dmh100

I was being a little sarcastic and self-deprecating in the original post - obviously I am a frustrated B-Jax owner who was expecting way more from the main RB in a potent offense. Huddle writers definitely couched their advice with the note that Jackson had not ever held the top job before Grant. Maybe he'll turn it around, but in the meantime I'll be sure to put Starks on my list - since you know, he seems to be the sure thing in GB.... I'm certain that's what I read here.... somewhere....

OK - I realize every fantasy-advice columnist in the world suggested it, but who is the one that is going to admit that they oversold Brandon Jackson as *the* waiver pick up of the season? He's done so little in GB that it seems clear *someone* should have picked up on the fact that he was not such a lock that readers were told to blow their waiver priority or budget on him. Come on Huddle writers - someone step up and admit the mistake!

Well if all it takes is someone to answer questions, I'm thinking ... call center! I mean you just set up a center of say 10 minimum wage earners, give them a script for how to handle the calls, and always start the guy with the higher projected stats. If someone challenges the advice have a scripted answer for that like: "_____ has the better matchup this week," "_____ is due for a big game against a defense that is ranked ___ against the run." You would make a mint!

Simple answer: If there is no collective bargaining agreement, then the owners can't lockout players in total - they would have to lockout players as individual employees. From the players side, they could all bring separate lawsuits against the owners suggesting that they restricted the player's right to get the best possible deal. A lot of this is based on labor law principles, and even the legal experts in the press are uncertain how this plays out.

I happened to be reading a column at a different site and something came up that has beena pet peeve of mine for awhile. In the article the writer makes the point that Naanee is not the "go to guy" in SD, and we should temper the hype. He then supports that by noting (with video) that 59 yards and the TD Naanee had came on one play in which the defense overplayed Gates and lost Naanee in coverage - in other words, Naanee got lucky. That defies logic as a reason for discounting any WRs stats - I can see a case made on targets (Naanee had 8 to Floyd's 12), but this idea that just because a player gets most of his points off one play or a busted coverage is illogical. Don't quite a few WR points each week come off big plays and TDs, and are not quite a few of those the result of coverage mistakes and WR/QB recognition of the mistake? Other than PPR leagues, the difference between an average WR game (say 80-90 yards, no TD) and a big game is whether or not a WR happens to get a TD or 2, and/or break free for a really long gain. So I don't see why columnists insist on suggesting that a WR did not get his points legitimately and is not a solid play going forward simply because their big game came from one big play - that's how most big games happen!