every canceled appointment or procedure to the lockdowns instead of the virus when the virus was going to be worse without the lockdowns. That leaves us with the various mental health-related societal harms you speak of, some of which can surely be assigned to the economic consequences of the disease. But, again, the lockdowns aren't causing the disease, nor are they causing much of the economic slowdown related to it. So, again, we need to disentangle how much of the economic harm that motivates the suicides, domestic violence, drug abuse, etc. is a result of the lockdowns, and. as you allude to, that's hard to quantify. I'm sure some economists are working on a paper comparing the mental health effects in areas that locked down vs. areas that didn't, and I'd love to see those results, but until we have them, doesn't it stand to reason that a lot of this was going to happen anyway? This is an idea that exists primarily in the minds of critics like yourself, who find it easier to engage with this caricatured defense of social distancing and lockdowns rather than the defense that was actually present at the time. There is always room for debate and dissent when we're talking about a massive governmental intervention, but it has to be informed debate and dissent. Instead, what we heard early on in this thread was complete nonsense. It's just the flu, perhaps a few hundred will die, we'll be playing baseball in early May... It was basically a turbo-charged version of American exceptionalism whereby our might and prosperity as a nation will make us impervious to the disease that had already killed thousands. This was a viewpoint that did not merit serious consideration as compared to what was at the time an evolving but strong consensus that mass social distancing was needed.
  23. 1 point
    Overvalued=those with limted nfl experience undervalued=the vets that have done it before Think coronavirus lockdown gonna be a lot of championships won with the average ages around 27-30
  24. 1 point
    Him being a #4 would be highly disappointing. I expect #3 with a real chance at #2. He's got tremendous K's, slight ground ball tilt, and somehow doesn't give up homeruns (super low HR/FB%?). His BBs are the only cause of concern, there's no guarantee he will improve but I would take a shot on it.
  25. 1 point
    Man that last pitch is so dirty. I wonder what the 90mph third offering he has is. Change up? Cutter? I wonder if he's abandoned his slider completely since the TJS and moved to strictly curve balls.
  26. 1 point
    Undervalued = Hayden Hurst 1) Dirk Koetter's pass-heavy offense 2) He's taking over Austin Hooper's role in which Hooper was a Top 3 TE before he got injured 3) Hurst is more talented than Hooper. Falcons traded a 2nd round pick for him for a reason. 4) Julio and Ridley on the outside guarantees him 1-on-1 matchups over the middle. Top 5 TE finish wouldn't surprise me. He's the guy to target if you want to wait on TE (smart play this year) and steal one late.
  27. 1 point
    He's currently my highest best ball share, people are actively looking for reasons to not buy in. I'm just going with it, give me more of last year buddy!
  28. 1 point
    Man so talented coming out of college and looked pretty good pre injuries on the bills too. After week 1 last year, I thought he might be back. At this point, I’m not sure he’s fantasy relevant and the talk of aliens and teleporting is pretty concerning
  29. 1 point
    with the shortened season and the certainty of tons of double headers a 6-man rotation is all but guaranteed for all teams at this point. this opens the door for kopech to be a shoe in to start the season in the majors. in my opinion this guy is the most slept on player going into this years draft. he has legit top 5 SP potential if he stays healthy. ill be drafting him/reaching for him in all my leagues this year.
  30. 1 point
    This And even with fewer receptions- almost a given- they should be on the field more with Minshew in his second year. With more TD plunges. 3rd round I’ll seriously consider 4th round DRAFT IMMEDIATELY
  31. 1 point
    Fault is not binary. Let's try this in a non-pandemic context. An arsonist sets fire to a duplex in a small town. Two fire companies take the call, each one assuming responsibility for one unit in the building. Company A shows up immediately and begins putting the fire out, while Company B wonders if it was really the owner's responsibility to prevent and extinguish the fire. Eventually, seeing that the fire is engulfing both units, Company B finally arrives, and begins fighting their half of the blaze. At the end of the day, the first unit is damaged but salvageable, while the second is a total loss. Is it the arsonist's fault for setting the blaze? Certainly. But arson happens, which is why we have fire departments, and they have a responsibility to protect people and property even when the fire was preventable. And frankly, the analogy works whether you call Company A South Korea and Company B the United States, or whether you call Company A the State of Washington and Company B the State of New York. Those entities that responded earlier and more forcefully, be they foreign nations or US states, have generally had fewer lives lost and a quicker return to normalcy than those that abdicated their responsibility or eschewed expert opinion. China did a horrible job containing the virus. Also, the feds didn't take it seriously. Also, many state governors failed to do their part. All of these things can be true.
