sportsline start em sit em

[iloveny18]

isn't that the most dumb thing ever. this week, they tell you to start guys like willis mcgahee and donovan mcnabb. other weeks, it tells you to start guys like randy moss and TO. isn't that f-ing OBVIOUS?!!! the bad thing about it is we all pay for the site and thus the info. they could at least do a better job of getting better info.

[SwiperNoSwiping]

Yeah, I agree it's not always the best stuff. A lot of weeks, the people they end up picking for their start of the week or whatever, and it kinda bombs.

But it's just one more resource we have at our fingertips.

I like seeing the arguments behind their picks, but in their defense it's not "Sleeper picks of the week" it's the people they think will have the best week.

But I can understand your feelings...It does leave some to be desired some weeks.

[FFPlayinMoFo]

Every week, I pray to God that one of my guys isn't the Start of the Week.

[SwiperNoSwiping]

Haha. Yep. It's the kiss of death in my league.

[biju]

but in their defense it's not "Sleeper picks of the week" it's the people they think will have the best week.

This is certainly the way I view it. Not necessarily the tough calls that most people make. It's usually the obvious, but then again they're going for best matchup period regardless of if people are going to start them or not.

I kind of enjoy their "Lineup Rankings" a little more. It interests me to see how the players are stacked up. Those are far from perfect too I assume (they still have Clinton Portis ranked #10), but it does give you the ranking of the defense for that particular week and matches them based on the likely gameplan and their offensive abilities (O-line, playcalls, etc).

Sportsline is generally a bad place for advice but does a fair job of reporting the indisputable info which is why I check there. The Cafe's patrons usually do the best job of dissecting a players abilities.

[matmat]

this is a problem with a number of places.
"you should start Peyton Manning this week against the hapless soandsos"
well, biatch, I don't have Peyton Manning on my squad. Are you suggesting I should whip out my six-shooter, walk over to my PeytonManning owning buddy's house put the gun against his forehead and force him ti give me his stud QB?

anyhow -- the reason why certain receivers are "studs" and others are not is that the mode value of TDs scored by studs is one and the mode value of the # of TDs scored by non-studs is 0.
Yards you can usually predict (both for RBs and WRs) within reasonable accuracy. TDs are a pain, though.

I like places that give you a description of the matchup and list recent trends, like "suchandsuch team has changed to a different defence the past three weeks and has greatly reduced the # of passes 20 yards or longer by opponents"
(or things of this nature.)

[FFPlayinMoFo]

I hate Sportsline's lineup rankings. It's more of a player ranking. I subscribe to USA Today Sports Weekly. Their lineup rankings are 10,000x better than Sportsline's

[The_Commish]

I don't play for their news (which is far behind other news sources). I pay for the Commissioner service itself. Not some rinky dink articles.

[saundman2000]

Sportsline's start ' em/sit 'em is ok, but they don't really go out on a limb. I agree that most of the information they present in there is pretty obvious most times.

I prefer the NFL Freaks' Start - Bench List. These guys rank 'em as a) studs b) strong starts c) gut checks and d) forget about it.

http://www.nflfreaks.com/Fantasy_Footba ... /index.htm

They cover a lot of players and QB/WR/RB/TE positions. They use stats to back up their picks.

[FFPlayinMoFo]

Thanks for the link Saundman