Another thing to consider

[Marauders11]

Since everyone is scrambling to try and figure out which players will be rested and who might be a safe play this week I wanted to bring up something that nobody seems to be talking about...

 

what you have to consider is that someone like Jesse Chatman is no slam dunk to play an entire game either (even if LT sits)- he's been dinged all year and while most assume that if the "starters" are rested that their direct back-ups will carry the load- that isn't necessarily the case.

 

You need back-ups in the playoffs too so those key guys will probably be treated carefully as well.

 

A perfect example was what the Eagles did on Monday night with Dorsey Levens. It looked like Levens was on his way to a nice game around midway through the 2nd quarter, but guess what he was pulled after about 10 carries leaving THIRD stringers like Reno Mahe to play out the remainder of the game (more than HALF of the game to be exact).

 

I am reading all over that if the Colts decide to rest their starters that Brandon Stokley would be a beneficiary since he's their "number 3" WR. So what- he's not important to them in the playoffs? That's absurd. If guys are rested why wouldn't Stokley be among them? Same situation with Davenport in GB, and so on.

 

The safest choices obviously are players on teams that either need to win, or know that they are out of it and are playing for pride (like Kansas City, Detroit, etc.) so that you KNOW they'll play a full 60 minutes.

 

Taking chances on ANY players from Philly, Indy, SD, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Atlanta, etc. is potential fantasy suicide.

Edited December 30, 2004 by Marauders11

[Bengal Mania]

Good Point

 

I am definitely not playing Edge. I was considering playing Rhodes (who I think would have a good game), but decided against it for this very reason. I'm going w/ T Jones instead (it sure shows you how a year can change when I'm making a close call to start TJ over the backup for Indy!)

 

I have to play Manning, however, as my backup is out (Rattay), and our league stops FA pickups in week 12. Hope he goes for 51 TDs before he exits (not counting on it, though)

[Furd]

The safest choices obviously are players on teams that either need to win, or know that they are out of it and are playing for pride (like Kansas City, Detroit, etc.) so that you KNOW they'll play a full 60 minutes.

 

636275[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So Larry Johnson and Kevin Jones are safe starts?

 

No kidding.

 

You have to assume that all first string backs are scooped up. If you don't have said first string backs (which is likely, as there are 9 or ll other teams that have one of two of them at least), who are you left with? Second and third stringers. So, I should play a third stringer from a team that has something to play for, as opposed to a second stringer from a team that doesn't?

 

Maybe I'll start Tony Richardson over Jesse Chatman.

Edited December 30, 2004 by Furd

[Furd]

Good Point

 

I am definitely not playing Edge.  I was considering playing Rhodes (who I think would have a good game), but decided against it for this very reason.  I'm going w/ T Jones instead (it sure shows you how a year can change when I'm making a close call to start TJ over the backup for Indy!)

 

636281[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So you're going to start Thomas Jones against a cupcake GB defense that may be resting some of its starters vs. Dominic Rhodes on an offense that may/will be resting its starters vs. a Denver team fighting for its playoff life?

 

You're living on the edge my man.

Edited December 30, 2004 by Furd

[Marauders11]

So Larry Johnson and Kevin Jones are safe starts?

 

No kidding.

 

You have to assume that all first string backs are scooped up.  If you don't have said first string backs (which is likely, as there are 9 or ll other teams that have one of two of them at least), who are you left with?  Second and third stringers.  So, I should play a third stringer from a team that has something to play for, as opposed to a second stringer from a team that doesn't?

 

Maybe I'll start Tony Richardson over Jesse Chatman.

 

636284[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Never said anything about a third stringer from KC so I don't know where you came up with that?

 

but maybe you'd want to consider San Diego's third stringer over Chatman- THAT was the point of my post.

 

Tony Fisher over Davenport.

 

Mungro or whoever over Rhodes.

 

Willie Parker over Duce/Verron Haynes

 

Reno Mahe over Levens

[Marauders11]

So you're going to start Thomas Jones against a cupcake GB defense that may be resting some of its starters vs. Dominic Rhodes on an offense that may/will be resting its starters vs. a Denver team fighting for its playoff life?

 

You're living on the edge my man.

 

636290[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Why the hostility? I was simply throwing out some additional food for thought.

 

In my opinion MOST people will automatically assume that if a starter is being rested that their direct back up (#2) will be a great play in their place. I don't agree that will be the case.

 

Good luck with Chatman, I hope he kicks ass for you.

[Furd]

Never said anything about a third stringer from KC so I don't know where you came up with that?

 

but maybe you'd want to consider San Diego's third stringer over Chatman- THAT was the point of my post.

 

Tony Fisher over Davenport.