  32. 1 point
    You seem to want to just place blame. So tell me specifically who you feel is responsible for our failures in our response to this pandemic from the beginning to now.
  33. 1 point
    What did people not know? That social distancing is effective in slowing the transmission of communicable disease? Sorry, but that's simply false. Social distancing has been used to slow the transmission of disease since the Roman Empire! Now, did we know at the outset of this particular outbreak how effective social distancing would be? No, we did not. But when scientists don't have an exact experiment, they infer from similar outbreaks, as shown here and here, These are real world epidemiological studies of similar outbreaks, not toy computer models, making your silly attempt to label it as the work of computer scientists based on the fact that a single 2006 study used a 14 year-old's computer simulation nothing but a blatant attempt to rewrite history. Look, anyone at this point who believes that social distancing can't slow the spread of flu-like illnesses deserves to be scorned as much as any flat-earther or chemtrail believer, particularly in light of the peer-reviewed results I linked to a couple of pages ago showing that lockdowns have been proven to be effective in this pandemic, in the United States, even when you control for the impact of voluntary social distancing. Does that mean that the strict lockdowns have to stay in place until there's an effective vaccine? No. But what it does mean is that your statement "nobody really knew" is only true in the most narrow sense -- that there was no experiment proving it effective against this particular virus at the time. Now there is. If you want to argue about the comparative level of suffering of hundreds of thousands of additional deaths vs. the economic suffering of people losing their jobs and having to collect unemployment, we can have that conversation, but enough of this "nobody really knew" bunk. Epidemiologists knew as much as one can know anything about a new disease, and their approach has been proven correct. It remains to be seen how much we can reopen and still keep the pandemic at bay, and people do need to get back to work, but it's not even clear that easing lockdowns is going to bring the jobs back when so many are voluntarily choosing to social distance, as these results from Georgia show. Your statement that the burden of proof lies on those who wish to continue to control the disease is baseless. We can replace income and we can forgive debt. We can't replace lives lost.
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    oh bless..... Stats without context will mislead you every time. So let’s add some. Denver doesn’t sniff the first 3 SB games without repeated heroics from JE- Cherrypicking aside. 5 super bowl appearances in 16 years. 31 career 4th quarter comebacks, 40 game winning drives. Including when Denver needed it the most- time and again. The Broncos owned the AFC West for the better part of 15 years...and were a yearly threat to go to the SB under Elway. He shattered every franchise record. People forget how resourceful John was on the ground too. He wasn’t Lamar Jackson or Vick— no designed runs or rpo. Elway averaged almost 300 rushing yards a year ...mostly when Denver needed a first down. Compare that to Marino who had as many negative rushing seasons as positive. He stood back and slung it but wasn’t able to get the job done when the passing game broke down. John did, with mediocre talent on offense most of his career. He could beat you in so many ways and was never out of the game. Legend
  36. 1 point
  37. 1 point
    Hm... Linking to a libertarian think tank is a bit on the nose for a "Nefarious Industrialist", no? Ah well, let's see how long we have to read before we get to our first untruth... Wait, what? Social distancing as a strategy to respond to contagion is as old as leper colonies. Using state power to compel people to do it may not be compatible with the American Institute for Economic Research's world view, but it certainly wasn't "dreamed up" by "computer scientists and theoretical physicists". This was an epidemiological response, developed by experts in infectious disease. The rest is going to get a big "TL;DR" from me, as I've read more than enough "markets bad, individual choice good" in my day to know that when there's a bald-faced lie about the opposing view in the early going it's not going to end well There is definitely a case to be made on the harmful economic effects of lockdowns, and that's a fine conversation to have here, but surely we can do it without bringing in people paid to come to the conclusion that anything that interferes with the smooth operation of capital markets is bad, no?
  38. 1 point
    Well, again, referring back to my league: we get eight keepers free and clear. You can keep more by giving back draft picks starting with your first available. But that’s not what’s really going on in this situation. I think if someone is keeping below the ‘minimum’ number of keepers then that’s on them. Therefore, they should not get the two additional picks until AFTER the draft.
  39. 1 point
    Dang right about that: not only did Minshew Mania have the third-highest percentage of catchable deep-ball passes (60%, tied with Brees and Daniel Jones) BUT he also completed the second-highest percentage of them (49%, behind Jimmy G and ahead of Mahomes and Brees). Needless to say, I’ll be targeting Chark aggressively everywhere.
