Ray_T

hey guys, coach wouldnt name Dowdle the starter. are you guys still rolling with him? I dont have a stake in this. but in looking at Dowdles big games, he put those up against what might be the two worst rush defenses in the NFL. so right now hes looking better then he actually is. the defense hes up against this week seems to be average as far as run defenses go. looking at yards per carry given up. average. Total rush yards is slightly above average but I'm guessing that is due to late carries in garbage time in games they were losing. so this one should give a better idea as to whether he is the real deal. either way if I had Dowdle and someone gave me a good offer I'd consider taking it.

no shame being out played by a guy who puts up 340 yards and 3 TD no matter what his name is..... Just sayin....

I think the Cincy D isnt all that great. so Rodgers will put up some points. I also think Flacco is good enough to also put up some points and that may force him into a bigger game than he'd normally get. I could see Rodgers getting 280-300 yards and a couple TD. Possibly 3 if things go right.

possible. or the guy dropping him was hot on his heels in the standings. (he said he was 4-0) either way, not my clowns and not my circus. its not really my concern what kind of stake he had in the situation. we were asked to give an opinion and everyone mostly agreed except for him. no surprise really. sometimes people see and hear what they want to see and hear. That doesnt make it right.

you gotta do what you feel is right. and sometimes when you explain things its hard to fully capture the situation when typing out an explanation. perhaps we misunderstood you. but normally when I see a big name player on waivers (and it has happened a couple of times) my first thought is.... this has to be a mistake. then buddy says it was a mistake and commish puts him back on his roster. I do think thats the right thing to do. if a guy like Lamar goes on waivers, whoever gets him is admittedly getting a big boost and that sort of thing also upsets the integrity of the league. so I dont know what you want the commish to do. I think he did the right thing. if I misunderstood your explanation, thats fine. but I dont think the action on the part of the commish was wrong. but it is your money. so do as you please.

even if they make Rico the starter, Hubbard will have value. enough teams are needy at RB I could see one of them making an offer for either him or Rico. Carolina has a lot of holes in their lineup still so I'm sure they'd be interested if they can fill one or two of those....... Hubbard will start somewhere. Even if its not Carolina.

it was. its pure market dynamics. a considerable amount of the labor that was used to harvest food was illegal. when those people leave (regardless of the reason they leave) there are consequences: 1) the supply of labor goes down, but the demand for labor remains the same. so wages do go up. and some places paid less than minimum wage to these workers which allows them to be uber competitive in the market due to cheap labour. 2) so we remove the cheap labor and replace it with more expensive labor who (in the short term at least) will not be as productive. it always takes a cerain amount of time for a new employee to become good at their job. this is no exception. so in the short term, the work wont be as good, or as fast. so farmers, food companies etc. will all feel the pinch financially which results in higher food costs for you, the consumer. for the record, I dont actually take issue with this. the exploitation of illegal labor at less than market rates has made this sector of the economy profitable even at low food prices. its not anymore. so the cost to produce will go up and prices will go up its that simple. Take the politics out of it and it is purely a supply and demand story. the problem with the food companies is it doesnt seem that a lot of americans actually want these jobs. I guess thats the rub. in the short term, the easier result was to allow it to happen, and this has been happening since the '70's or likely even before that. but in the end, I'd guess the cost of labor for most of these companies has likely gone up by at least 10% (probably more) and with this type of industry, at least half of your costs are labor. so anyone trivializing the increase in the price of food isnt living in the real world. in some cases, the company will absorb some of the cost increases and will face a loss in profitability. some may even go out of business.... but in most cases the cost increase will be passed on to the consumer. This is just the way business operates.

I know there have always been miltary bases in the northern half of the US. thats been the case since longer than I have likely been alive. have you gone all conspiracy theory on us now? canada has miltiary bases within 100 miles of the US border too. I hope you dont think the invasion is on? come on guys. if you are gonna send an @ in my direction please have your comment fair and reasonable or just dont send it my way. thanks. (I prefer the latter.... I think I'm done with this conversation)

It doesnt matter who I listen to. I'm canadian. my vote doesnt matter in the Ol US of A. Even if I lived there, my opinion still likely doesnt matter. but in looking at your government, it clearly was put together in such a way that its next to impossible to get anything done. Likely because the people who wrote the original laws of the country were distrustful of government in the first place. Not sure if that is good or bad. it is what it is. but your government runs so differently from the Canadian Government a lot of the issues were not fully making sense. I at least have a better idea of where and what those issues are. There are things I do like about the united states. but the government and the way it operates isnt one of them. part of this is due to the system in place. its very adversarial and that can be destructive at times. I do hope the 'Reds' and the 'Blue's' can figure out a way to work together for the sake of the American people. but based on what I have seen, I dont see that happening in the near future. and I think the American people deserve better. a functioning government is better than one that does not function. and thats where you guys are right now..... both sides have to learn to play nice in the sandbox.

