Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

MillenWasmyFavorite

Established Members
  • Content Count

    3,161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,281 Excellent

About MillenWasmyFavorite

  • Rank
    On the Ballot

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    Yes

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,827 profile views
  1. Can’t help but think he doesn’t get to bring his whole offensive range to the table with this team. maybe CP3 maximizes him, but Booker just looks at him like a boardboy
  2. Yea, Uhhhh... For every HOF rebuttal to why JT should be Okay -- there is a sea of non-outliers indicating that he might not be.
  3. People forget how volatile QB are outside of Top 5. He doesn't need to master every domain of offense, his legs thrust him into Top 9 convo alone. Yea, he's not perfect and he may not improve drastically, but the Bills have a monstrous D, they are committed to him (for now at QB), he is young enough to withstand the general physical of toll playing like he plays... and that division is WIDE open. Mahomes and Jackson have really skewed expectations for galactic two-way QB -- Allen will do just fine while holding Top 3 potential with relative ease.
  4. When he is good, he looks really good. I'm not a Jets fan, but if Bell is productive and just two of his aerial weapons pan out -- He could have a significant turn around. People forget how volatile QB is outside the top 5 from year to year. Factors helping Darnold take a leap into top 8: 1. Their defense could be galactic bad. Adams exit and Moseley sitting out. McDougald is there, but he isn't remotely close to being a defensive juggernaut. 2. Their O line should be better. 3. Bell should be functional at a minimum and is still within all-pro potential window
  5. In terms of what? I wouldn't hang my hat on that Precaution? pain management? (he didn't have ice, he was on bench, he was laughing and joking -- typical factors to assess pain) Furthermore, simply knowing his injury doesn't give us any deeper understanding of anyone else's -- nor does it introduce him to another imaginary set of parameters that magically expands the his range of performance outcomes.
  6. I agree. we should be using simply logic. If he plays, his injury is neither significant or severe -- contrary to what is being spun here. If he plays, the RANGE of performance outcomes is no different than any other dude stepping foot on the field. There is no meaningful way to assess or analyze additional risk (in terms of range of outcomes) you are taking by starting him if the Vikings are willing to do as much. Just because there is an enclave of Fantasy football players that viewed his sitting on a bench as ailing and have a hunch (consistent with every hunch, every we
  7. I'm not able to reconcile a player having a significant injury, yet playing. Are you? I wouldn't make the argument you are attributing to me. The argument being made is if Cook plays, he has a greater range of performance outcomes due to his injury. The argument is supported by hyperbole (SEVERE and SIGNIFICANT) of the injury itself and a generous view of league wide health at week 13. All these dudes are hurt. If Cook's injury allows him to play -- the willingness to start him can't possibly be altered by assigning him a "greater range" of performance outcomes than someone
  8. There's no meaningful difference to suggest that if Cook plays he has a different set of outcomes than any other player/running back. I don't find the made up range of health compelling -- on whole, this is what is being argued: No player is 100% - you agree Players are 80-90% - your point, although made up (All players within this range are subject to an imaginary set of performance outcomes due to health) Cook is below 80% - your point, although made up (All players below 80% are subject to an additional and imaginary set of performance outcomes due to health)
  9. Sure, I can always look for reasons to validate an argument. Or I can play Cook if he plays or bench if he doesn't. I think most of my league mates would be a proponent for outside analysis -- they'd like capitalize SEVERE, too.
  10. We happen to know his injury explicitly. All these players are injured to one degree or another. There are no 100%ers on the field at this point in this season. Whether or not a player pings that next echelon of severity is a dice roll that we're all rolling on every player. I know we want to validate Rotoworld honorary doctorhood, but we are really trying to feign an appreciation for a pretty debatable level of insight.
  11. Such a pointless post. "Wide range of outcomes this Sunday" Literally said about any player.
  12. I don't think he was crying. Think about how loud that stadium was, pretty clear he was yelling loud enough for the doctors to hear.
  13. Any Suns fans? Is the spice gone? Seems like pretty distinct drop off recently (not including last night's dumpster fire)
  14. It is difficult to occur from a poke in the eye. Think about how many times in your life with everyone you know that have been poked in the eye. Think about how many games played over last 10 years and how many cases of detached retina there are. Seems like there a bunch of mothers posting in this thread. The WebMD is strong here; think about this helpful range: "Corneal abrasion or DETACHED RETINA"
×
×
  • Create New...