edjr 6,580 Posted October 5, 2009 They look like a very good duo for the rest of the season. Thoughts? Remaining schedule is very nice too. Oct. 11 at Seattle Seahawks Oct. 18 St. Louis Rams Oct. 25 BYE Nov. 1 at Tennessee Nov. 8 Kansas City Chiefs Nov. 15 at N.Y. Jets Nov. 22 Buffalo Bills Nov. 29 at San Francisco 49ers Dec. 6 Houston Texans Dec. 13 Miami Dolphins Dec. 17 Indianapolis Colts Dec. 27 at New England Patriots Jan. 3 at Cleveland Browns Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2 Posted October 5, 2009 All I know is that MSW has gotten 9, 10 and 11 targets the past 3 weeks. Wish I could've gotten him in all of my leagues, instead of just some... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RamslovaMartzhata 3 Posted October 5, 2009 I see no reason why either shouldn't be started in a lot of leagues.... and they are certainly as good depth as you could possibly want. In my ppr league... Sims Walker has definitely become a starter on my team.. but my WR #2 was Hester. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kitsnow 0 Posted October 5, 2009 He shouldn't be started because he is my 5th wr behind Moss, Fitz, Steve smith(NYG), B. Marshall. No one in my league wants to trade either Bah. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,620 Posted October 5, 2009 Nobody should be surprised when it comes to gerrard, in my main league he has finished in the top 12 each of the last 2 seasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,792 Posted October 5, 2009 I've got MSW as a #2 but my WRs suck. He's definitely at least a #3 with upside. Garrard... Got him too, but he is my backup to Brees. Or is he... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nomad99 742 Posted October 5, 2009 I've got MSW as a #2 but my WRs suck. He's definitely at least a #3 with upside. Garrard... Got him too, but he is my backup to Brees. Or is he... Why would you question Brees as your starter because you have Garrard???? Listen to this poster.....sounds like he knows what he's talking about: I have both Brees and Garrard so I feel particularly qualified to answer this question. I plan to start Brees because he is the best QB in the NFL and more importantly the most likely QB in the NFL to score the most fantasy points any given Sunday, and while it is entirely possible that Garrard scores more points than Brees (like he did last week), that does not change the fact that Brees is the best QB in the NFL and more importantly the most likely QB in the NFL to score the most fantasy points any given Sunday. I hope this helps, and may god have mercy on your FF season if you are entertaining this question. :lol: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted October 5, 2009 Why would you question Brees as your starter because you have Garrard???? Listen to this poster.....sounds like he knows what he's talking about: in my league Garrard 38.65 > Brees 6.05 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ed_jones 0 Posted October 5, 2009 Yes, MSW is for real. The guy has had all-world talent since he came into the league just always seems to get injured. The big question is, do you ride this out or trade him now while he is off the charts HOT? Dont know if it was a real good move or not but I traded him. In my dynasty league I had him as my #4 WR (moving up fast) and Celek as my #3 TE (Gates and Olsen). I packaged them both with Romo to get Peyton Manning and 2 open roster spots. Like I said, not sure if this was the right move or not but it shows that he is highly thought of right now and can net you some good stuff if you dare to trade him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jamco 1 Posted October 5, 2009 with the schedule coming up and Dallas' woes.. I just traded Romo for Garrard gonna make for an interesting season! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted October 5, 2009 with the schedule coming up and Dallas' woes.. I just traded Romo for Garrard gonna make for an interesting season! someone offered me romo and williams for Randy Moss on saturday Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Texansfan 0 Posted October 5, 2009 2 weeks ago I had my top waiver claim in for Laurent Robinson & my backup claim for MSW. Someone higher in the WW claimed Robinson and I got "stuck" with MSW! As long as he stays healthy he's a SOLID #2 WR with upside! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,792 Posted October 5, 2009 Why would you question Brees as your starter because you have Garrard???? Listen to this poster.....sounds like he knows what he's talking about: :thumbsup: He sounds very smart; in fact he sounds like a guy incorporates information as it is available and modifies his opinions appropriately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tony_Romo_Domination 0 Posted October 5, 2009 I locked up MSW quietly weeks ago when I saw Holt was not getting it done. Feels good to get a #1 stud wr of waivers for nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nomad99 742 Posted October 5, 2009 He sounds very smart; in fact he sounds like a guy who incorporates the age old art of sidestepping & back-paddling and modifies his opinions appropriately. Gotcha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,792 Posted October 5, 2009 Gotcha My original post was after week 3, which saw from Garrard a not-so-good game against Indy, then two good games vs. ARZ and HOU who are not confused with passing defense juggernauts; actually ARZ isn't too bad but they were up 28 midway thru the 3rd, most of Garrard's points were garbage time. Similarly, Brees had two great games and then a bad