Established Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,280 Excellent

About MillenWasmyFavorite

  • Rank
    On the Ballot

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?

Recent Profile Visitors

2,732 profile views
  1. In terms of what? I wouldn't hang my hat on that Precaution? pain management? (he didn't have ice, he was on bench, he was laughing and joking -- typical factors to assess pain) Furthermore, simply knowing his injury doesn't give us any deeper understanding of anyone else's -- nor does it introduce him to another imaginary set of parameters that magically expands the his range of performance outcomes.
  2. I agree. we should be using simply logic. If he plays, his injury is neither significant or severe -- contrary to what is being spun here. If he plays, the RANGE of performance outcomes is no different than any other dude stepping foot on the field. There is no meaningful way to assess or analyze additional risk (in terms of range of outcomes) you are taking by starting him if the Vikings are willing to do as much. Just because there is an enclave of Fantasy football players that viewed his sitting on a bench as ailing and have a hunch (consistent with every hunch, every week prior to this week), doesn't expand the realm of assumed risk if the Vikings trot him out there in full capacity. People are asking for simple logic, yet want to glean medical details from cameramen on MNF so they can provide a level of insight that means almost nothing. SMH.
  3. I'm not able to reconcile a player having a significant injury, yet playing. Are you? I wouldn't make the argument you are attributing to me. The argument being made is if Cook plays, he has a greater range of performance outcomes due to his injury. The argument is supported by hyperbole (SEVERE and SIGNIFICANT) of the injury itself and a generous view of league wide health at week 13. All these dudes are hurt. If Cook's injury allows him to play -- the willingness to start him can't possibly be altered by assigning him a "greater range" of performance outcomes than someone with a non disclosed injury.
  4. There's no meaningful difference to suggest that if Cook plays he has a different set of outcomes than any other player/running back. I don't find the made up range of health compelling -- on whole, this is what is being argued: No player is 100% - you agree Players are 80-90% - your point, although made up (All players within this range are subject to an imaginary set of performance outcomes due to health) Cook is below 80% - your point, although made up (All players below 80% are subject to an additional and imaginary set of performance outcomes due to health) This is very near the people who have said Cook would get injured all year -- there is no penalty for being wrong each week -- now we must honor the post-correct-conjecture with more panic supported by more pseudo science.
  5. Sure, I can always look for reasons to validate an argument. Or I can play Cook if he plays or bench if he doesn't. I think most of my league mates would be a proponent for outside analysis -- they'd like capitalize SEVERE, too.
  6. We happen to know his injury explicitly. All these players are injured to one degree or another. There are no 100%ers on the field at this point in this season. Whether or not a player pings that next echelon of severity is a dice roll that we're all rolling on every player. I know we want to validate Rotoworld honorary doctorhood, but we are really trying to feign an appreciation for a pretty debatable level of insight.
  7. Such a pointless post. "Wide range of outcomes this Sunday" Literally said about any player.
  8. I don't think he was crying. Think about how loud that stadium was, pretty clear he was yelling loud enough for the doctors to hear.
  9. Any Suns fans? Is the spice gone? Seems like pretty distinct drop off recently (not including last night's dumpster fire)
  10. It is difficult to occur from a poke in the eye. Think about how many times in your life with everyone you know that have been poked in the eye. Think about how many games played over last 10 years and how many cases of detached retina there are. Seems like there a bunch of mothers posting in this thread. The WebMD is strong here; think about this helpful range: "Corneal abrasion or DETACHED RETINA"
  11. LOL Detached retina. Wow, SFEKTZ laying it on thick. Boxers sometimes suffer detached retinas. We talking about a dude that got poked in the eye -- not a haymaker to the face. Even your range of injury is bananas: "He either suffered an abrasion or a FULL TILT BLUNT TRAUMA"
  12. One game in and people calling them dead in the water. People really underplaying Curry being one of the most selfless superstars of all time. KD's fam-indictment more reflective on him than GSW. They played a team that will take time to figure out. Clippers look insanely good. Signed, Someone who doesn't even like the Warriors.
  13. Ya, Plenty of people will see reasons to keep him. I'm just not one of them.
  14. I dropped. For what the Pels have and what they look like, I don't know where he fits on the offense. Additionally, if Ingram handles the ball that much, it's definitely going to depress Favors' potential. I don't think there was a single PnR where Ingram even imagined he'd pass it off. Esp. Not to Favors.