Mario Manningham - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Mario Manningham

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: Mario Manningham

Postby 2ksports » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:09 am

Maris09 wrote:
2ksports wrote:Steve Smith is way faster than Manningham. just watch them play, jsut WATCH!

see what I did there?

Yeah I see what you did.....you continued to not address that lame statement you made about "all his yards came in 1 game." Still waiting....


How is it lame?
58 yards
150 yards

Now address the whole Manningham is faster thing.
2ksports
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1276
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Mario Manningham

Postby Azrael » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:22 am

Also Jermaine Philips for the bucs (starting safety) is done for the year, likely to be another big game for Giants WRs.
Image
Azrael
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 8283
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight

Re: Mario Manningham

Postby Maris09 » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:40 am

2ksports wrote:
Maris09 wrote:
2ksports wrote:Steve Smith is way faster than Manningham. just watch them play, jsut WATCH!

see what I did there?

Yeah I see what you did.....you continued to not address that lame statement you made about "all his yards came in 1 game." Still waiting....


How is it lame?
58 yards
150 yards

Now address the whole Manningham is faster thing.

You're not paying attention.
One more time though.

You're saying a knock against him is that "all his yards came from one game."
First, they've only played 2 games, so it's kind of a stupid statement.
Second, you can make exactly the same point regarding Smith.
In the first game, Mario got 60 and a TD (Smith got 80 and no TD)
Second game Mario got 150 and a TD (Smith got 134 and no TD)

Translation for the slow....It's not a valid point when you can say the same thing about both people. Ya hear? Or one more time?

Thanks for comin.
Maris09
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1000
Joined: 3 Jun 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Mario Manningham

Postby 2ksports » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:15 pm

Maris09 wrote:
2ksports wrote:
Maris09 wrote:Yeah I see what you did.....you continued to not address that lame statement you made about "all his yards came in 1 game." Still waiting....


How is it lame?
58 yards
150 yards

Now address the whole Manningham is faster thing.

You're not paying attention.
One more time though.

You're saying a knock against him is that "all his yards came from one game."
First, they've only played 2 games, so it's kind of a stupid statement.
Second, you can make exactly the same point regarding Smith.
In the first game, Mario got 60 and a TD (Smith got 80 and no TD)
Second game Mario got 150 and a TD (Smith got 134 and no TD)

Translation for the slow....It's not a valid point when you can say the same thing about both people. Ya hear? Or one more time?

Thanks for comin.


1) Smith did get a TD.
2) Translation for the slow - I never said the same thing for both people. You really like taking 1 line out of context of an entire post don't you. Is that what it has come down to so you can prove a point? Lets put it all back in context.

Game 1
Steve Smith - 8 targets, 6 rec, 80 yards
Manningham - 4 targets, 4 rec, 58 yards
Nicks - 4 targets
Hixon - 3 targets

Game 2 - notice 2 injured receivers Nicks (DNP) and Hixon (Knee Sprain) - I wonder who they are going to throw to...?
Steve Smith - 13 targets, 134
Manningham - 13 targets, 150
Hixon - 3 targets (again, injured)
Nicks - DNP 0 targets.

Manningham's rise was predictable and situational, and he is a #1 sell high candidate.

3) You again failed to address why Manningham, and I quote "IS WAY FASTER", than Steve Smith.

Stop making random stuff up and giving information you cannot confirm.
2ksports
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1276
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Mario Manningham

Postby Maris09 » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:35 pm

2ksports wrote:1) Smith did get a TD.
2) Translation for the slow - I never said the same thing for both people. You really like taking 1 line out of context of an entire post don't you. Is that what it has come down to so you can prove a point? Lets put it all back in context.

Game 1
Steve Smith - 8 targets, 6 rec, 80 yards
Manningham - 4 targets, 4 rec, 58 yards
Nicks - 4 targets
Hixon - 3 targets

Game 2 - notice 2 injured receivers Nicks (DNP) and Hixon (Knee Sprain) - I wonder who they are going to throw to...?
Steve Smith - 13 targets, 134
Manningham - 13 targets, 150
Hixon - 3 targets (again, injured)
Nicks - DNP 0 targets.

Manningham's rise was predictable and situational, and he is a #1 sell high candidate.

3) You again failed to address why Manningham, and I quote "IS WAY FASTER", than Steve Smith.

Stop making random stuff up and giving information you cannot confirm.

First, get your "quotes" right if your going to use the word "quote".
I never said quote, he was "way faster." I said Smith "wasn't as fast."
Go look, come on back when your ready.


The point remains (which you continue to not address), that you use the example of "all his yards coming from one game" as reason why he's somewhat of an imposter. At the same time, you continue to talk up Steve Smith.

