BattleshipLorenzen

I"d take Robinson over Yeldon. The only concern I'd have if I were a Robinson owner is the terrible Colts offense with their new unwatchable playcalling. Chud + Pagano = terrible. I'm more tired of the stupid, STUPID Indy media (and stupid national media/announcers) spewing nonsense about Pep, Chud, etc. Anyway, some press ACTUALLY called Chud out *somewhat* this week for, e.g., not involving the team's biggest playmakers, keeping Allen in to block (that guy can catch passes just fine, in fact), etc. Anyway, Jax doesn't seem afraid to throw the ball, even from 1 yard out. If Jax is smart (they're probably not), then Julius would have a big game against those LBs. Bortles would have to play poorly to not torch the Colts. Regarding Vontae, he has reverted back to his normal level of play this year - he's not anything like the stud we saw last year. Also, he doesn't shadow WRs. I think, because of the enormous drop-off after VD, and the even larger one after Toler (according to the depth chart), that Manusky moves VD around so that the opposing QB can't just play catch with his number 2 WR. Pitt, as usual, showed everyone what happens with the Colts D faces a QB who can read the field AND has weapons. If Bortles has improved significantly in that regard since their last matchup (Bortles is the caliber of QB that this defense can stymie enough, at least when they last met), then I'm sorry for the OP's team. But is there a chance? Yes. This team has a great DC, and they play hard for their misguided HC and terrible new OC.

I'd prefer the "all played"/ every team every week record, but it probably tracks very closely with total points scored. Regarding OP, commish should be able to fiat this on the spot. Players should only be able to take actions that help their own lineup or hurt an opposing player's lineup (within reason on the latter). Obvious tanking (leaving Gronk in lineup when the team has another TE rostered and we already know Gronk's out this week, or just benching all players) should lead to a commish-set lineup based on the platform's projected points. The expectation that owners will field the best teams that their time/ability permits is so obvious that no justification is needed in order to respond to such an obvious violation of expectations. Note that the tanking does have to be obvious - starting Bridgewater against SEA instead of Big Ben against Indy is, IMO, not obvious enough. Starting McKinnon over Forte probably is, despite concerns about Forte's playing time and matchup. Also, points scored on the season does not tell one how a team will do in any specific week. This may be worth pointing out to the owner. I was the dominant points leader last year, but had pretty poor playoff games (scored ~40 points below season average). Single games are too random to predict from season-long totals. I would try to get the owner to play it off as a joke first, though. Weeks 13 and 14 can get pretty boring for teams with 1st-round BYEs, and it's tempting to try to do SOMETHING that feels useful.

Well, last week's game was revealing. It wasn't Jones's performance this week - I was looking for him in case he was on waivers before the games, as I was in need of a good WR4 with Sanders questionable -- it was getting to see and read about how Adams fails to succeed at any aspect of playing WR with consistency. However, experts I read generally did keep talking about his target numbers even after the game, and they generally seemed to conclude that his poor efficiency was more likely an anomaly. So, I tend to agree with you, at least from FF columnists.

Yeah, I have dropped my #4 WR in one league. It hurts, but at some point I did have to have room for Langford. I actually do speculative handcuffing - adding guys occasionally when there's a small rumor or chance that the starter is hurt (before week 10 Rawls was a key add - he had been dropped for BYE I think). So, there is some luck involved, and the waiver system matters. I didn't think to 'cuff West, though - my only starter who arguably should be in my leagues, aside from Forte. In my small-bench (5) league, I've almost never had a second QB. I had to drop Hauschka over his BYE; about the only kicker I would not have dropped is Gostkowski. I stink at DST (I seem to curse them - sorry to everyone who has had a few underwhelming weeks from STL), and rarely hold onto more than one. Picking a QB to stream can be rough, or between two similar QBs past the trade deadline (which argues against owning 2 for me). I was looking for someone to start over Wilson this week because he has always put up stinkers at home against SF when his team destroys them. I didn't find someone and just let it go (projected W anyway), and hey! Wilson has a good game! I think I'll still hold onto my second QB (Roethlisberger), but now I will want to 'cuff West, so my WR4 will be gone as soon as 'Manny Sanders is healthy. I heartily disagree with the last sentence. A good tackle is a form tackle. Penalizing launching was a great rule addition - it actually made defenses better. If you had been a Colts fan watching Tim Jennings and worse diving and missing by a yard (laterally, somehow, after being lined up right across from the WR at the snap), you'd have the same "bad form PTSD" that I do as a fan. Many of those kids grew up watching highlights on SportsCenter, etc., and the highlights weren't form tackles -- they were launches. Oh, and I don't care what anyone else thinks - the evidence is quite clear that football head hits tend to lead to cumulative damage that can result in personality, intelligence, etc. changes developmentally and in adults. Even if someone is okay with brain damaging their children, that doesn't mean that other people's children should have to learn how to drive with them, etc... I love the sport; there is absolutely nothing like it. However, it either needs to be fixed (even thinks like helmets that help absorb the shock, even if it makes players look more "like astronauts," or it needs to go. I don't see either occurring within the next 10 years, though.

They make wads of cash either way. It's really not analogous. Before the last CBA, the Bills had apparently figured out that it was more lucrative to lose cheaply than it was to spend to the cap and win. Now, teams have to spend within x% of the cap, but the point is, owning the Titans is still lucrative, despite their record. Now, if you compare FF owners to GMs, I think you have a better analogy.

