Jump to content

Brutal Brutus

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,948

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Brutal Brutus

  3. Posted

    I'd take Powell but would question taking Brown for Matthews. Matthews is a "starter" but he is currently having touches taken from him left and right. Woodhead has proven to be the more adaqute receiver and Brown is taking the goaline touches. Matthews may be the starter but would you ever feel comfortable starting him? Brown is one consistently injured person away from being a top 10 back. I own Matthews but even though he's healthy he still isn't worth the 7th round pick I used on him

  5. Posted

    Team listed below standard scoring non ppr

    Give. C Spiller, Calvin johnson, Romo, V Jackson, A. gates, r. matthews

    Get- A Rodgers, Lacy, Cobb, Welker

     

    Potential lineup

    Rodgers

    Charles

    Lacy/Powell

    Cobb

    Welker

    Bennet

    Colston/Powell

     

    Current lineup

    Romo

    Charles

    Spiller

    Calvin

    Jackson

    Gates/Bennet

    Colston/Powell

     

  9. Posted

    Pead has the highest ceiling. Rams aren't sold on Richardson yet so it leaves a door cracked for him. Hillman is burried on the depth chart. Michael might be worth owning as a Lynch had-cuff. But even then, he would split carries with turbin if Lynch went down. Jacobs might get a few TDs and yard but ceiling is really limitied, as Wilson is still their guy until Brown returns. woodhead is a decent own in PPR, but he has real limitied ceiling with Matthews and Brown in front of him for carries.

  10. Posted

    Jump on that. Charles is a great PPR back and TRich should flourish not having to facing 9 in the box. AP always looks nice in a line up but Charles in PPR is almost as valuable. You're deep at WR so the lost VJax is minimal.

  14. Posted

    Combination trade always make it easier to up grade, but you don't have alot to pair up with Foster to make an upgrade. You could pair up Rivers to a guy hurting at Qb. Since you have Brady who isnt playing well I wouldn't do that. You could throw in Tate and Foster which make a solid package for a top RB, but unless that back is AP, I probably wouldn't do that either. If you have a Browns fan in your league you could try and package him with Mcgahee.

  15. Posted

    It can be tricky trading a RB for a RB straight up because its stricktly a gut call. You basically have to find someone in your league who has a RB your higher on than Foster, and that same person has be higher on Foster than his guy. I think foster is a higher long term injury risk than Ray Rice, I like Richardson with the Colts, and I think Spiller will rebound. So I would look at guys like that, but since you have Tate I wouldn't fault you for holding on to Foster either.

  16. Posted

    I would agree with that. I think its becoming more and more clear that Tate is the better back at this point. If Foster goes down again, he could become the second option when he returns. You should be able to get solid value for him, especially if you find a desperate owner.

  18. Posted

    I'm on board with Alex Smith but I like Decker over Steve Smith.

    Smith- I think the 49ers secondary is overrated, but I worry about the pass rush of the 49ers. Add that and Smith's nice match up and its an easy decision.

    Decker-He has been dropping passes and under performing but hes on a solid offense. Smith is on a horrid offense thats underperforming. I think Decker has better chance of turning it around against the Raiders, than Smith and Panthers have against NYG.

    • Like 1

  24. Posted

    Biggest problem is that I lost SJax this week too. Right now I'm looking at starting Joique Bell and Daryl RIchardson.......... lol

    I would consider Bell. Bush is banged up, and the down right awful Wash secondary is going to be busy trying to Calving from have the first ever 1000 yard game. That means there won't be any chance of stacking the box and I'd expect most of the carries between the tackles will be Bells.

×