• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

169 Excellent

About DeliciousGravy

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?

Recent Profile Visitors

456 profile views
  1. Hypothetical: if AB signs with Seattle, and has no ban (!), where would he go in re-draft leagues? (either WR rank or round)
  2. So (this is an extreme example) I am pick 12 in a 12-team full-PPR with 1.5PPR for TE that has QB/2RB/2WR/TE/3FLEX/1QBFLEX as the starting line-up, meaning I can potentially start 6xWR and 2xRB each week. Now at pick 12 I'm guessing CMC, Barkley, Elliott, Kamara, Cook, Thomas, Henry, Mixon, and maybe Sanders are off the board. Let's say Lamar and Mahomes are taken as well. That leaves me the choice between two of Kelce, Adams, Julio, Drake, and maybe Aaron Jones. A strictly "balanced" approach would be to pass on two of these three 100+ target guys and instead go for an RB who has been a standout for half a season, or another who is a big TD-regression candidate. In full-PPR I think I'm better to WR-WR at this junction and if what I think happens happens (guys get too fixated on RB in 3/4) I can start with WRx4 and still get guys who can be useful later. Now I will admit, I pulled this approach from 6th last year and took my first RB in the 9th round (Ekeler); I'm not quite foolish enough to think that is a reproducible strategy. But the alternative I guess is reaching to find someone early and passing on a much better player at another position. Of course, drafting in the top 5 makes your decision easy; RB all the way. But even from 5th onwards, you wonder at what point MT outranks everyone (similar to 2018 when AB was the standout WR vs say, MG3 in the mid-first). Anyway I see the logic, I do agree with FFCollusion earlier that you can't "force" the strategy; it kinda has to come to you.
  3. I'll follow-up on all this tonight when like you I'm back in front of my PC but I suppose that's the "best-case" scenario; superior WRs then minimal draft capital (in terms of ADP) invested in RBs that can then hold their own. Granted yes, the risk is pretty high but (anecdotally) some years of late have been a 3/4th round RB kill-zone.
  4. Depends on the league. Standard leagues, very difficult to do. Deeper leagues with 2/3/4 flexes? Absolutely it can be done, albeit those RB's absolutely have to hit.
  5. I wrote a post on this last year (linked below) which I'll summarise the key points from: "0RB lite" is a drafting theory that looks to take your FLEX WR before or at the time of your first RB. This strategy can work, but I think you need MINIMUM two, probably three (if not all four) of these conditions to be met: 1) You draft in a half- or (ideally) full-PPR league 2) Your leaguemates are generally RB-heavy in their approach 3) You have a pick in the back half of the draft 4) You play in a 2RB/3WR/FLEX league rather than a 2RB/2WR/FLEX league I played in a league last year that was super-deep and full-PPR (QB/2RB/2WR/TE/4FLEX) which essentially meant you could find two waiver-wire satellite's to fill the RB spots, and dominate with 6xWR depth. The theory is grounded in the evidence that WR outperforms RB at almost all ADP's; the massive caution you make with it is that it really doesn't work in standard as those elite RB's crush your 6-catch guys. The alternate if you have an early pick is to take the elite RB and hammer WR/TE until you're taking upside-only RB lottery tickets in the final rounds.
  6. Then why on earth give a 29yo bit-part gimmick player $21m with $16m guaranteed rather than let him play on his tender? Who are they bidding against? And in what galaxy is he comparable to the league MVP?
  7. Serious question: if the NFL was being re-drafted tomorrow, would you take Cam Newton or Derek Carr first? They won't do it as they don't have the cap space, and it would mutiny the locker room, but I'd probably take Cam.
  8. So why only pay him $21m over 2 years? If he's *that* good, should be on $35m+. Unless he's not a bigger Lamar Jackson. Which would make sense, as his current body of work makes him qualified to do up Lamar's boots.
  9. If you're on this train when Carroll finally decides to #freerussellwilson, hold on for the ride. He still remains criminally under-used.
  10. You mean like the BBC, which is owned by the British Government? Or wait, are they communists too? There was a time when calling out "are you a communist?" was cool. It was the 1940's/50's. This record you're playing is beyond broken. You speak in hyperbole, you throw lots of adjectives around, there's lots of FEAR and CONTROL and BIG CAPITAL LETTERS but there is little to no coherent argument or FACT.
  11. If you're looking at me as "remain on lockdown" sector, the point has always been that the spread of COVID was out-stripping the ability to treat it, and that social distancing alone was not going to be enough of a measure in the short term to stop it. Additional measures were going to be required to slow it down - hence the lockdown. Now that there has been restriction of people movement (and hopefully R <1), the restrictions can be removed if there exists the ability to contact-trace and test anybody who wants it (i.e. try and determine a life R-value as best as possible). If the R-value starts to spiral out of control again, the restrictions return. It's never been about killing jobs or economies, it's been about getting the fire under control. Nobody - and I mean, nobody - wants to see people out of jobs, in economic ruin, in blind panic. Our (my?) concern was that the alternate was worse. Lockdown sucks balls. Massive, giant hairy man-balls. If the testing is there, and the contact-tracing is there, and people can be trusted (!) to behave in a responsible manner, let's get back to it.
  12. When did Russian bots take such an interest in fantasy football? Is this how the 2020 election is going to be influenced? It's certainly a creative approach. I bet they don't even know what they're getting outraged at anymore, just that the MO this morning was "outrage!" and that whatever happens, it's my fault.
  13. There's multiple parts to this essentially. He is the victim of: 1) Bad timing in free agency with teams being unable to evaluate him and his injury history 2) A large number of QB's drafted in the last three years enlisted as teams' starters now: since 2017 that list reads Trubisky, Watson, Mahomes, Mayfield, Darnold, Allen, Jackson, Murray, Jones, Haskins, Lock, Stidham, Minshew. Over a third of the league has guys playing on rookie deals. This year has included Burrow, Tagovailoa, Herbert 3) Arguably an increased appreciation of the salary cap and how you're better placed to win on a rookie deal, or by paying an above-average QB, but not paying the mediocre one. Not that Cam is mediocre but if he isn't back to above-average starting health and talent his contract will never justify it 4) The few open spots this year got taken quickly by guys with better bodies of work: Rivers in Indianapolis, Brady in Tampa. Should Chicago have gone for him instead? Perhaps, but the timing again got awful with them trading for Foles before he was released. So at this junction I don't see where Cam fits. He's too talented and expensive to be a backup, and his CV doesn't lend well to a Jameis Winston-type contract. Does Jerry Jones bring him in for a visit? I don't know the internet could handle that.