Cheesehead Central

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Will Brett and his guys get it together this year?

Count on it. They don't have to play the defending world champions every week, and Brett missed most of camp healing. Key receiver's out, and he'll miss Chester Taylor too, but he's made a career out of making good players look better.

Did you see the Onion's blurb on Oakland?

The Onion wrote:

Oakland Raiders Weakness: As a team, every single player on this roster ******* sucks.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Haha, that's a good one.

On one of my fantasy football advice boards I read, regarding Buffalo, they said:

"We do not advise starting any player from Buffalo this week for any reason."

Never seen that before today.

Quote:

Key receiver's out, and he'll miss Chester Taylor too, but he's made a career out of making good players look better.

I picked Berrian in hopes that exactly this will happen.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

and had to take Drew Brees instead.

brees is nothing to sneeze at.
stat-wise, he had a better year than rodgers...

1 Reply

If you are a quarterback,
And you see this guy coming at you,

http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/image_pictures/0341/3545/111792_feature.jpg

Immediately drop any and all footballs your might be carrying and run for your life!

Back to back 3 sack games to start the season? Really?

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

Quote:
and had to take Drew Brees instead.
brees is nothing to sneeze at.
stat-wise, he had a better year than rodgers...

Not in Fantasy Football!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Didn't get to see the Vikes or the Packers this week -- stupid Browns were on (like, who cares) and CBS was the only channel carrying football! What's up with that? (Seems like there used to be at least two networks that'd carry Sunday football, then occasional ESPN too. All I could find for the first swath (1-4 PM) was Browns. Bah.)

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

no benefit from him winning it all last year?

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Didn't get to see the Vikes or the Packers this week -- stupid Browns were on (like, who cares) and CBS was the only channel carrying football! What's up with that? (Seems like there used to be at least two networks that'd carry Sunday football, then occasional ESPN too. All I could find for the first swath (1-4 PM) was Browns. Bah.)

Yuck. We had two games, but the other was the Bears, so I can't really complain about that. In years past; watching the Bears lose was second only to watching the Packers win. Last year, a few times, they showed non-division games on the second channel while the Vikings were playing and that's just obnoxious. They have to know there's a decent market for the Vikes as long as Brett's wearing purple... and they are a division rivalry so I didn't understand that decision. Seems like spiteful nose removal to me when you factor in the lost viewership.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

no benefit from him winning it all last year?

Not in fantasy. It only counts the regular season.

And I would say that Rodgers achieved better numbers with what is arguably a worse team all around than Brees enjoyed.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@sozobe,

If you get desperate, try http://www.cbssports.com/nfl

Across the top of the site palaver, you'll find a row of the games that week. Click on the game you are interested in, and Game Tracker will show up. Click on that, and you'll get a field with lots of arrows streaking one way or another showing progress or lack of it, plus a 'what's happening' stream. It's a reasonable alternative to, say, nothing, when you don't have a tv or a tv isn't showing your game.

I "watch" both baseball and football that way... same with the soccer world cup, except I didn't find that on CBS online, I don't think.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

You can also sometimes get semi-legal feeds on Justin.tv

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Oh, and I'm happy for you, Gargy... very much for the wedding and also that event the week before.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Does that show the actual game?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

last night on justin tv was a pain. Great picture til the 2nd quarter, then it got shut down. Lousy picture til the 4th quarter then it got shut down.

2 Replies

@panzade,

I'll try that, though I'm kind of used to the efficiency of watching batches of games at once the field-with-arrows way.

0 Replies

@panzade,

panzade wrote:

last night on justin tv was a pain. Great picture til the 2nd quarter, then it got shut down. Lousy picture til the 4th quarter then it got shut down.

Yup. It's up and down. I had a great qual. feed last Monday of BOTH monday night games, all the way through.

It's funny, but more than watching them, I really just want to listen to them. To know what's going on. I've seen enough football to be able to imagine what happened.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Not in fantasy. It only counts the regular season.

And I would say that Rodgers achieved better numbers with what is arguably a worse team all around than Brees enjoyed.

Cycloptichorn

i compared their regular-season stats and thought brees was better -- strictly speaking, not factoring in the talent around him.

rodgers completed 350-541 passes = 64.7%
4434 yards
30 td
7 int
QB rating 103.2

brees completed 363-514 = 70.6%
4388 yards
34 td
11 int
QB rating 109.6

2 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Rodgers rushed for 316 yards and 5 TDs as well. Clearly moving his total numbers above Brees, who had 2 rushing TDs.

Rodgers had more passing yards; more rushing yards; a comparable number of TDs (35 vs. 36); 4 fewer picks.

True, he couldn't lead his team to victory in the post-season, so Brees has it up on him in terms of Leadership and X-factor. But in the regular season Rodgers was clearly the best QB to own and the best fantasy QB. His fantasy points were 12% higher than Brees.

I have Brees this year, but so far Manning is looking the best.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Must be the running accomplishments that pushed him over the top in fantasy, because Brett Favre and Phillip Rivers both had better passing seasons as well. On the other hand, does running matter any less? I'd have to say NO.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Must be the running accomplishments that pushed him over the top in fantasy, because Brett Favre and Phillip Rivers both had better passing seasons as well. On the other hand, does running matter any less? I'd have to say NO.

How did Phillip Rivers have a better passing season?

Rodgers: 4434 yds, 30 TDs 7 Int.
Rivers: 4254 yds, 28 TDs 9 Int.

Seems like Rodgers had a better year all around. Favre on the other hand did do slightly better, and he did lead his team to a championship game (where they almost won). So it's fair to say that Favre had a better passing year.

Rodgers is the ******* man. I love him. I got into an argument with a dude here in SF a few years back, when SF didn't draft him; biggest mistake they have made in years.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Cheesehead Central

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know