ChiSox_Sonix

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 12:59 AM) Badger you still watching Revolution? Or am I officially the only person that still does ha. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 01:03 AM) Revolution is on the "on demand" rotation. That means it usually gets watched in random batches. It definitely never blew me away, but there is a part of me that really wants it to. QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 03:15 AM) I've heard S2 is actually good. I will probably catch up eventually. I haven't seen it yet this season, but I plan to. I watched all of Season 1 but I've been busy catching up on other shows that have had priority. Good to hear it's picked up, I really enjoyed it last year despite some horrible acting.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 08:18 AM) Should I start Cutler or Cam Newton? Both have been up and down, but Cutler is up right now and facing the mediiocre Giants D. Cutler. Minnesota defense, especially at home, is pretty tough.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 03:59 AM) Who to start, Danny Woodhead or Justin Blackmon. I am leaning towards Blackmon, but I think Woodhead may be the safer choice. Woodhead is safer, especially in PPR. I'm finally starting him as my RB2 this week over Richardson. He won't be scoring TDs as frequently as he has so far, but a 6-8 reception 60-80 total yard line is quite realistic, especially with Mathews most likely out.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 09:27 AM) Shame on you if you played in that league again this year I am because I won it last year and that situation led to the veto process being revoked this year.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 09:51 PM) What? How in the world is that vetoed? Because some people veto because they don't want to see other teams in the league get better so they use the veto as a weapon. The response given to me last year when I asked why a trade I made was vetoed in a league I was in was along the lines of "because I want to win so I don't want any other teams to get better". It's beyond frustrating

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) Frankly, with Jones now out, the right move would be to call up the Chiefs and see if they'd part with a 3rd round pick for him. No way KC should do that. I wouldn't part with anything other than a 6th. Let's be real, KC's start is nice, but with Denver there they are massive underdogs, even with Tony G. It's a new system from when he was there and it's not worth more than that for half a season. Fasano and Kelce are due back in a couple weeks anyways

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 09:33 PM) The Falcons are going to cost me my 10 game teaser bet, how can they be this s***ty after being so good last season. Yeah they just cost me in my eliminator pool. So Atlanta seems pretty bad huh? O-line is terrible, defense is terrible, running game is bad... QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 11:09 PM) Gruden just said B.Powell is one of the best rushers in AFC get to know him with 5 minutes to go in 4th quarter..............10 carries 28 yards 2.8 avg......Oh JG I caught that too. Gruden has been pretty awful for a couple years now

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 05:55 PM) Florida State shouldn't have been ranked #1 going into the bowl games. There were two undefeated teams plus a one-loss team that had beaten them. They should have been ranked #4 at best. Ok...

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 06:01 PM) Nobody is trading for Brady, everybody already has quarterbacks. I should have also probably added that Jones is a potential 9th round keeper that gives him some extra value. If I do the deal, I really hurt myself for 4ish weeks with bye fillers, I lose a good potential keeper, I help a really good opponent out a lot and if Brady gets back near his usual level of play with Gronk then I'm not getting much of an upgrade at all. It's not as simple as you guys are making it out to be. I'd do the deal. Jones is prone to some pretty bad games every year and you can always find a WR on the waiver wire

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 04:44 PM) Any any system in any North American sport, head-to-head is the first tiebreaker when teams are tied for something. Teams had the same record and ND won head-to-head, which was the exact rationale everybody used in 1989 when Miami and ND finished the season with the same record. That's actually not true. But anyways, they lost after the fact. Were they really supposed to have remained #1? They dropped to 3 or 4 and the teams behind them moved up. It's what happens all the time in college football. Doesn't mean it makes any sense, but it's always been about WHEN you lose in CFB. And ND's loss was bad timing. FSU's title in '93 was deserved and nothing was handed to them. They won when it was most important. Do you honestly think the #1 team beating the #2 team in the Bowl game is going to NOT be still ranked #1 when the final rankings come out?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 12:44 PM) That kid is so irrelevant to me that I just learned her character's name by reading this post. If you type "Dana Homeland" into google search, the next word in the first autofill result is "Annoying"

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 09:19 AM) I would. Me too. Granderson is a nice player but it would be a mistake if he is our "big splash". He's gonna want a lot of money and is already 32.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 08:50 AM) Yeah, I seem to remember FSU getting handed a National Championship in the early 90s that they didn't deserve. Bitter ND fan? Don't lose at home to Boston College and that doesn't happen. It's been that way in college football forever. FSU beat 5 or 6 ranked teams, including Florida (#6?), Miami (#3) and Nebraska (#2) in the Orange Bowl.

