***Official Week 3 FF Thread***

[MEbenhoe]

yes brown is a definite start, I honestly just thought Maroney is more likely to score a TD this week than Parker is, and given the TD heavy scoring was leaning his way. Madtown has argued with me that Parker is in fact the more likely to score a TD. I still think its a tough decision, we'll see I guess.

[xorbie]

meb,

the problem is that maroney and dillon split the goal line carries, so it's tough to say.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
honestly just thought Maroney is more likely to score a TD this week than Parker is,

[/ QUOTE ]

With very few exceptions, this just seems like an impossible thing to predict. So I always go with the guy who is going to get more touches, and that guy is Parker.

-McGee

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All right, with Larry Johnson having a bye this week, I have some tough decisions at RB - I picked up Gado hoping he turns in a big week so I can trade him, but I think the question is really between Jacobs and Bell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of you guys are really stretching the definition of "tough" with these questions.

Bell is likely to get close to three times as many touches as Jacobs is. Jacobs does get his share of goal-line carries, but in most leagues, starting a guy just on the chance he gets a short-yardage TD is a last resort. Bell is the clear choice.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't think so - given that Jacobs is getting 6 or 7 touches a game, and that Bell is starting against a good defense on the road and also seems to get no goal line carries, I think it's a tougher decision than you give it credit for being.

Also a player has to rush for 120 yards to equal 1 TD in this league.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's early in the season, but Seattle's D is second against the run (New England is no slouch either, at ninth), and both the Giants and the Broncos are playing on the road. So the advantage there, if any, goes to Bell.

If you think Jacobs is more likely to score on his ~7 touches than Bell on his ~18 touches, then yeah, I guess this makes for a tough decision. But given Bell's demonstrated ability to break long runs and the fact that he'll touch the ball at least twice as often as Jacobs, I don't see how you can make that case.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

Seattle's played two teams without an o-line. New England has played one with a good RB and one without. The Giants were pretty good about getting into the end zone in Seattle last year - they piled up a lot of yards of offense. I'm not convinced Bell is a better start.

[livin_a_lie]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly just thought Maroney is more likely to score a TD this week than Parker

[/ QUOTE ]

Against a defense that hasn't given up a td yet?

[Spellmen]

I've got 2 teams with brutal weeks coming up, but I'll ask one at a time. First league I am 2-0 in a TD heavy league. RB/WR 20yds/pt with a 2pt bonus at 100, and 7pt 25 yd Tds, 9 for 25-50, and 11 for 50+.

My lineup is:
QB: Peyton Manning
RB: Gore v. PHI
WR: Bryant v. PHI, Lee Evans v. Jets
FLEX: ?
TE: D. Clark @ Min
K: Wilkins
Def: Atl @ NO

Bench: Addai v. JAC, M. Bell @ NE, Troy Williamson v. CHI

Lamont Jordan, Julius Jones, TO, Randy Moss all on byes

WW: Colston(WR NO), Barlow (RB NYJ), Dayne/Gado/Lundy (RBs HOU), Duckett (RB WAS), Jenkins (WR ATL), Edwards (WR CLE), C. Henry, I. Bruce, B. Stokely

Flex spot? I figure I should go with Bell at the flex, I normally wouldn't play 3 WRs and it looks especially ugly this week.

How does my D look? I dropped SD because I needed a D, and though I didn't want to let them go I figured it was better than to lose a position player. Is Atl the best choice? I was also considering the Bills v. Jets since the Bills were the D with the most points available. I also considered the Dolphins against Tenn, their D hasn't looked good, but its Tenn.

I guess my league may be heavy on defenses too, a shutout is 15 pts and sacks, ints, and FR are 1pt each. TDs are 7. I already listed the RB/WR/TE pts, and QBs get 2pts for the first 100 yards, and 50yd/pt after that with a 2 pt bonus at 300. TDs are 5 for <25yds and go up 2 pts at same increments as RB. So should I looking to hold onto a better D instead of dumping someone of value like SD?

Sorry for so many posts as well, but I am a fantasy donk

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All right, with Larry Johnson having a bye this week, I have some tough decisions at RB - I picked up Gado hoping he turns in a big week so I can trade him, but I think the question is really between Jacobs and Bell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of you guys are really stretching the definition of "tough" with these questions.

Bell is likely to get close to three times as many touches as Jacobs is. Jacobs does get his share of goal-line carries, but in most leagues, starting a guy just on the chance he gets a short-yardage TD is a last resort. Bell is the clear choice.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't think so - given that Jacobs is getting 6 or 7 touches a game, and that Bell is starting against a good defense on the road and also seems to get no goal line carries, I think it's a tougher decision than you give it credit for being.

Also a player has to rush for 120 yards to equal 1 TD in this league.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's early in the season, but Seattle's D is second against the run (New England is no slouch either, at ninth), and both the Giants and the Broncos are playing on the road. So the advantage there, if any, goes to Bell.