 

Mungro or whoever over Rhodes.

 

Willie Parker over Duce/Verron Haynes

 

Reno Mahe over Levens

 

636291[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I thought that you said

 

Taking chances on ANY players from Philly, Indy, SD, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Atlanta, etc. is potential fantasy suicide.

 

But I should consider SD's 3rd stringer, Mungro, Willie Parker and Reno Mahe, all from the teams that you mentioned. So you are advocating that I commit fantasy suicide?

[Bengal Mania]

So you're going to start Thomas Jones against a cupcake GB defense that may be resting some of its starters vs. Dominic Rhodes on an offense that may/will be resting its starters vs. a Denver team fighting for its playoff life?

 

You're living on the edge my man.

 

636290[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I was making a point more about Rhodes than about TJ. I would like Rhodes if he were the #1 RB (whole game this week). TJ has sucked ever since Grossman went down, until last week. I doubt GB is the first poor DEF he's faced in that time, yet he still sucked.

 

But I do like to live on the edge!

[Marauders11]

I thought that you said

But I should consider SD's 3rd stringer, Mungro, Willie Parker and Reno Mahe, all from the teams that you mentioned.  So you are advocating that I commit fantasy suicide?

 

636298[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You should consider all of your options...and the players I listed probably are not under a lot of consideration by many FF's who have important games this weekend.

 

I was only trying to bring up a fact that I think a lot of people overlook which is that back-ups will also be rested and are not necessarily slam dunk replacement options for your first stringers.

 

If you choose to dissect it for your own purposes and be a confrentaional *** then so be it....

 

like I said good luck- I hope I am wrong and Chatman brings home the hardware for you.

Edited December 30, 2004 by Marauders11

[Furd]

Why the hostility? I was simply throwing out some additional food for thought.

 

In my opinion MOST people will automatically assume that if a starter is being rested that their direct back up (#2) will be a great play in their place. I don't agree that will be the case.

 

Good luck with Chatman, I hope he kicks ass for you.

 

636295[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I'm not being hostile.

 

If I had Thomas Jones, I'd start him without hesitation. But I don't, and Chatman is the best that I have. I don't even know who the 3rd stringer is on SD. I'm certainly not going to consider starting him over Chatman.

 

The general premise is fine. But when you start throwing out specifics, you're inviting comments.

 

I'm sorry that I offended your delicate sensibilities. I'll make being nicer one of my New Year's resolutions.

[Marauders11]

I'm not being hostile.

 

If I had Thomas Jones, I'd start him without hesitation.  But I don't, and Chatman is the best that I have.  I don't even know who the 3rd stringer is on SD.  I'm certainly not going to consider starting him over Chatman. 

 

The general premise is fine.  But when you start throwing out specifics, you're inviting comments.

 

I'm sorry that I offended your delicate sensibilities.  I'll make being nicer one of my New Year's resolutions.

 

636315[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

[Furd]

You should consider all of your options...and the players I listed probably are not under a lot of consideration by many FF's who have important games this weekend.

 

I was only trying to bring up a fact that I think a lot of people overlook which is that back-ups will also be rested and are not necessarily slam dunk replacement options for your first stringers.

 

If you choose to dissect it for your own purposes and be a confrentaional *** then so be it....

 

like I said good luck- I hope I am wrong and Chatman brings home the hardware for you.

 

636308[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I'm only a confrontational ass (or whatever you said) sometimes.

 

You threw some specifics out there that didn't make sense in light of your earlier comments. That's all.

[Bengal Mania]

I'm only a confrontational ass (or whatever you said) sometimes.

 

636324[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I'd say you were a confrontational a$$ all the time, but you'd probably just disagree with me.

 

As for Thomas Jones, you can have him, my New Year's Gift to you. Enjoy.

This is the first week in about 12 that he is an actual good start.

[Furd]

I'd say you were a confrontational a$$ all the time, but you'd probably just disagree with me.

 

As for Thomas Jones, you can have him, my New Year's Gift to you.  Enjoy.

This is the first week in about 12 that he is an actual good start.

 

636328[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

But if you show me another post in which I'm a confrontational ass (with the possible exception of a give and take exchange with Az in the Tailgate) I'll buy your membership for next year.

[Marauders11]

Again, back to my Levens example and let's compare that to the San Diego situation.

 

Westbrook sits, Levens starts- Levens saw his last touch on Monday night with 13:39 left in the SECOND Quarter.

 

If LT sits which is a distinct possibilty, the we assume Chatman starts. Chatman has been on the injury report for weeks now so he's obviously at least a little banged up (o.k. who's not).

