Moderator: Community Team
No way anybody is overlooking the NFC North this year...Gold Knight wrote: I think the NFC North is somewhat underrated,
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Conference? That requires them to at least be better than the Packers or Bears. Although I hate to admit it, Philly could be monstrous this year, and I doubt the NFC south becomes the equivalent of the NFC west. Plus the skins are gonna go 11-5 (in my dreams)Neoteny wrote:I'll say it again:
Detroit's going to win third in their conference this year! At least!
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
You mean division, not conference, fockin' n00bNeoteny wrote:Third in their conference. That means they only have to beat the Vikings. I wouldn't be surpised if they squeak a win on the Bears on one of Cutler's down days, but Rodgers doesn't seem to have those, so beating the Pack is a longer shot.
I did mean division, and the evidence of my mistake does indeed dictate that I am a fockin' n00b.Army of GOD wrote:You mean division, not conference, fockin' n00bNeoteny wrote:Third in their conference. That means they only have to beat the Vikings. I wouldn't be surpised if they squeak a win on the Bears on one of Cutler's down days, but Rodgers doesn't seem to have those, so beating the Pack is a longer shot.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
A lot is riding on Stafford and Best staying healthy. Johnson is as freakishly gifted as they come, and Burleson is a dependable #2.Neoteny wrote:I did mean division, and the evidence of my mistake does indeed dictate that I am a fockin' n00b.Army of GOD wrote:You mean division, not conference, fockin' n00bNeoteny wrote:Third in their conference. That means they only have to beat the Vikings. I wouldn't be surpised if they squeak a win on the Bears on one of Cutler's down days, but Rodgers doesn't seem to have those, so beating the Pack is a longer shot.
lets not forget the Suh is a total ass kicker on the d-line. the NFC south will be strong as well and probably snag one of or both of the wild cards.safariguy5 wrote:A lot is riding on Stafford and Best staying healthy. Johnson is as freakishly gifted as they come, and Burleson is a dependable #2.Neoteny wrote:I did mean division, and the evidence of my mistake does indeed dictate that I am a fockin' n00b.Army of GOD wrote:You mean division, not conference, fockin' n00bNeoteny wrote:Third in their conference. That means they only have to beat the Vikings. I wouldn't be surpised if they squeak a win on the Bears on one of Cutler's down days, but Rodgers doesn't seem to have those, so beating the Pack is a longer shot.
I suppose a lot of screens and dumpoffs out of the backfield can consist of their running game.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
How do you play fantasy sports when you don't even know the difference between a conference and a division? Are you like that nerdy kid in "Little Giants" who made the annexation of puerto rico? I bet you just watch sports science and pick qbs who have the greatest angular velocity when releasing the ball, the rbs who have the lowest center of gravity, and the wrs with the longest wingspan.Neoteny wrote:I've decided to use a different pun for my fantasy team each week. It's on like Ndamukong was week one (stolen from ESPN), and Suh SuhSuhdio is this week's game (my own bad reference). I think I Plaxidentally shot myself (found everywhere, but I think it's hilarious) will be week three.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
God I hate when scientists do good in sports related activities. You must play with retards or women. And yes, sports science is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. "Vernon Davis hits a linebacker with enough force to turn jello back into a liquid! And then he accelerates as quickly as a plane does in the first 2 seconds of taxi-ing"Neoteny wrote:Actually, I pick players with statistical consistency, and not bursting scores. I've won my league the last two years, so something's working out. Also, Sports Science is lame.
If it makes you feel better, most in my league do suck. The same few people are consistently at the top. We even had a couple draft kickers before the last round.whitestazn88 wrote:God I hate when scientists do good in sports related activities. You must play with retards or women. And yes, sports science is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. "Vernon Davis hits a linebacker with enough force to turn jello back into a liquid! And then he accelerates as quickly as a plane does in the first 2 seconds of taxi-ing"Neoteny wrote:Actually, I pick players with statistical consistency, and not bursting scores. I've won my league the last two years, so something's working out. Also, Sports Science is lame.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Nothing wrong with drafting a kicker if you've filled up every skill spot + a reserve for each. I usually take a kicker before a defense, because what's the point of drafting the Jets if you know there will be 3 weeks at a minimum where you can't start them (don't act like anyone smart would play them vs the Pats).Neoteny wrote:If it makes you feel better, most in my league do suck. The same few people are consistently at the top. We even had a couple draft kickers before the last round.whitestazn88 wrote:God I hate when scientists do good in sports related activities. You must play with retards or women. And yes, sports science is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. "Vernon Davis hits a linebacker with enough force to turn jello back into a liquid! And then he accelerates as quickly as a plane does in the first 2 seconds of taxi-ing"Neoteny wrote:Actually, I pick players with statistical consistency, and not bursting scores. I've won my league the last two years, so something's working out. Also, Sports Science is lame.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
I agree. I don't carry a backup Kicker or Team Defense usually, unless we have exceedingly deep benches or the league is extraordinarily deep. You're going to have to find a bye week replacement for your kicker and Team D, so I usually just stream Team Defenses and kickers are pretty fungible anyways. I'll go for lottery ticket WR's or RB's and then get Team Defense and Kicker in the last 2 rounds.Neoteny wrote:I don't draft defense too high really. I'll take a mid-tier team from the leftovers as a primary, and spend the rest of the season picking up good matchups from free agency (who's playing Indy this week?). The difference between a good kicker and a bad kicker is pretty minimal. I'd rather go deep on some possible sleeper rbs or wrs. Maybe even a qb.
I agree on both kickers and defenses, but often times "sleeper" wrs or rbs are a waste to me because the ones that you will actually want will have a beast first couple weeks (ie. stevie williams last year, and jordy nelson was available in a stupid amount of leagues this year). I think a good kicker is always a good kicker (Janikowski especially, because it isn't always the kickers choice as to whether or not they have to hit a 50+ yarder), but i can understand how matchups are important for them and defenses, rather than the actual skill.safariguy5 wrote:I agree. I don't carry a backup Kicker or Team Defense usually, unless we have exceedingly deep benches or the league is extraordinarily deep. You're going to have to find a bye week replacement for your kicker and Team D, so I usually just stream Team Defenses and kickers are pretty fungible anyways. I'll go for lottery ticket WR's or RB's and then get Team Defense and Kicker in the last 2 rounds.Neoteny wrote:I don't draft defense too high really. I'll take a mid-tier team from the leftovers as a primary, and spend the rest of the season picking up good matchups from free agency (who's playing Indy this week?). The difference between a good kicker and a bad kicker is pretty minimal. I'd rather go deep on some possible sleeper rbs or wrs. Maybe even a qb.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