If you think Jacobs is more likely to score on his ~7 touches than Bell on his ~18 touches, then yeah, I guess this makes for a tough decision. But given Bell's demonstrated ability to break long runs and the fact that he'll touch the ball at least twice as often as Jacobs, I don't see how you can make that case.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

Seattle's played two teams without an o-line. New England has played one with a good RB and one without. The Giants were pretty good about getting into the end zone in Seattle last year - they piled up a lot of yards of offense. I'm not convinced Bell is a better start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I tried. It seems pretty obvious to me.

-McGee

[Zoelef]

toohigh: Geez. I guess Dayne since he's running vs. an 0-2 team and might fall into the endzone or something. If not him, then Benson.

Madtown: Your QB's worry me - Delhomme's positively mortal without Steve Smith running around, Pennington is one injury away from an early retirement, and Jake Plummer is, well, spiraling back towards medicority in a fast way. I'd consider shopping an RB for a more permanent QB - see who has LT and consider shopping for an upgrade at the QB by packaging Delhomme/Pennington + Turner, or ask around if anyone is interested in RB's. And don't be shy! Shyness never closed a deal.

MEbenhoe: Parker. I like Maroney too, but it's FWP ftw.

Spellmen: I'd start Addai or Bell this week - no way in Hell I'm starting anyone against the Bears until further notice. Personally, I lean towards Addai because he's at home, even if it's against a team that just shut out the SB champs.

ATL Def is fine for the rest of the season since they're performing well and shutouts = variance anyway. Granted if you want the SD defense back, I'd do so sooner than later. I'd imagine that few people are going to actively seek the Chargers Defense before they play the Ravens and Steelers weeks 4 & 5.

Now that my criminally bad advice has been dispensed, I have a question: Would you drop any of the following players for Rex Grossman, who's still on the WW in my league for some reason?

QB Byron Leftwich
QB Ben Roethlisberger
RB Frank Gore
RB Chester Taylor
RB Ronnie Brown
RB DeAngelo Williams(r)
RB Brandon Jacobs
WR Reggie Williams (can't drop, WW)
WR Torry Holt
WR Lee Evans
WR Steve Smith
TE Ben Watson
PK Nate Kaeding
PK Matt Stover (can't drop, WW)
TM Bengals

[Madtown]

Zoelef: The LT owner is even worse at QB than I am, with Rivers, Brooks, and Volek (with Koy Detmer still on his reserves, for some ungodly reason). With up to 59 QBs spread between regular rosters and reserve rosters on 12 teams, it's hard to find someone who can afford to let go of a top-shelf QB. I thought I was sitting pretty damn well to start the season, with 3 starters -- Delhomme as the stud, Plummer as the fill-in, and Pennington as the sleeper.

I'm putting out feelers to two owners, one who has Hasselbeck/Palmer/Favre and a thin RB/WR bench, the other who has Manning/Brees/Warner, weak at RB, struggling at WR and also owns Steve Smith. My guess is that my best shot is Brees, with an outside chance at Palmer/Hasselbeck/Manning.

Everyone else has essentially one starter, one bottom-tier QB, and non-starter (hurt or a backup).

My other concern, particularly if I deal Delhomme, is that I'll be "selling low." I'm okay selling Plummer low, because he's old and has an heir apparent in the wings.

[Zoelef]

[ QUOTE ]
Zoelef: The LT owner is even worse at QB than I am, with Rivers, Brooks, and Volek (with Koy Detmer still on his reserves, for some ungodly reason). With up to 59 QBs spread between regular rosters and reserve rosters on 12 teams, it's hard to find someone who can afford to let go of a top-shelf QB. I thought I was sitting pretty damn well to start the season, with 3 starters -- Delhomme as the stud, Plummer as the fill-in, and Pennington as the sleeper.

I'm putting out feelers to two owners, one who has Hasselbeck/Palmer/Favre and a thin RB/WR bench, the other who has Manning/Brees/Warner, weak at RB, struggling at WR and also owns Steve Smith. My guess is that my best shot is Brees, with an outside chance at Palmer/Hasselbeck/Manning.

Everyone else has essentially one starter, one bottom-tier QB, and non-starter (hurt or a backup).

My other concern, particularly if I deal Delhomme, is that I'll be "selling low." I'm okay selling Plummer low, because he's old and has an heir apparent in the wings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, you make it sound like I'm the bad guy here. ^^

I understand the fear of selling low; if anything, I'm considering selling Pennington high, if that's possible given how thin QBs are spread (6 per team, damn).

Anyway, yeah, given that the LT owner doesn't have any QB worth trading for, and that you're already shopping around for a QB, leads me to believe that your intuition will lead you to the right thing in the end. That's not sarcasm.

Since I have nothing constructive to add, Sage Rosenfels has the 2nd funniest NFL name I've seen after Joe Klopfenstein of the St. Louis Rams.