 

So if Marty is going to protect his players heading into the playoff wouldn't it also make sense that he'd protect Chatman as well? Chatman has proved to be a very effective back-up in spot duty this season, and if LT's groin injury flares up next week I am sure that San Diego would be a little more comfortable knowing that they had a capable back- up ready to go.

 

So the question is what purpose would there be in giving Chatman any more than a quarter or so this Sunday? The answer would be none.

 

Therefore you would have to consider your options which are reduced to:

 

1. Playing Chatman, hoping I am wrong, and that he gets enough chances to turn them into something productive.

 

2. At least consider going with whoever that 3rd string guy is who may end up playing the better part of 3 quarters against a bad KC defense.

 

THAT was the whole point of my original message.

[rhino]

Any light on who that 3rd string guy is in SD? MFL and RTS don't have "3rd string-guy, RB, SD" in the waivers list.

 

And, another point -- playing time doesn't directly convert to ff points. 1.5 quarters of Chatman just may be better than 2.5 quarters of 3rd-string-guy.

 

And, where PHI implemented a strict starter-backup with DLevens/RMahe, other teams may go with a RBBC approach -- another mechanism to keeping their 2nd/3rd string guys fresh and giving them important PT before the playoffs.

[Marauders11]

I'm guessing Michael Turner.

 

From Chargers Web Site....

 

The Chargers stole one of college football’s most-prolific offensive players when they used their second of two fifth-round picks to select Michael Turner 154th overall. A two-time All-America for the Huskies, Turner ranks 13th all time on the NCAA’s career rushing list and each of the last two seasons he ranked second in the nation. Perhaps the most impressive statistic for the young runner is that in his last 508 attempts he had only two fumbles. Turner’s favorite memory from college was rushing for 156 yards in a 19-16 upset of 21st-ranked Alabama at Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa in 2003. Coming into the matchup, Alabama’s defense ranked seventh in the nation, allowing just 50.3 rushing yards per game.

 

College: Ranks 13th on NCAA all-time rushing list with 4,941 yards...second-most rushing yards in Mid-American Conference annals...set school rushing records for yards (4,941), carries (940), touchdowns (43) and 100-yard games (21)...shattered school mark for all-purpose yards (6,038)... ranks second in school history for total points scored (288).

[Gunther]

Michael Turner is the 3rd back according to The Huddle's depth chart as well.

[NSab]

I'm guessing Michael Turner.

 

From Chargers Web Site....

 

The Chargers stole one of college football’s most-prolific offensive players when they used their second of two fifth-round picks to select Michael Turner 154th overall. A two-time All-America for the Huskies, Turner ranks 13th all time on the NCAA’s career rushing list and each of the last two seasons he ranked second in the nation. Perhaps the most impressive statistic for the young runner is that in his last 508 attempts he had only two fumbles. Turner’s favorite memory from college was rushing for 156 yards in a 19-16 upset of 21st-ranked Alabama at Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa in 2003. Coming into the matchup, Alabama’s defense ranked seventh in the nation, allowing just 50.3 rushing yards per game.

 

College: Ranks 13th on NCAA all-time rushing list with 4,941 yards...second-most rushing yards in Mid-American Conference annals...set school rushing records for yards (4,941), carries (940), touchdowns (43) and 100-yard games (21)...shattered school mark for all-purpose yards (6,038)... ranks second in school history for total points scored (288).

 

636470[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Bro knows his shiat.

Lol, Rhino doesn't your spreadsheet tell you all you need to know.

[BS Miscreant]

Taking chances on ANY players from Philly, Indy, SD, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Atlanta, etc. is potential fantasy suicide.

 

636275[/snapback]

 

 

 

This is for those of you who were too busy being confrontational because you opted to look for holes in Marauders post instead of just reading it and taking it for what it's worth. Having read it, I can tell you that it makes good sense. If you can't handle all that reading just look up at the segment I pulled from his original post.

 

By the way, he gave no specific examples of who anyone should start until prompted to do so.

[rhino]

Thanks Mars, Gunther.

[Furd]

This is for those of you who were too busy being confrontational because you opted to look for holes in Marauders post instead of just reading it and taking it for what it's worth.  Having read it, I can tell you that it makes good sense.  If you can't handle all that reading just look up at the segment I pulled from his original post.

 

By the way, he gave no specific examples of who anyone should start until prompted to do so.

 

636554[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

A little thenthitive, aren't we?

 

I read the post, but I didn't need to look for holes. Gilbert Brown could have waltzed through them. Marauder said that he wouldn't start backs on a series of teams, then he said you should consider starting backs on those teams. I questioned Marauder's theory, he responded, end of story.

 

I'd still like to know which third-string back you're going to start, and which backup RB you're starting him over.