Always list your matchups....who are your guys going up against?
Don't make someone trying to help you do the work to find the matchups. You will get fewer responses and the responses you do get will be guesses from some.
I drafted Rice, and after week 1 was very happy with him. He didn't do anything week 2 and now it's clear he is not going to get the ball inside the 10. Unless he runs up his yardage, don't look for TD's. I'd go Johnson and Smith.
mtchanc wrote:I'm leaning toward Johnson and Smith, but man Rice has a good match up this week. No flex, so I can only start two :(. Any thoughts?
I'm a Patriot Guard Rider and dang proud to be one
"Standing for those who stood for us"..www.patriotguard.org for info
These are the matchups for the 3 players you have listed:
Kevin Smith vs. WAS Rice vs. CLE CJ @ NYJ
With this is mind, I would go with CJ and Rice. Johnson is a stud RB and barring injury should not be sitting on your bench at all this year. As a fellow Rice owner I am all too familiar with the concerns surrounding the RBBC split in Baltimore as some of the other posters have mentioned in this thread, but even if Rice is only getting the ball between the 20s I think this is the week he will be able to break free for one or two long TDs (that being said, after week 3 might be a good time to sell high on Rice). While Smith will be getting more carries than Rice, I do not think he will have much success running against Washington.
I think this is the week he will be able to break free for one or two long TDs (that being said, after week 3 might be a good time to sell high on Rice).
I agree. Although I have him benched this week in favor of Leon Washington, I also have Mendenhall, Donald Brown and LeSean McCoy on the bench. My two main starters are MJD and Turner. I really hope Rice does well, then I wanna sell high for a very quality WR to go with Fitz.
YoungPhoenix wrote:These are the matchups for the 3 players you have listed:
Kevin Smith vs. WAS Rice vs. CLE CJ @ NYJ
With this is mind, I would go with CJ and Rice. Johnson is a stud RB and barring injury should not be sitting on your bench at all this year. As a fellow Rice owner I am all too familiar with the concerns surrounding the RBBC split in Baltimore as some of the other posters have mentioned in this thread, but even if Rice is only getting the ball between the 20s I think this is the week he will be able to break free for one or two long TDs (that being said, after week 3 might be a good time to sell high on Rice). While Smith will be getting more carries than Rice, I do not think he will have much success running against Washington.
I'm a Patriot Guard Rider and dang proud to be one
"Standing for those who stood for us"..www.patriotguard.org for info
Thanks for the feedback and sorry for not posting the matchups. I guess the question is -- will Rice break one or two before they put in the hands of McGahee, or will running Smith be the better choice because of the number of touches and score chances he might have? Wash is 17 in run def while Clev is 31st... Still undecided....
S. Jackson ran all over the redskins last week. Expect Smith to do the same. Looking at the defences, washington allowed 250 +/- yards and Clev. has allowed 400 +/- yards. Rice will have to split those yards with mageehee while smith will be the only back. So yardage looks about even. Smith will have more opportunities for the TD. I am starting Smith and benching Rice this week. Smith has more upside in my books.
The gentleman's stats are correct but odds are, sad to say, Detroit will most likely be behind. That changes things for smith completely and I feel the advantage must go to rice. Baltimore will be ahead most likely and 150 200 yards on the ground is not out of the realm of reason. That plenty of yards for all those backs to do well points wise.
That is true as well. Another thing that concerned me was that it seemed Mageehee saw alot of action between the 20's once Balt was up in the game. This is typical yardage that goes to Rice. If Balt gets up in points, I see Rice sitting.