mlmeloy

Yep, you were right. Thought Buffalo was mailing it in. Guess not.

This cost me the championship. Started Denver instead of Cincy. . . Lost by 2 points.

. . . When someone drafted Andre Johnson ahead of me. I had to settle for Megatron.

Denarius Moore Randall Cobb

I've got both and feel comfortable starting Murray this week. I doubt that Felix plays, but if he does he won't get a ton of carries. They're not giving him 20 carries his first week back with Murray sitting there. More like 5-10.

Oh, NO officer. I didn't STEAL the car; I just BORROWED it for a trip to mexico.

Murray's got one more week before the RBBC starts. Source: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/41008/fantasy-stephania-bell&addata=2011=scheduletest_Tuesday_stephaniachat_xxx

Profootballtalk.com’s Mike Florio on Tim Tebow: “It’s easy to say that he’s a work in progress. But not every unfinished painting becomes a masterpiece. Tebow, once fully developed, could be a .500 quarterback at best.” Undisclosed Lions defender to Yahoo! Sports’ Michael Silver on Tebow: “Can you believe ’15’? Come on – that’s embarrassing. I mean, it’s a joke. We knew all week that if we brought any kind of defensive pressure, he couldn’t do anything. In the second half it got boring out there. We were like, ‘Come on – that’s your quarterback? Seriously?’” Source:: http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/39182/131/reading-rob-ryans-mail?pg=2 Worth a read. Lot of interesting fantasy football nuggets--not all about Tebow, fwiw.

FWIW: http://t.co/EKOFEujZ. Looks like workload will, in fact, go down.

In my league, Nicks is the top WR right now, with White at #3 behind Megatron. All three are pretty close, though; it probably depends on the scoring system. It will be interesting to see how the top 5 shakes out.

I'm dropping Hernandez for Gresham specifically to start Gresham this week. Cincy is playing Buffalo, a team that has struggled to contain TE's this year (though they did alright vs. Detroit).

Same here, I made a bunch of offers trying to upgrade my WR corps (R. White, R. Moss, Lloyd, D. Jackson, etc), but no one bit.

I think it's telling that that didn't release backup RB Nance, instead opting to cut a linebacker to make room for Starks. So, Starks is the 4th stringer, after Jackson, Kuhn, and Nance. I don't think he'll see the field much. He appears to be more of a long term option for them.

This doesn't sound too promising for those stashing away Starks: There's more in the article. Link: http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/includes/news_items/40/news_items_more.php?id=4593&section_id=40

For those still following Starks, there were some interesting tidbits in this article: http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/green-bay-packers-daily-links-matthews-to-return-sunday If you look at the last posted comment, the writer of the article suggests Nance will be moved to the practice squad, Starks will take his place and work mostly special teams, and perhaps take a larger role of the carries around week 11. It was just speculation, but interesting nonetheless.

For anyone who's interested in more than name-calling, there was a pretty good article written about collusion on this very site a few months back: http://www.fftoday.com/articles/beck/devil_10_favor.htm In fact, it discusses this particular scenario.

Anyone who grabbed Lloyd struck gold. Sadly, I am not among those.

I think it's a little early to pick up Quarless, especially with a fairly deep TE group. However, I will say this for him: Rodgers was not afraid to throw to him last week. I was surprised at how many targets Quarless got, under the circumstances, including a key red-zone situation, if memory serves right. Of course, Rodgers may not start his week, but that's another matter.

Here's what ESPN's Matt Williamson said about him today, FWIW: "Going to be a HUGE learning curve. Not only is he coming from Buffalo, but he didn't play college ball last year and has no reps at all at the NFL level. Seems really unlikely to me." Source: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/34777/nfl-with-matt-williamson

Naturally, cases of collusion will help both teams out. That's the whole idea; two individuals make an under-the-table arrangement--such as price-fixing--that benefits both parties but screws everyone else.

Clear case of collusion, in my opinion. Definitely a league I would avoid, if I saw such deals occuring between teams.

I agree. I think a another component of the problem is time to throw. That's what happened for the first 8 weeks last year; Rodgers didn't have enough time to throw, and Jennings numbers took the biggest hit. Chicago was pressuring Rodgers for much of the night; at least it felt that way (I haven't seen the sacked/hit/hurried numbers. I'm worried that Detroit will be able to to the same.

Frankly, I'm not sure Grant would have performed much better. It's not like Jackson was slow and missing the hole or something. He's no CJ, but there wasn't much running room to be had.

Two additional things to keep in mind: 1) Starks wasn't able to participate in the preseason at all. I don't think he was even healthy for mini-camps. 2) The Packer's Oline is somewhat vulnerable, particularly the tackles, and Brandon Jackson has a reputation of being a very good blocker. I'm not thrilled about it, as a Packer fan, but I think Brandon Jackson will be on the field a lot this year. If anyone eats into his carries, it'll be Kuhn rather than Nance or Starks. Just my two cents.

I don't know much about Hernandez, but I thought it might be worth adding that NE plays Buffalo this week, who has already given up big yards to two TE's already this year, including a big game for Finley last week.