Jockstocks Forums

Jockstocks Forums (http://forums.jockstocks.com//index.php)
-   Fantasy Sports Talk (http://forums.jockstocks.com//forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Dismal Performance ... so far! (http://forums.jockstocks.com//showthread.php?t=12945)

StockTrader 11 Oct 2011 09:30 AM

Dismal Performance ... so far!
 
Matt Schaub, Hou [QB]
Maurice Jones-Drew, Jac [RB]
Jahvid Best, Det [RB]
Daniel Thomas, Mia [RB/WR]
Hakeem Nicks, NYG [WR]
Santonio Holmes, NYJ [WR]
Jimmy Graham, NO [TE]
Steelers D/ST [D/ST]
Neil Rackers, Hou [K]

BENCH
Matt Ryan, Atl [QB]
Santana Moss, Wsh [WR]
Robbie Gould, Chi [K]
Kyle Orton, Den [QB] (pending waiver for Curtis Painter, IND [QB])
Lance Kendricks, StL [TE]
Eric Decker, Den [WR] (pending waiver for James Jones, GB [WR])
Ryan Grant, GB [RB]
Dexter McCluster, KC [RB/WR] (pending waiver for Jackie Battle, KC [RB])
Isaac Redman, Pit [RB]

And I just got this trade proposal:

Hakeem Nicks, NYG [WR] for Ahmad Bradshaw, NYG [RB]

Needing some advice and desperate and I am facing a 1 - 4 start. The top four teams in the lead have a PF of 638.3, 566.9, 540.3 and 632.2 [respectively] and I am sitting at only 477.7.

Thoughts first of all on the team and second of all on the trade proposal? Thanks for any advice!

Nick

TheWinman 11 Oct 2011 02:21 PM

Sorry dude, I can't help the competition

StockTrader 11 Oct 2011 02:34 PM

This isn't JFCL ;-)

Nick

TheWinman 11 Oct 2011 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StockTrader (Post 58749)
Matt Schaub, Hou [QB] OK
Maurice Jones-Drew, Jac [RB] ok at best
Jahvid Best, Det [RB] last night was a one time deal
Daniel Thomas, Mia [RB/WR]
Hakeem Nicks, NYG [WR] do the trade
Santonio Holmes, NYJ [WR] Too bad he is stuck with Sanchez throwing to him
Jimmy Graham, NO [TE] ok
Steelers D/ST [D/ST] good
Neil Rackers, Hou [K] bench

BENCH
Matt Ryan, Atl [QB] OK
Santana Moss, Wsh [WR]
Robbie Gould, Chi [K] OK - might even start as I expect to see many FG's in the future.
Kyle Orton, Den [QB] (pending waiver for Curtis Painter, IND [QB]) good move
Lance Kendricks, StL [TE]
Eric Decker, Den [WR] (pending waiver for James Jones, GB [WR]) I like Decker's upside, I would have kept him
Ryan Grant, GB [RB] fading
Dexter McCluster, KC [RB/WR] (pending waiver for Jackie Battle, KC [RB]) good
Isaac Redman, Pit [RB] watch Mendenhall injury and/or production

And I just got this trade proposal:

Hakeem Nicks, NYG [WR] for Ahmad Bradshaw, NYG [RB] I would take the trade and put Decker in there or trade for another WR

Needing some advice and desperate and I am facing a 1 - 4 start. The top four teams in the lead have a PF of 638.3, 566.9, 540.3 and 632.2 [respectively] and I am sitting at only 477.7.

Thoughts first of all on the team and second of all on the trade proposal? Thanks for any advice!

Nick

With bye weeks playing a big part, I would try to find teams that are desperate at a key position and try to offer a trade that gives you a decent upgrade in a position. Your team right now is in trouble.

Also, check the waivers daily. Some people because of byes have to waive someone they don't want to waive, hoping that no one will notice and then reaquire the following week. Might find an upgrade out there.

StockTrader 11 Oct 2011 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWinman (Post 58765)

With bye weeks playing a big part, I would try to find teams that are desperate at a key position and try to offer a trade that gives you a decent upgrade in a position. Your team right now is in trouble.

Also, check the waivers daily. Some people because of byes have to waive someone they don't want to waive, hoping that no one will notice and then reaquire the following week. Might find an upgrade out there.

Do you think Decker still has the upside he had with Orton, with Tebow at the helm?

Nick

SiteWolf 11 Oct 2011 05:04 PM

IMO Decker has upside regardless of the QB....but especially one who may need to depend on TEs more than most.............not that Decker is a traditional TE, but Tebow ain't no traditional QB either

StockTrader 11 Oct 2011 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiteWolf (Post 58769)
IMO Decker has upside regardless of the QB....but especially one who may need to depend on TEs more than most.............not that Decker is a traditional TE, but Tebow ain't no traditional QB either

Ok. Well just changed the waiver from dropping Eric Decker to dropping Lance Kendricks. Also changed addition from James Jones to Steve Breaston.

Just hoping somebody else doesn't pickup Kendricks, though I don't know why they would with his crappy numbers.

Nick

SiteWolf 11 Oct 2011 05:12 PM

Kendrick was on a buncha 'fantasy guru' sleeper lists.........and is still sleeping

re the WR switch.........homer! lol

StockTrader 11 Oct 2011 05:14 PM

I am definitely a homer, BUT, I am anticipating Duane Bowe getting more attention [see last week] and therefore freeing up Breaston [see last week].

Nick

TheWinman 11 Oct 2011 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiteWolf (Post 58769)
IMO Decker has upside regardless of the QB....but especially one who may need to depend on TEs more than most.............not that Decker is a traditional TE, but Tebow ain't no traditional QB either




well said

TheWinman 11 Oct 2011 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StockTrader (Post 58775)
I am definitely a homer, BUT, I am anticipating Duane Bowe getting more attention [see last week] and therefore freeing up Breaston [see last week].

Nick

I like Breaston also


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2007 - 2011 Jockstocks

Jockstocks Forums Database Error
Database Error Database error
The Jockstocks Forums database has encountered a problem.

Please try the following:
  • Load the page again by clicking the Refresh button in your web browser.
  • Open the forums.jockstocks.com home page, then try to open another page.
  • Click the Back button to try another link.
The forums.jockstocks.com forum technical staff have been notified of the error, though you may contact them if the problem persists.
 
We apologise for any inconvenience.