PORTIS WILL GO HUGE THIS SUNDAY...

[WickedSmaat]

Huge? I don't think so, 103 yds and 27 rec yds and 0 TDs. It was a decent effort. But for me to qualify that as huge I would have to say Portis would have had the best game by a RB this week, which I don't think happened. I would say KJ had a bigger game than him with his 2 TDs and 58 yds. It's the production that I like.

You, on the other hand essentially made this counter-prediction and you were way off, but have yet to fess up to it

Do you stand corrected yet? I mean seriously, read the whole thread before you say anything else.

[saundman2000]

Huge? I don't think so, 103 yds and 27 rec yds and 0 TDs. It was a decent effort. But for me to qualify that as huge I would have to say Portis would have had the best game by a RB this week, which I don't think happened. I would say KJ had a bigger game than him with his 2 TDs and 58 yds. It's the production that I like.

You, on the other hand essentially made this counter-prediction and you were way off, but have yet to fess up to it

Do you stand corrected yet? I mean seriously, read the whole thread before you say anything else.

I was addressing your prediction that Portis would be "shut down" based on all your stats. You were dead wrong, so I was poking fun at you.

Did I take a stand? I made no predictions. I just admired Scupa's and spurned yours. I already said "My bad" in reference to calling Scupas prediction correct, so I have no position to reverse.

[WickedSmaat]

I was pointing out that I did say he had a decent game, hence the reason why I was saying if you stand corrected because I did acknowledge the fact that my prediction was wrong. I think we should just agree to disagree saund, this is going no where and I think it's pretty idotic on both of our parts, we both think we're right and leave it as that.

[kevininvegas]

A decent game in football means Td's. I t always amazes me to see people call a 100 yd games by a running game a decent game. If you are happy with no Td's then you will have to be content with 8th place in your 12 team league, becuse that is preciely where you will be at the end of the season with running backs like Portis who has no idea where to find the end zone.

[cards05]

TD's are not the end all be all of fantasy football. If you are familiar with DIPS in fantasy baseball, you understand that luck can play a role in fantasy sports. An example, Fred Taylor had an amazing game on Sunday night but scored no TD's. The lack of TD's disguises his great performance. You should not write his performance off because he didn't see the endzone, in fact, you should use that as a reason to doop his owner into giving him to you cheap (not that I see Taylor as a great buy low).

That being said, just as DIPS users in baseball have to factor defenses and ballparks, fantasy football players have to factor a team's liklihood to run in the redzone and a team's tendency to get in the redzone in the first place. All I'm saying is, TD's alone should not be used as an indicator of future success without factoring the reasons those TD's were scored (or not scored). A team with an above average offense that has a RB who gets 100 yrds a game and doesn't have a vulture should not be written off because he doesn't have 7 TD's like S. Davis.

[Bowie]

TD's are not the end all be all of fantasy football. If you are familiar with DIPS in fantasy baseball, you understand that luck can play a role in fantasy sports. An example, Fred Taylor had an amazing game on Sunday night but scored no TD's. The lack of TD's disguises his great performance. You should not write his performance off because he didn't see the endzone, in fact, you should use that as a reason to doop his owner into giving him to you cheap (not that I see Taylor as a great buy low).

That being said, just as DIPS users in baseball have to factor defenses and ballparks, fantasy football players have to factor a team's liklihood to run in the redzone and a team's tendency to get in the redzone in the first place. All I'm saying is, TD's alone should not be used as an indicator of future success without factoring the reasons those TD's were scored (or not scored). A team with an above average offense that has a RB who gets 100 yrds a game and doesn't have a vulture should not be written off because he doesn't have 7 TD's like S. Davis.

We are not talking about what this game says about Portis' future success. We are talking about this game in particular. Is your point is that a game like this shows Portis' is a good buy low candidate? If so, doesn't that mean that this game was not huge from a fantasy perspective?

[cards05]

I guess I responded to a statement that was not relevant to the topic. Portis definitely did not go huge. My only implication was that some people over-value TD's (or at least do not evaluate their significance). You should identify those people and trade them S. Davis and K. McCardell. Looking back, I made an off-topic response and I apologize.

[WickedSmaat]

A decent game in football means Td's. I t always amazes me to see people call a 100 yd games by a running game a decent game. If you are happy with no Td's then you will have to be content with 8th place in your 12 team league, becuse that is preciely where you will be at the end of the season with running backs like Portis who has no idea where to find the end zone.

If you're referring to me saying Portis had a decent game, READ the thread before you start saying something. In my league Portis had a decent game. 12 points is decent. It's the fact that Portis didn't go HUGE is what we were arguing and I was making a point that he had a decent game. Decent is mediocre and that's exactly what it was.

[Cornbread Maxwell]

die stupid thread die!

[WickedSmaat]

die stupid thread die!

Agreed