Agreed; I expect Jones' resurgence to continue.

This. If you have a starting RB with a clear handcuff, you HAVE to own the handcuff. If you don't have one, then watching other handcuffs is important. We learned early on about Rawls, Karlos, etc, but I've seen both dropped multiple times because of other roster management issues (injuries + BYEs). It does require reading a bit to understand, for example. that Charcnado is the guy behind Charles, not Knile. On top of that, you need elite WRs. Yeah, I apologize for that being a stupid suggestion, but it stood out to me this year (I think after the AOB article) -- putting more weight on elite WRs helps, giving an edge to those with less of an injury history. I've seen Watkins dropped, but he's a great flex play to have lying around. For leagues in general, the rules make a difference IMO. Some leagues have special injury rules - things that can help for surprise inactives when people have other things to do Sunday/Monday/Thursday. Good WW rules are critical: Players should not lock until their games' start, and FAAB is ideal; I imagine being a Forte owner and watching the owner with one better spot in waiver priority snag Langford is a major buzzkill. A bad waiver system + small benches = recipe for disaster IMO. Like they're making wads of money? Huge steaming piles of it? After, in many cases, stealing the stadiums from taxpayers (Looking at you Irsay, and most other owners...though not ALL!)? They win in all situations.

With regard to the running game (important for play-action and roll-out success, assuming Brock can do that and hit a guy with the ball), it looks like another case of "very stoppable force meets easily movable object." Denver is 29th in adjusted line yards, and CHI is 32nd in Adjusted line yards allowed. CHI is at home and 18th in pass defense DVOA - not terrible, and I think their defense has has been improving over the season as they and their personnel usage adjust to their new scheme. The salient point is this: The DEN OL is absolutely terrible in pass protection. Every man is an island there. They started the season poorly, their chemistry was "atrocious" a quarter through the season, and they still showed very poor chemistry last week. I"d also want to know about the wind conditions expected on Sunday. But anyway, I'd quickly start Fitzpatrick instead, or Sanchez.

Agreed about their offense. I do think Jones would have more value as an FF starter than Adams if his usage remained the same (I'm assuming it hasn't). Adams was miserable last week; any GB homers who can speak to whether or not Adams can do anything well? Throws to him are wasted if that was what he normally looks like. I wouldn't be surprised to see Jones start to get more playing time again, as he can at least catch the damn football. I've posted this article several times, but I have trouble getting over it; the author indicates that this is not an anomaly. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-room/2015/film-room-davante-adams

Jettison Smith. Right now it is unambiguously Turbin; check out @bryanbroaddus for good DAL beat-writer coverage. Broaddus even alludes to Linehan's own words in an interview when (and now presumably quoted above), and watched Turbin practice as the RB 2 this week. I mean, it could BECOME Smith, but you'd have to have a reason to believe Broaddus isn't the most likely to be correct (or really know something about Smith). It sounds like you're asking for a good source, and Broaddus is your man. I wish there were an equivalent for other muddled backfields... Regarding Turbin being dropped 2x - solid heuristic, but the specifics undercut it in this instance IMO. I think R8RMick has become the authoritative source for descriptions of how the Browns manage their runningbacks. Regarding SEA, well, they knew what they had in Rawls, and they have F.Jax - no role for Turbin.

Agreed; he was so useless at every aspect of his game that Football Outsiders dedicated this week's film room to showing how bad he was. If this is at all representative, then I'd much rather have Griff Whalen (and his physical limitations) getting 21 targets. Griff runs routes and busts his ass; or, to quote Luck, "He f*ing makes plays."

If I had seen film like this on Adams, I would not have been high on him, at all. He seems like a JAG who isn't good for, well, anything (unfair contrast with Sammy Watkins aside). Has anyone seen Montgomery? I barely want Adams on my roster now; I liked him previously because of his target totals when healthy.

On the face of it, I don't question this. I'd be shocked if a politician called it gambling for a reasonable reason.

In a single game, thankfully, it doesn't (at least, not enough to be worthwhile - hurray!). It's all about entering dozens or hundreds of games, not just a few. Things you would note: -factors that seem to influence player value (based on the data) -How other players respond to player pricings, site rankings, etc. This would also help you differentiate data scientists (non-teams, i.e., lineups picked by someone's code, if it lets you do that) from targets . -every data point you can think of for predicting performance (avoiding "overfitting," i.e. interpreting "noise" as "signal" is not too difficult - just takes a little time, and modern stats software does much of the work off the shelf). -Create projection ranges for each player (algorithmically) -Model the "risk" of those ranges (Sort of like, "What is Delanie Walker's floor in this game, 95% of the time? What's his ceiling?") -Create models that maximize reward while minimizing the risk that you've now defined. -At each step, model your entire analysis on part of the data ("training"), tweak it on another part ("validation"), and then test it against a data set not used for training or tweaking ("testing"). This last step is critical - your models need the opportunity to fail. -Model the crowd and compare their performance to yours, as well as your ability to predict the crowd's choices with your crowd models. Etc.

Oh, and I'd roll with Cousins over Manning as long as there is an ankle injury concern (unless ankle injuries aren't big for a QB's follow-through and passing mechanics, on which Manning relies for accuracy). Someone chime in if you happen to know if KC's problems against WR are from mid-deep passes or from YAC plays.