I vote luckbox. The team I fear most there is the second out of the three. That team is stacked.
Not that your team is bad, I definitely see all three of those teams being top 3. I vote middle team, your team, then the third team in order of best to worst.
Not to be a downer but I actually think that I would prefer to have the other teams that you listed as opposed to yours. You still have a very nice team, but it's gonna be a fight for you to win the championship (although your 6-0 record helps for seeding so that you don't have to face either team in the first round meaning you only have to beat one of them to win).
Weasel_King wrote:Not to be a downer but I actually think that I would prefer to have the other teams that you listed as opposed to yours. You still have a very nice team, but it's gonna be a fight for you to win the championship (although your 6-0 record helps for seeding so that you don't have to face either team in the first round meaning you only have to beat one of them to win).
Out of curiousity, how would you rate those three teams?
I looked at the teams a few times and I think original poster's team and the third team listed (in a matchup) I think is a coin flip at worst.
I'm just curious why you think the third one has an advantage.
Also, it's very hard to make text sound impartial. Don't think I'm saying your wrong.
Weasel_King wrote:Not to be a downer but I actually think that I would prefer to have the other teams that you listed as opposed to yours. You still have a very nice team, but it's gonna be a fight for you to win the championship (although your 6-0 record helps for seeding so that you don't have to face either team in the first round meaning you only have to beat one of them to win).
Out of curiousity, how would you rate those three teams?
I looked at the teams a few times and I think original poster's team and the third team listed (in a matchup) I think is a coin flip at worst.
I'm just curious why you think the third one has an advantage.
Also, it's very hard to make text sound impartial. Don't think I'm saying your wrong.
No offense taken! We can have different opinions on which team is better, doesn't mean one of us is wrong or right. For sure, all 3 of the teams are good for being in a 10-team league. Here's how I would break down the original poster's team with team 3
QB: Romo vs Fitzpatrick -Original poster has the advantage, although honestly I don't think it is by that much RB1:Foster vs AP- I would rate AP over Foster, not by too much though RB2:Gore vs DMC- I think team 3 has a huge advantage here RB3: Wells vs Jackson- Think team 3 has the advantage here as well, Jackson has been having a monster season WR1:Fitz vs Bowe- Team 1 has advantage, although not by much WR2: Marshall vs Boldin- Team 1 has advantage (not a Marshall fan but is better than Boldin) TE: Graham vs Finely- Both are top of the line TE's- although Finely hasn't been producing that much since his 3 TD explosion. Would prefer Graham DST: Steelers/49ers vs Ravens- Would say usually that DST is irrelevant, although in this case the Ravens have been great this year and have produced nicely- advantage team 3 K: Janikowski vs Bailey- Although Janikowski has been argurably best K, this postion is completely irrelevant in my eyes Bench: I think I would much prefer team 3's bench, not much usefullness on team team 1's bench other than A.J. Green
I just think that team 3's RB core is vastly superior to team 1's, and would probably carry them- team 3 also has the option to deal Best for help at the 2nd WR spot. However, I would not complain at all being 6-0 with that nice roster so the OP should be in great shape.
I don't disagree on any particular point, and to be completely honest I ignored the benches. Which I know is a big no no.
I guess the only *one slight* disagreement I'd have is that Foster and Peterson do look the same, but foster had a whole extra month of rest; and besides last week he came out of the gates sprinting.
But your right, it's still about even there. I mean Adrian Peterson is Adrian Peterson, and should get the edge (albeit slight imo).
OP though, you still got a good shot. No naysaying here!
aerathi wrote:I don't disagree on any particular point, and to be completely honest I ignored the benches. Which I know is a big no no.
I guess the only *one slight* disagreement I'd have is that Foster and Peterson do look the same, but foster had a whole extra month of rest; and besides last week he came out of the gates sprinting.
But your right, it's still about even there. I mean Adrian Peterson is Adrian Peterson, and should get the edge (albeit slight imo).
OP though, you still got a good shot. No naysaying here!
I agree, Foster has had the extra time to rest which helped keep him fresh. And even though I believe that Adrian Peterson is the best back in the game, the fact that he is on the Vikings (with McNabb especially, we'll see how much better Ponder fairs) hurts his production. I could easily see Foster out-producing Peterson for the rest of the season and as a Foster owner, I would not be disappointed by this at all. Although he is over his injury, little concerned if it could potentially come up again. Also, with the way that Tate has produced- very effective in the chances he has been given, I would not be suprised if they started giving Tate a little more than pure back-up carries which would hurt Foster's value. So I would rate Peterson a little higher than Foster but would agree that it is pretty close, and Foster does have a decent chance to outproduce Peterson from here on out.
aerathi wrote:I don't disagree on any particular point, and to be completely honest I ignored the benches. Which I know is a big no no.
I guess the only *one slight* disagreement I'd have is that Foster and Peterson do look the same, but foster had a whole extra month of rest; and besides last week he came out of the gates sprinting.
But your right, it's still about even there. I mean Adrian Peterson is Adrian Peterson, and should get the edge (albeit slight imo).
OP though, you still got a good shot. No naysaying here!
I agree, Foster has had the extra time to rest which helped keep him fresh. And even though I believe that Adrian Peterson is the best back in the game, the fact that he is on the Vikings (with McNabb especially, we'll see how much better Ponder fairs) hurts his production. I could easily see Foster out-producing Peterson for the rest of the season and as a Foster owner, I would not be disappointed by this at all. Although he is over his injury, little concerned if it could potentially come up again. Also, with the way that Tate has produced- very effective in the chances he has been given, I would not be suprised if they started giving Tate a little more than pure back-up carries which would hurt Foster's value. So I would rate Peterson a little higher than Foster but would agree that it is pretty close, and Foster does have a decent chance to outproduce Peterson from here on out.
I know I posted this above, but would you mind taking a look at my situation? viewtopic.php?t=504699
I don't want to break any forum rules or anything. You just know what you're talking about and I'd love your input.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by pommona22 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:19 pm 