  40. 1 point
    Your Hill statement is flat out wrong. He only has two games under 50 yards in the last two seasons. I already debunked this in the Hill thread: "In terms of consistency, last season he had 0 games under 7.5 points (half-PPR and not including the ones he left due to injury). The season prior he had 3 such games and the season before that 4. So 7 games over 3 years. Over that time span he only has 1 game under 5. Julio has 6 such games with 3 under 5. Adams has 5 games over that stretch with 1 under 5 as well ( I don't know why you wouldn't factor last season into it). Yes, Hill is boom or bust. However, his bust isn't bust in the traditional sense. His bust games tend to still be sufficient enough. He's not going to get you 30 points and then 2-3 points. He's going to get you 30 points and likely 7-10 points." Hill has also played in 92% of his career games. Injury prone my a**...
  41. 1 point
    Bad timing and delivery by Snell doesn’t change the fact the owners made an agreement and now are trying to squeeze players for more. Think reading anything else into it is just get off my lawn rhetoric...
  42. 1 point
    No man....just say NO.
  43. 1 point
    He looked great as a rookie last season and I am definitely looking to take him at his current ADP. That being said it's pretty bold to think JuJu doesn't put up better numbers with a healthy Ben.
  44. 1 point
    No matter what side of the coin you are on this is simply not a valid way to look at the issue. Of course there is going to be an initial spike in cases. That’s what happens when more people go outside. However, what needs to be looked at is: 1) Does the initial spike result in overwhelming hospitals (remember, this was the main reason argued for the shutdown) 2) What is the impact on deaths long term? Just because there is a spike doesn’t mean more people will die over the long term. For all we know, it can be like walking vs running a marathon. You reach the same distance just at different time frames. 3) What are the improvements to the economy from reopening? How does it effect quality of life, small businesses, mental health, employment, education, physical health, and other factors? You look at all the factors and then you can determine if it is the right move or not. That’s something that takes time to know. However, Sweden was treated as some horrible country and let’s just say they aren’t looking nearly as bad as some models made it out to be. My point is, you can’t just say “see there’s a spike thus opening is bad.” Obviously there’s an increase in cases initially but it’s not that simple.
  45. 1 point
    Honest question for everybody.. and while i realize no one here is a scientist (hell, even they dont really know what is happening) we all have opinions. For example, i originally expected all states/provinces to place strict lockdown rules and that the population would use common sense and adhere to these rules. This wasnt the case, therefore, all my expectations about seasons resuming shortly after failed to be proven true. I personally now stand in a position where i am questioning what is happening... from 3000 people protests in California, to states not locking down, to re-opening too soon, to small protests in Vancouver and here in Toronto. I get it, economy is drowning, people are broke, families need to be fed and rent needs to be paid, but, at what point do we just play Russian Roulette and throw everyone out there and people (you and i) become content with the fact we may get COVID-19.. we may not get COVID-19.. and get on with lives.. if we ever do confidently? beyond that, where do professional sports leagues stand in terms of just canceing the year? NHL,MLB,NBA all have expressed confidence that seasons will take place.. but, if states like Georgia who have re-opened are experiencing spikes in cases, wouldnt that be the same for otherS? therefore reducing the chances of sports returning? in short, i no longer have a genuine opinion on anything..just a ton of questions.. and am playing the wait and see game at this point.. humans are dangerous to our fellow species and to our planet.
  46. 1 point
    Here is a tale of two QB's. Here's how they are currently being ranked by "fantasy experts": QB 1 is listed as the #7 QB by 7 of the 10 experts. QB 2 is listed somewhere in the #21--#29 range by 9 of the 10 experts. Here's how QB 1 and QB 2 actually performed in 2019, with their weekly finishes amongst QB listed (format of all TD's being worth 6 points). As you can see below, QB 1 was slightly better on a weekly basis than QB 2, with an average weekly finish of 13.73 compared to 14.86. QB 1 is Josh Allen. QB 2 is Gardner Minshew. Now obviously, more goes into 2020 fantasy rankings than just the stats from 2019. It's a new season. Allen now has Diggs added to his receiving core and that's of a big move for the Bills. As for Minshew, well, we still don't know for certain if he'll open the season as the starter...or if he'll keep the job should he falter. But with that said, IMO either Allen is being ranked way too high for 2020...or Minshew is being ranked way too low...or both.