There are a few examples of players who were thrown in less than a week after acquiring them who had a bad result. but ever since Dobbs was able to master a playbook and play effectively in like 1 week this has been the expectation. but the reality is... in most cases, this is not a reasonable expectation. for most QB it takes longer. but we will see. Flacco is an old vet so likely he does pick it up faster than most.

probably the biggest issue to be honest. thing about playing in a new offense. your decision making isnt quite as quick as it would be when you've had a reasonable amount of practice time to learn and master the offense. Thats where the difference lies. if you have the defense playing against him, you are probably getting more sacks than normal. it may turn into an extra INT or two as well. Though Flacco is smart. he will probably throw the ball away most times when pressured with no good options.

under normal conditions I'd say starting flacco 5 days after acquiring him is a bad idea. but the QB play since Burrow got hurt has been pretty terrible. At this point I guess Flacco running the base offense is better than anyone else running the full offense. but I do think the result will likely be the same. Flacco will take some heat if he doesnt play well but I'd argue they never really put him into a position to succeed either. the line is bad. and he doent know the offense fully. That is a bad combination. but I guess they gotta do something. I would not start flacco this week in a superflex format but might consider him next week. it takes time to learn the full playbook so there is no guarantee of productivity.

at the time he played well too. but the book on baker is that he would stare down the WR before throwing to him. but he performed better because not knowing the playbook he also didnt know who he was throwing to. so the tell teams were using on him were no longer working. as such, it messed up the defense. I suppose it also depends... if the new offense is similar to the one he played in I could see the transition happening fairly quickly. but most QB cannot figure out the playbook that quickly without running each play a number of times so they are on the same page as their receivers. and there simply isnt time to do that. but..... Flacco is a vet. so maybe he has a better chance at this than most. Im sure there is a reason why he has been able to hang on at his age in the NFL. this maybe is one of them.... the ability to pick up the offense quickly. on that note I'm surprised there hasnt been another move of another QB famous for his abiity to pick up an offense quickly... Dobbs

it could be both. Generally you want your team to have something to play for. if they let it go down the toilet without even making it look like they made an attempt to salvage the year that sends the wrong message to both the team and to the fans who pay good money to watch them play.

fair. Eagles have pretty decent depth on the O line. some of their backups might be capable of starting on some other teams That doesnt mean the injuries dont hurt, but having a capable backup means it doesnt hurt as much as it would otherwise.

I knew about the pre season injury. wasnt aware of the other one. but that speaks to depth. the line was weak and became borderline respectable last year, but the depth was never good. when that happens you are vulnerable to injuries and that's exactly what has happened. as a result Herberts productivity is not what it was last season. though it does feel like he had an easier schedule last year too. so that may have also contributed to this.

you hit the nail right on the head. that was exactly the point I was leading to.

As one who has played QB this is an unrealistic ask. the best he'd likely be able to do is run the base offense and on only 5 days notice, I'd say that is expecting a LOT. unless they've been talking to the team for a week or so and hes been studying the playbook while waiting for them to announce the trade. I suppose that may be possible but still..... this is fairly irresponsible on the part of the team. Though I guess the alternative is still pretty crappy.

its probably the reason hes always dinged up too. could you imagine how well hed produce if he actually had an extra quarter to half second to hold the ball? I bet he'd light it up.

Honestly, I still think he is a matchup dependant start. but hes on the fantasy radar for sure.

I think hes good for 18 fantasy points per game in that offense. there is 20+ point upside if the matchup is good, but thats expecting a lot. either way, my 12 team superflex league doesnt have enough QB for everyone to have a backup, so I think the upside is better for me to pickup Flacco and trade one of my other QB for the RB that I need. given the QB situation, Im pretty sure I can get a decent RB for one of my QB and then run with Flacco as my #3 QB

well, I'll be bidding as he would make a perfectly fine #3 QB once he learns the offense. but that likely takes at least 1-2 weeks. it would be irresponsible to start him this week. though I"ve seen teams do that sort of thing

well, I'm in a superflex, and even scrub QB are going for $10 to $15 this year due to all the injuries. I'm actually good at QB but have a greater need at RB. I was thinking if I could get Flacco, I could unload one of my other QB to a QB starved team to get access to a RB for myself.

This is big news Flacco throws a good deep ball. but the line is still crappy in Cincy so if he has to hold the ball longer than typical, hes taking a sack or throwing an INT. but he will be serviceable once he learns that offense. now the important question: how much to bid in FAAB dollars?