My father wasn't at all interested in sports and their were no major universities around so growing up I stumbled into random teams. I know I became a UConn basketball fan because of the Husky mascot but they didn't have a football program. I have been a Florida State football fan as long as I can remember, probably because they were good and on TV a lot in the early 90's and having a sharp uni set certainly doesn't hurt.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 6, 2013 -> 08:48 PM) Schaub is just skull f***ed right now. 4 games in a row with a pick 6 I wouldn't be at all surprised if TJ Yates starts at some point, and soon. I read a tweet from I forgot who this morning saying that the Texans management is high on Keenum as well. Schaub can't have much rope left.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 05:49 PM) Gates ....................Blackman does not even deserve a roster spot. Blackmon is so bad. If he's available in your leagues make sure to ignore him and not waste a roster spot (or FAAB) on him!

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 6, 2013 -> 03:16 PM) Regretting that Jeffery for Bernard trade? Looked like a reallly bad, borderline veto-able trade at the time but Jeffery has looked fantastic the last 2 weeks. Ugh. Yeah I lost this week by 6 points in part b/c the guy I played decided to start Jeffery (40 points). Also because my QB2 got me negative 1 points, but I still would have won if not for Jeffery having a career day. Oh well

Manuel has a sprained LCL (same as RG3's first injury last year) and will be out 2-3 weeks. Buffalo HC also said it is not "out of the question" that whoever they sign starts next week.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 01:23 PM) That is your opinion just like mine is he is cannon fodder. I'd love to play in leagues with people like you.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 11:41 AM) I had a guy who picked Michael Turner as his second RB and he's 2-2. It's fantasy football, people are bound to get lucky even when their team is awful and they have no idea what they're doing. You can manage your team however you like. Nobody's going to tell you who to start on Sunday. Nobody's going to tell you who to pick up on waivers. But if you make a trade that is clearly advantageous to one party, it shouldn't be approved. If I'm the guy who's 1 game behind the guy you traded Adrian Peterson to, just because you really love Dewayne Bowe, is that really fair to me? Is it fair to the other guy who's also 1 game behind? It might be your team, but it's not your league. Everyone in the league should have a say in what goes or what doesn't. Because a lopsided trade, even if there is no foul play involved, can affect those in the league in a negative way. Baseball and football teams claim guys on waivers just to block teams higher in the standings all the time. If you don't think that's wrong, then there is no way vetoing a lopsided trade is wrong. We're tied in the standings in Week 13. Your playing a guy who decides he likes the matchup and starts an inferior QB, let's say Andy Dalton, instead of someone like Matt Stafford. I need you to lose, but since the person you are playing is being an idiot, you're being put in clearly an advantageous situation. How is that fair to me? A bad start/sit move, even if there is no foul play involved, can affect those in the league in a negative way. This kind of attitude frustrates me to no end. Assuming everything is on the up and up and no foul play or poor intent is involved, managers need to be allowed to manage their team the way they see fit. If everyone in the world disagrees with them, so be it. It's not their team.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 10:21 AM) No, but he should be kicked out of the league. It ruins it for everyone else. He's 3-1. Everyone pays the same money to run their own team they way they see fit. It ruins it when other people have a say in how you try to manage your team.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 3, 2013 -> 10:24 PM) He hasn't played above A+ yet, most of the guys there are AA and above. He's also young for his level as it is. If he has at least a decent 2014, I'd bet he's in the AFL after that season. He needs the reps and development time. Have you heard about who we have playing in that low level AFL?

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 12:56 AM) So if I offer Adrian Peterson for DeAngelo Williams because I really really like DeAngelo Williams, the trade should go through? Collusion or no collusion, making lopsided trades makes the league less competitive. Of course it should be allowed. Someone in one of my leagues picked Jay Cutler with his first round pick. (He's a huge Bears fan and usually finishes bottom half of our league). Should we have vetoed his draft pick because it was unbelievably stupid?

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Oct 3, 2013 -> 10:23 PM) So, I have an impressive collection of non-productive RB's in one of my leagues. I have to bench at least one of them (my only real flex option at WR is Michael Floyd). Ray Rice vs MIA Lamar Miller vs BAL Eddie Lacy vs DET David Wilson vs PHI The season so far would suggest Wilson is the guy to sit, but with a favorable matchup and Scott gone, he might finally produce. I'm kind of thinking Miller because his lack of touches despite decent production the last few weeks scares me. I'd give Wilson one more chance. If he can't get it done vs Philly though, well I'd be pretty much done with him

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 3, 2013 -> 09:05 PM) My Jones for Gonzalez trade was vetoed by the league. I've never seen that happen before except in a league where a guy was quitting and trading his guys for nothing to his friends I hate when leagues do that. It's compete bulls***. So you don't think it was fair? So what. It wasn't your team. As long as both managers made the trade in good faith and there was no worry about any collusion or anything else unfair, the trade should be allowed to proceed. I had a trade vetoed last year in a league of mine and it really pissed me off. Thankfully, my two big money leagues have strong veto processes now that makes it tough for a trade to be disallowed.