one against the Bills, but they were up early in that one. As I've said often here, it is easy to come in after the fact and say "ha! you were wrong," but that result needs to be isolated from the "a priori" decision process. That's Latin, by the way. After week 4 however, it seems that the Saints are more committed to the run, at least until teams choose to defend it more vs. the pass. I applaud them from a football perspective, but it presents an interesting conundrum from a FF perspective. Also it is clear that the Jags are comfortable with Garrard leading a pass-first offense, in part because of the emergence of MSW. Next week Brees has a bye, but the following week he plays the Giants, while the Jags play the Rams. This information presents a situation, pending Garrard's performance in week 5 of course, which makes one think that Brees is not a stone cold lock to start in week 6. I hope this helps, and may god have mercy on your FF season if you don't understand this reasoning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nomad99 742 Posted October 6, 2009 My original post was after week 3, which saw from Garrard a not-so-good game against Indy, then two good games vs. ARZ and HOU who are not confused with passing defense juggernauts; actually ARZ isn't too bad but they were up 28 midway thru the 3rd, most of Garrard's points were garbage time. Similarly, Brees had two great games and then a bad one against the Bills, but they were up early in that one. As I've said often here, it is easy to come in after the fact and say "ha! you were wrong," but that result needs to be isolated from the "a priori" decision process. That's Latin, by the way. After week 4 however, it seems that the Saints are more committed to the run, at least until teams choose to defend it more vs. the pass. I applaud them from a football perspective, but it presents an interesting conundrum from a FF perspective. Also it is clear that the Jags are comfortable with Garrard leading a pass-first offense, in part because of the emergence of MSW. Next week Brees has a bye, but the following week he plays the Giants, while the Jags play the Rams. This information presents a situation, pending Garrard's performance in week 5 of course, which makes one think that Brees is not a stone cold lock to start in week 6. I hope this helps, and may god have mercy on your FF season if you don't understand this reasoning. So what you are saying is that your original advise to the poster that I quoted was, to say the least, misleading. You indicated that Brees should not be sat as he was the player most likely to put up better points on a weekly basis. Now....the thought process is that based upon the match-up, Garrard may be a better play............this contradicts the advice you gave & brings into question the validity of any future advise you care to offer. If you are sold on the " Never Bench Your Studs" theory & offer up advise to others based upon your conviction.......don't you think you should stick to it????? I hope this helps, and may god have mercy on your FF season if you don't understand this reasoning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Funky Doc 7 Posted October 6, 2009 Yes, MSW is for real. The guy has had all-world talent since he came into the league just always seems to get injured. The big question is, do you ride this out or trade him now while he is off the charts HOT? I'm trying to trade this guy, but no one wants him because I picked him off waivers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,792 Posted October 6, 2009 So what you are saying is that your original advise to the poster that I quoted was, to say the least, misleading. You indicated that Brees should not be sat as he was the player most likely to put up better points on a weekly basis. Now....the thought process is that based upon the match-up, Garrard may be a better play............this contradicts the advice you gave & brings into question the validity of any future advise you care to offer. If you are sold on the " Never Bench Your Studs" theory & offer up advise to others based upon your conviction.......don't you think you should stick to it????? I hope this helps, and may god have mercy on your FF season if you don't understand this reasoning. I am somewhat of a believer in "never bench your studs," but that is when a stud is at unbenchable status. At one point LT, Stephen Davis, Jerry Rice, and others were unbenchable, but now I might advise you to bench him. Would that make me a hypocrite? Also it is "advice," not "advise." "Advise" is the verb, "advice" is the noun. I hope this helps, and may god have mercy on your grade school grammar teacher. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PSILOCYBIN 0 Posted October 6, 2009 I think MSW is for real. As an MJD owner, I've watched quite a bit of Jags football thus far and I am impressed. MSW was picked up this week and I thought about it for a second but I am deep at WR and with MJD, I don't particularly like starting a RB and WR from same team unless it's a bye week. