The Irish Doggy Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I'd like a system where you had obvious "Start 'em if you got 'em" listings, followed by a section of probable starters, but "let's talk first". Then have the bench 'em guys. If the author didn't happen to mention a particular player, you knew they were a "tweener" - neither favorable nor unfavorable to start. I wish someone would come up with something like that. That would be the berries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primetime9287 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 No S1 or S2 this year, only S? It's changed multiple times over the last 5+ years and I can't remember the different versions, but the Start/Bench list seems like it's getting less useful. Agree 100%. The start/bench list was awesome back when the site was free and maybe even when it first started using the pay. They actually had like a paragraph for each person. Last year it was S1/S2 and 2 sentences. This year its 2 sentences. Either next year or the year after, we may not see Start/Bench. The only thing I use when making decisions on who to start is the game projections and injury report. But even sometimes the projections are pretty easy to figure out. If its a good RB that plays a bad D, 100 yards, 1 td. If its a great RB that plays a bad D (LT, LJ, Alex), at least 100 yards, 2 tds. Top Tier WRs, always between 70-100 yards and 1 td. Still love this site though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I'd like a system where you had obvious "Start 'em if you got 'em" listings, followed by a section of probable starters, but "let's talk first". Then have the bench 'em guys. If the author didn't happen to mention a particular player, you knew they were a "tweener" - neither favorable nor unfavorable to start. I wish someone would come up with something like that. That would be the berries. that's how it used to be before the S1 and S2's....and when they changed to them...we complained Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 As long as we’re on miscellaneous complaints, why no more huddle news headlines on the front page? Now I have to click on it to see if there’s anything new. It's not like it took up much space. http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=165646 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I personally like Steven Jackson's note: Jackson owners have to be scratching their heads. All that talent seems to be going to waste in an ineffective running game. In every game this season when he's received 20-plus carries he's come up big. Unfortunately that's been only once in the past five games. The Eagles present another great opportunity for the Rams to establish a solid running attack. Will they squander another one? Let's hope not. Every game this season? Past five games? The Eagles? Me thinks they copy/pasted week 15 from last year. Actually, that is exactly what they did. flat out lame. New coach, new system, and it is a cut & paste from last year?? X is a cop out- either start em or sit em- pick one and make a call either way. Way too many solid starters with an X by their name- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo-J Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 On a positive note, I do like the new format for "Bob's Game Breakdowns" that includes "Quality Fantasy Starters" and "Marginal Fantasy Starters." This can be perceived as similar to S1 and S2 from the Start/Bench list... Though personally, I'd like to see the S1 and S2 come back... Fantasy Summary: QUALITY STARTERS FOR MIAMI – RB Ronnie Brown, WR Chris Chambers, TE Randy McMichael, Dolphins defense. MARGINAL STARTERS FOR MIAMI – QB Daunte Culpepper, K Olindo Mare. QUALITY STARTERS FOR PITTSBURGH – RB Willie Parker, TE Heath Miller, Steelers defense. MARGINAL STARTERS FOR PITTSBURGH – WR Hines Ward, K Jeff Reed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 The projections, rankings, articles, and writeups are tools to help you make a decision. Would you really only want this site to have one opinion. Because GOD forbid if that one opinion was off the mark, people would be crying about that. Fantasy Football sites should be used as a tool for the member to help make decisions based on info brought to the table in the articles/write ups. You as an owner should have the final say for your fantasy team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 The projections, rankings, articles, and writeups are tools to help you make a decision. Would you really only want this site to have one opinion. Because GOD forbid if that one opinion was off the mark, people would be crying about that. Fantasy Football sites should be used as a tool for the member to help make decisions based on info brought to the table in the articles/write ups. You as an owner should have the final say for your fantasy team. No...of course not. That's what I used to like about the old way the start bench list was done. WW had his opinion and DMD had his. They didn;t necessarily agree, and I didn't necessarily agree with either of them, but it was something to consider. In the current format it adds nothing to my decision making, and getting an edge on competition is supposedly why I subscribe to the Huddle. But that's just me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I'd like a system where you had obvious "Start 'em if you got 'em" listings, followed by a section of probable starters, but "let's talk first". Then have the bench 'em guys. If the author didn't happen to mention a particular player, you knew they were a "tweener" - neither favorable nor unfavorable to start. I wish someone would come up with something like that. That would be the berries. that's how it used to be before the S1 and S2's....and when they changed to them...we complained You were the kid who said 'yes' when the older kids asked if you wanted a wedgie, weren't you. C'mon...you can admit it to us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 that's how it used to be before the S1 and S2's....and when they changed to them...we complained There was something before the S1 and S2? Couldn't be. Certainly not something that used the exact same "terms" I just did. I'm sure I just pulled all that out of thin air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Is a tweener similar to a peeener? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I've always liked the S1 and S2 designations, but the current system seems like more than enough... S = definitely start U = favorable matchup that week, start if you lack better options X = matchup is not terribly favorable or unfavorable B = bench Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I've always liked the S1 and S2 designations, but the current system seems like more than enough... S = definitely start U = favorable matchup that week, start if you lack better options X = matchup is not terribly favorable or unfavorable B = bench I liked S1 and S2 ... 22 RBs are listed as "S" ... If you have three of them and start two, which two of the three are starts? Mike Bell is as solid a start as Salex? Tomlinson as solid as Deuce? Hmmm... I love this feature -- but I think two tiers of starters is much more helpful. Thanks for week 1 -- Here's hoping it cranks up a notch for week 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I liked S1 and S2 ... 22 RBs are listed as "S" ... If you have three of them and start two, which two of the three are starts? Mike Bell is as solid a start as Salex? Tomlinson as solid as Deuce? Hmmm... I love this feature -- but I think two tiers of starters is much more helpful. Thanks for week 1 -- Here's hoping it cranks up a notch for week 2 I've always interpreted it as... S1 = a stud who you always start no matter what S2 = a Tier 2 or Tier 3 guy that you typically start If that's what WW meant, there's really no reason for the "S1" label because everyone knows who the studs are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 There was something before the S1 and S2? Couldn't be. Certainly not something that used the exact same "terms" I just did. I'm sure I just pulled all that out of thin air. never!!!.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 You were the kid who said 'yes' when the older kids asked if you wanted a wedgie, weren't you. C'mon...you can admit it to us... bah...you're lucky you have 3 bars for your post count....I was really going to lay into after that comment... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsmayes Posted September 7, 2006 Author Share Posted September 7, 2006 I've always interpreted it as... S1 = a stud who you always start no matter what S2 = a Tier 2 or Tier 3 guy that you typically start If that's what WW meant, there's really no reason for the "S1" label because everyone knows who the studs are. I remember it being match up dependent. If a stud had a bad match up he could be downgraded to S2, but not really any futhur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I remember it being match up dependent. If a stud had a bad match up he could be downgraded to S2, but not really any futhur. You're right. I had forgotten about that, probably since the studs were at "S1" status most of the time. I'm fine with it either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.