Gopher

Members
  • Content count

    19,105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Gopher last won the day on January 2

Gopher had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

470 Excellent

About Gopher

  • Rank
    Huddler All-Pro

Profile Information

  • Location
    SoCal
  • Interests
    My kids, MN sports, golf.

Previous Fields

  • Fan of the
    Vikings

Recent Profile Visitors

17,446 profile views
  1. Ronald Jones II - Calling TB Homers

    I drafted Sony Michell very early in a couple of dynasty leagues, and had the opportunity to take him (or Ridley) in another at the 1.05 pick. I'm usually not one to worry about putting all of my eggs in one basket, so to speak, but for whatever reason (and against my better judgment), I passed on Sony for Jones in that league. Everything I've read about Jones lately gives me the indication that he's simply immature. Both as a person, and as a running back. Maybe he'll figure both of those things out, sooner or later. If not, I'll probably regret making that pick for quite a while.
  2. Lev Bell - Something is brewing in Burgh

    Didn't Big Ben make a similar comment? Something about being pleased with how Conner performed in his last game. I'm assuming it was sarcasm, but it could also be viewed as a jab against Bell, I suppose.
  3. Going for 1 when trailing by 2

    I do think the scoring in the game makes a difference. If it's a 14-12 game at that point, you might be more inclined to try to tie it. And, I think the change in distance of PAT's changes things as well. If your kicker sucks, and it's not an automatic that he's going to make it, I might be slightly more inclined to go for two. But, yeah, in general, I think you don't want to go for 2 unless you get to the point where you have to. At best, it's a 50/50 proposition, and the downside is putting yourself in position where you might be down two scores after New England's next possession. At the point in last night's game where it became a question, there were still 30+ points to be scored in that game. Not even close to the point where you have to force the 2-pt conversion. Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but let's face it... pretty much everybody could see that neither defense was really slowing the opposing offense down. It was almost a guarantee that both teams were going to score at least one more time. It was just a matter of how many times, and how many points (TD vs FG).
  4. Going for 1 when trailing by 2

    I think that, while it seemed odd on a very surface level, it actually made sense when you think about the possible outcomes. There was basically zero chance that neither team would score again. And, kicking the PAT basically eliminates the chance that New England's next score makes it a two-score ball game. In other words.... - If KC kicks the PAT, and NE comes back with a TD, KC needs a TD and 2-pt conversion to tie. No different than they were before, except you always wait as long as possible to try that 2-pt conversion. In other words, kick the PAT until you absolutely have to go for 2. Granted, that theory made more sense when PAT's were basically a chip shot, but with the kickers tonight, I think it still holds pretty true. If NE gets a FG, rather than a TD, KC can go up by 3 with a TD of their own. - On the other hand, if KC goes for 2, there are obviously two outcomes. One, they tie the game. Still a quarter left, lots can happen.... It doesn't really change much, in comparison to the alternative. But, if they fail, they put themselves in a spot where they're down by 9 if NE scores a TD (and kicks the PAT). Not only that, but a NE FG puts them up by 5, rather than 4. Bottom line.... The cons of not getting the 2 might outweigh the pros of getting it. Going for 2 isn't a bad move, but it's certainly not the only move that made sense. But, it felt to me like going for 2 there would be chasing points unnecessarily, or something like that. Kick the PAT, and figure out later on if you even need to go for 2, depending on what the 4th quarter brings. That game had almost no punts.... If it was a low-scoring affair, that might change things.
  5. Huddle Message Board League #3

    Oof... Dead last. Good thing I didn't pay for this. I was looking at my draft, and I'm not sure it gets much worse than this group of RB's.... Fournette (Rd 2), Drake (5), J. Williams (8), Hyde (9), L Murray (11), Burkhead (13), Mack (22). Then I looked at my TE's.... Olsen, Walker, and Doyle. They've all been hurt since Week 2. Doesn't help when my QB2 and QB3 are Eli and Carr. I think I would have been better off just rolling with Rivers alone and drafting more TE's.
  6. 95 years is a good run. Regardless of what you thought of him, he seemed to be a very passionate guy. Counting down until Taz shows up to talk shlt about him..... 3.... 2.... 1.....
  7. Kamara owners

    I've got Kamara in a few leagues, and I guess I knew it was coming. As much as I would love to see the first 4 weeks be an indicator of what's to come all season long, my gut says that's not possible. Even if Ingram hadn't returned, I think I'd be worried that Kamara couldn't hold up over 16 games at that pace. In other words, Ingram might be just what Kamara needs to stay fresh/healthy all year. Maybe that's just me grasping to find a positive spin on Ingram returning... I don't know. But, having owned Kamara last year as well, I'm pretty confident he'll be a beast all year, AS LONG AS he can stay healthy and on the field.
  8. Wait........WTF?!???

    Vikings kickers are on pace to miss 32 out of 40 FG attempts.
  9. Huddle Message Board League #3

    Good draft, fellas. Interested to see how this plays out. I haven't played in an 8-team league in probably 20 years.
  10. All of the leagues I participate in here have a pinned thread in the league forum, specifically for any league rules review topics. Many times, it's things that people argue about. Or just something that somebody would like to see changed/improved, based on the current rules. We keep track of all of the ideas in that thread, start a new topic thread for each item in the spring, and then vote on changing it (assuming we can come up with a specific change to vote on). In some cases, the changes wanted are too extreme (or too vague), and the vote never takes place (or is put on hold until next season, when something more clear can be voted on, after more discussion). Whether it's MFL, Yahoo, or whatever, there is usually a league message board or chat feature that should all the owners/commish to keep a running list of rules review items.
  11. As for which is better, it's a matter of preference, and I prefer to re-seed. Too much flukey shlt in FF the way it is. No need to add more that isn't necessary.
  12. If the rules don't say either way, you leave the bracket as is. In other words, don't assume the need to re-seed unless that is stated in the rules. But, if the consensus is to re-seed, add it to the rules for next year (not this year).
  13. Hyde-Chubb-Duke: Browns backfield

    I wouldn’t just assume Chubb > Hyde, at least for this year. People make that mistake time and time again with rookie RB’s. Will Chubb get more carries/touches? Sure, it could happen. But, in these types of scenarios, for every rookie that comes in and grabs the starting job and keeps on running, I could name five where that doesn’t happen. Just saying.