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nomad99 742 Posted October 6, 2009 I am somewhat of a believer in "never bench your studs," but that is when a stud is at unbenchable status. I think the above statement validates my point Mr Wishy-Washy. You sound like Clinton trying to clarify what the meaning of "IS" is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinsrule05 30 Posted October 6, 2009 I am somewhat of a believer in "never bench your studs," but that is when a stud is at unbenchable status. At one point LT, Stephen Davis, Jerry Rice, and others were unbenchable, but now I might advise you to bench him. Would that make me a hypocrite? It is one thing when a guy gets later in his career and he is no longer a stud. So from one season to the next you make a change. But to change who you think is a stud, ie "unbenchable", from week to week is pointless. It means I could come on here any given week to hear you seriously defend a position only to take the other side the next day. I don't really care if it makes you a hypocrite but it does make anything you say be useless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShoeGum 2 Posted October 6, 2009 It is one thing when a guy gets later in his career and he is no longer a stud. So from one season to the next you make a change. But to change who you think is a stud, ie "unbenchable", from week to week is pointless. It means I could come on here any given week to hear you seriously defend a position only to take the other side the next day. I don't really care if it makes you a hypocrite but it does make anything you say be useless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,792 Posted October 6, 2009 It is one thing when a guy gets later in his career and he is no longer a stud. So from one season to the next you make a change. But to change who you think is a stud, ie "unbenchable", from week to week is pointless. It means I could come on here any given week to hear you seriously defend a position only to take the other side the next day. I don't really care if it makes you a hypocrite but it does make anything you say be useless. It saddens me that you find my posts useless. For what it's worth, I'm 4-0 in my $$$ keeper league where I started Brees over Garrard, and I'm 21-7 in the InterBoard League after a disappointing 3-4 week (and the best record of the 12 FFToday participants is 16-12). So I implore you to reconsider your position because, occasionally, I may make a comment worth noting. A stopped clock is, after all, right twice per day. I am reminded of a conundrum I feel that all politicians face: once you take a position, thou shalt never change that position, lest some reporter throw it back in your face. Just once I'd like to hear a politician say "yes, I said that in the past, but I've changed my position because I've since learned <x>." I would be inclined to vote for such a person. Back on topic, I find it interesting that you define "stud" as a season to season decision. Did the many people who drafted LT in the first round expect to play matchups? I would hope not. I had Braylon, Plax, and Holmes in my above keeper league last year; going into the season my dilemma was which of these must-starts to play. The answer ended up being... Royal. Things happen during a season, including injuries, injuries to supporting positions, coaching changes, and philosophy changes, to rethink who you would consider a must-start. My comment was not so much of an indictment of Brees, who I think will be fine once opposing teams figure out they need to pay attention to the run; rather a compliment to Garrard, who albeit played against a team with a decimated backfield, seems good enough to warrant consideration based on matchups. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nomad99 742 Posted October 6, 2009 It saddens me that you find my posts useless. For what it's worth, I'm 4-0 in my $$$ keeper league where I started Brees over Garrard, and I'm 21-7 in the InterBoard League after a disappointing 3-4 week (and the best record of the 12 FFToday participants is 16-12). So I implore you to reconsider your position because, occasionally, I may make a comment worth noting. A stopped clock is, after all, right twice per day. I am reminded of a conundrum I feel that all politicians face: once you take a position, thou shalt never change that position, lest some reporter throw it back in your face. Just once I'd like to hear a politician say "yes, I said that in the past, but I've changed my position because I've since learned <x>." I would be inclined to vote for such a person. Back on topic, I find it interesting that you define "stud" as a season to season decision. Did the many people who drafted LT in the first round expect to play matchups? I would hope not. I had Braylon, Plax, and Holmes in my above keeper league last year; going into the season my dilemma was which of these must-starts to play. The answer ended up being... Royal. Things happen during a season, including injuries, injuries to supporting positions, coaching changes, and philosophy changes, to rethink who you would consider a must-start. My comment was not so much of an indictment of Brees, who I think will be fine once opposing teams figure out they need to pay attention to the run; rather a compliment to Garrard, who albeit played against a team with a decimated backfield, seems good enough to warrant consideration based on matchups. I'll go back to your original post....dated 10/1/09: I have both Brees and Garrard so I feel particularly qualified to answer this question. I plan to start Brees because he is the best QB in the NFL---Pay attention here: and more importantly the most likely QB in the NFL to score the most fantasy points any given Sunday First statement of your opinion. and while it is entirely possible that Garrard scores more points than Brees (like he did last week), The Devil's Advocate caveat to set up your close. that does not change the fact that Brees is the best QB in the NFL and more importantly the most likely QB in the NFL to score the most fantasy points any given Sunday. THAT is the NEVER BENCH YOUR STUDS position you are touting. I hope this helps, and