So when the detrimental point you are making about one player, can also be made about the other player, that doesn't work so well.
I pointed it out, you continue to ignore it, and throw around false quotes.
Maris09
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1000
Joined: 3 Jun 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Mario Manningham

Postby spodog » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:42 pm

Over the rest of the season, would you guys rather have Super Mario or Nate Washington in TEN?
Image
spodog
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerCafe SpotterWeb SupporterMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 4058
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: At my trailer on the beach in Malibu

Re: Mario Manningham

Postby SameSongNDance » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:43 pm

Smith >>>> Manningham long-term

Smith = Manningham short-term
SameSongNDance
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
CafeholicCafe Ranker
Posts: 1574
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Mario Manningham

Postby 2ksports » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:47 pm

Maris09 wrote:
2ksports wrote:1) Smith did get a TD.
2) Translation for the slow - I never said the same thing for both people. You really like taking 1 line out of context of an entire post don't you. Is that what it has come down to so you can prove a point? Lets put it all back in context.

Game 1
Steve Smith - 8 targets, 6 rec, 80 yards
Manningham - 4 targets, 4 rec, 58 yards
Nicks - 4 targets
Hixon - 3 targets

Game 2 - notice 2 injured receivers Nicks (DNP) and Hixon (Knee Sprain) - I wonder who they are going to throw to...?
Steve Smith - 13 targets, 134
Manningham - 13 targets, 150
Hixon - 3 targets (again, injured)
Nicks - DNP 0 targets.

Manningham's rise was predictable and situational, and he is a #1 sell high candidate.

3) You again failed to address why Manningham, and I quote "IS WAY FASTER", than Steve Smith.

Stop making random stuff up and giving information you cannot confirm.

First, get your "quotes" right if your going to use the word "quote".
I never said quote, he was "way faster." I said Smith "wasn't as fast."
Go look, come on back when your ready.


The point remains (which you continue to not address), that you use the example of "all his yards coming from one game" as reason why he's somewhat of an imposter. At the same time, you continue to talk up Steve Smith.

So when the detrimental point you are making about one player, can also be made about the other player, that doesn't work so well.
I pointed it out, you continue to ignore it, and throw around false quotes.


Regarding why I talk up Steve Smith, I've been talking him up since before the season started. I saw several signs that point to him having a breakout year. Him producing what he has is expected, and yet people are jumping all over Manningham and projecting him higher similarly to how people were grabbing Hixon and Nicks when I was drafting Smith 2-3 rounds later. This is all amusing to me b/c if you consider the situation as a whole, Manningham's chances of surpassing Smith in fantasy production over the course of a full season is unlikely.

Regarding the quoting:

I'm ready, and this time I will quote the actual quote, which took me a while to find:
He is also definitely not as fast.


I misquoted you, and I will man up and apologize for too lazy to find an actual quote. What I think you mean is, Manningham is faster, and you are sure of it somehow. Am I right or wrong to make that assumption?

Now, if this is what you are saying, do you have any proof to back it up, at least to the point that it is definite? Or would you like to retract that statement and say that "in your own opinion, Manningham is faster, but tbh I really don't know and I just said it in the heat of a debate"
2ksports
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1276
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Mario Manningham

Postby Goody » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:49 pm

spodog wrote:Over the rest of the season, would you guys rather have Super Mario or Nate Washington in TEN?


I think I would rather have Manningham. Nate, although he was brought in to possibly be the #1 in TENN, looks like the 3rd best receiver on that team behind Gage and Britt. I think Nate will relegate himself to the same role he had at PITT, big play, boom or bust type fantasy player in on 3 WR sets. I think Manningham will have the opportunities in the coming weeks to prove his worth and possibly take on a starting role even after Hixon and Nicks return.

What are other thoughts? Nate is also available on my WW with Manningham.
Image
OKCHomers
OKCFFL Auction
Goody
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2413
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Mario Manningham

Postby bazzy_51 » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:57 pm

Goody wrote:
spodog wrote:Over the rest of the season, would you guys rather have Super Mario or Nate Washington in TEN?


I think I would rather have Manningham. Nate, although he was brought in to possibly be the #1 in TENN, looks like the 3rd best receiver on that team behind Gage and Britt. I think Nate will relegate himself to the same role he had at PITT, big play, boom or bust type fantasy player in on 3 WR sets. I think Manningham will have the opportunities in the coming weeks to prove his worth and possibly take on a starting role even after Hixon and Nicks return.

What are other thoughts? Nate is also available on my WW with Manningham.



Ill +1 on this. Goody you said it to perfection IMO. I will just add onto what you said by saying that I also think Washington battles injuries or 'injuries' all year. Fisher was stoked to get him on his squad, but what I don't think is that Fish thought his gold pebble would turn into a gold mine, Kenny Britt. Britt has looked real good all offseason and thus through 2 games has looked good for a rookie, and looking back on his college career he really has the pedigree to be a top WR. Rutgers during Britt's years was a run first offense IMO, and he still racked up very good stats. Washington I think will at best be a WR3 and play some slot, but like Goody said he will be a big boomer one week and a big bUMMER the next couple weeks. Manningham I think will steady out his line much better week to week then what Washington will.
Image

A big thanks to deluxe_247 for the sweet sig!
bazzy_51
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1707
Joined: 4 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 20:54 hours
(and 39 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact