HailToTheDeacons
Fantasy Sheep Champion
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2011
- Messages
- 29,361
- Reaction score
- 2,196
WGAF about #1...who are you picking #240?
WGAF about #1...who are you picking #240?
It's fun to open fantasy stats in the morning thinking "I wonder if I had any players in the game last night" and discovering that I had CJ Anderson and he got 2 TDs and almost tripled his point projection. Surprise!
Zero RB all day. But that's how you end up with a top 5 WR, top 5 TE, and top 5 QB in a 20 team league.Wow. Your RB situation is horrible. Love your WRs though. I really liked Fuller. But I took Sharpe ahead of him in the 8th.
Fixed.Nonny did post a W against some B-league competition. Give the man some props.
Definitely fair. Didn't go in with as extreme of a strategy but just let the draft come to me.I don't disagree with zero RB. You just took it to the extreme and that's risky in a 20 team league. I don't think my team would be significantly better if I had taken any of the QBs or WRs that went in the 2nd instead of Ingram at 23.
I think major difference between zero RB and zero QB is you're not going to be able to find guys in the later rounds that have the potential to be top options (aka backup RBs that would become RB1s if they became the starter). Also, QB1 a lot less likely to get injured.I agree with your breakdown which is exactly why I took Ingram at 23. I hated the RB1 selections I'd get at the end of the 3rd. Here are the 5 RBs picked after I took Moncrief at 58: Gordon, Matthews, Foster, Jones, Duke. I'd much rather get an RB in the 1st or 2nd and then come back and get a few high ceiling guys in the 7th which is where I got Michael. I probably would have gotten 3 or 4 RBs if didn't need a backup TE behind Cook (6th). Very happy to get Jameis in the 5th. I think in a 20 team, you've got to decide to get Zero RB or Zero QB and I went with the latter.