may god have mercy on your FF season if you are entertaining this question. Sounds like you are talking SEASON here...No????? My point....If you choose to subscribe to the "Never Bench Your Studs" school of thought.....You must stay that course...UNLESS your stud gets hurt. Diverting from your stance to play match-ups when your stud is healthy indicates that you don't REALLY believe in what you preach. If you are going to preach........please try to believe in the subject matter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted October 6, 2009 this is what is ruining america. people never admitting they are wrong, when they are wrong. politics, religion, you name it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,792 Posted October 6, 2009 I'll go back to your original post....dated 10/1/09: I have both Brees and Garrard so I feel particularly qualified to answer this question. I plan to start Brees because he is the best QB in the NFL---Pay attention here: and more importantly the most likely QB in the NFL to score the most fantasy points any given Sunday First statement of your opinion. and while it is entirely possible that Garrard scores more points than Brees (like he did last week), The Devil's Advocate caveat to set up your close. that does not change the fact that Brees is the best QB in the NFL and more importantly the most likely QB in the NFL to score the most fantasy points any given Sunday. THAT is the NEVER BENCH YOUR STUDS position you are touting. I hope this helps, and may god have mercy on your FF season if you are entertaining this question. Sounds like you are talking SEASON here...No????? My point....If you choose to subscribe to the "Never Bench Your Studs" school of thought.....You must stay that course...UNLESS your stud gets hurt. Diverting from your stance to play match-ups when your stud is healthy indicates that you don't REALLY believe in what you preach. If you are going to preach........please try to believe in the subject matter You are good at the colors for a stupid person. I've explained numerous times why I supported Brees vs. Garrard last week, and why after the games I think it is now in question. Garrard has had now 3 good/great consecutive weeks; he is the #5 QB in my league (Brees is #6). We are not talking about a Massaquoi who went off one week. Never mind, it's like talking to a runny yellowish bowel movement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nomad99 742 Posted October 6, 2009 You are good at the colors for a stupid person. I've explained numerous times why I supported Brees vs. Garrard last week, and why after the games I think it is now in question. Garrard has had now 3 good/great consecutive weeks; he is the #5 QB in my league (Brees is #6). We are not talking about a Massaquoi who went off one week. Never mind, it's like talking to a runny yellowish bowel movement. So now you won't start Brees over Garrard because he is ranked higher in your league.....Garrard has usurped Brees & is now your stud QB??? Or are you now admitting that it's OK to bench your stud if in fact logic dictates that a lesser player has a good statistical chance of putting up better numbers???? BTW...."Never mind, it's like talking to a runny yellowish bowel movement." Nice Tubgirl reference.....Gold Jerry....Gold Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,792 Posted October 6, 2009 So now you won't start Brees over Garrard because he is ranked higher in your league.....Garrard has usurped Brees & is now your stud QB??? Or are you now admitting that it's OK to bench your stud if in fact logic dictates that a lesser player has a good statistical chance of putting up better numbers????BTW...."Never mind, it's like talking to a runny yellowish bowel movement." Nice Tubgirl reference.....Gold Jerry....Gold Where did I say that Garrard usurped Brees? I said they were comparably ranked after 4 weeks hence worthy of discussion given all of the werds I've typed... never mind, do your knuckles bleed from dragging on the rocks, or are they calloused up enough by now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skinny_Bastard 157 Posted October 6, 2009 With that schedule and that Defense, any reason why Walker can't finish in the top 10 this year? I can see this happening. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GridIronAssassin#1 0 Posted October 6, 2009 They look like a very good duo for the rest of the season. Thoughts? Remaining schedule is very nice too. Oct. 11 at Seattle Seahawks Oct. 18 St. Louis Rams Oct. 25 BYE Nov. 1 at Tennessee Nov. 8 Kansas City Chiefs Nov. 15 at N.Y. Jets Nov. 22 Buffalo Bills Nov. 29 at San Francisco 49ers Dec. 6 Houston Texans Dec. 13 Miami Dolphins Dec. 17 Indianapolis Colts Dec. 27 at New England Patriots Jan. 3 at Cleveland Browns Good post. You changed my mind on my waiver prioity list this week. My previous list was: 1. Mendenhall 2. New Orleans defense 3. Ben Watson (bye week tight end) Expendable crap => Fred Taylor, McFadden, Sproles My updated waiver priority list is: 1. Garrard (I only have Carson Palmer for a QB) 2. Mendenhall 3. New Orleans defense I'll wait to see if I get any or all of these, then pick up the fill in tight end. Expendable crap => Fred Taylor, McFadden, Sproles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted October 13, 2009 I started Garrard over Hasselbeck.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kutulu 1,676 Posted October 13, 2009 this is what is ruining america. people never admitting they are wrong, when they are wrong. politics, religion, you name it. Ray Rice Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
