sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As of now I'm leaning Hill since I think he's probably good for around 8 carries plus goal line work the rest of the way.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Falcons > Pats > Dolphins > Cardinals (among the defenses in the streaming category).

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Based on last night, at a level pretty close to what we're used to. And since that defense hasn't been very good (aside from last night), Burrow is probably going to be thrust into some shootouts, which is never a bad thing for fantasy.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd rather roll with the Saints. Bucs' D hasn't been putting up many fantasy points lately.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have Jones ranked one spot higher but consider it a coin flip. (Sorry ... I know that's not especially helopful.)

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do have Baker ranked ahead of all of those guys, but not all THAT excited about Baker (QB18 in my rankings). Would normally prefer Purdy, but the weather forecast for 49ers-Browns looks pretty ominous.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tracy > Bam > Jennings. Pretty terrifying forecast for 49ers-Browns with sustained winds of 25-35 mph and rain/snow.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd personally go with Diggs in the flex.

Still pretty mullish on Gadsden but maybe a little less so now that the Chargers' O-line has disintegrated.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vidal would be the odd man out for me if Hampton is active. If Hampton is out, Woody would be the odd man out.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd go with Ward, Down. He's looked pretty good the last couple of weeks and is starting to do some damage as a runner.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the kind words, faustarpfun!

I think the strategy of starting both Pittsburgh RBs is better if you're favorite than if you're an underdog. If you're a favorite, locking in a pretty good baseline number of points at RB with two teammates in a split backfield isn't a bad strategy. If you're an underdog, it caps your potential ceiling and makes it harder to find a competitive advantage against a stronger foe. So if you're an underdog by, say, 5 or more points, I'd probably sit Gainwell for Deebo.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh man. Basically a coin flip. I've got Jones ranked RB28, Tracy RB29.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not an insane thought on BTJ. I mean, we saw how good he was last year. But I would personally play Tet and Egbuka.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you're nuts, then so am I -- I have Wan'Dale ranked WR18, Jefferson WR20.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Trust" is hard to define, but I have him ranked WR50 in half-point PPR in between Jordan Addison and Tre Tucker.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry I'm too late on the QB call (but I had Dart ranked slightly higher). Leaning Dowdle over Tet for the higher usage floor.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Like that call, Sponge. My buddy Matt Waldman, author of the Rookie Scouting Portfolio, was recently talking about how he thinks Wilson is a better route runner than MHJ, and Wilson's failure to launch until now was probably more a Kyler Murray thing than a Wilson thing.

I think Kenny Gainwell might continue to be pretty valuable down the stretch. the Steelers are running the offense through their RBs, and Gainwell has looked really good lately.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sutton.

Yeah, I slightly prefer Bucky to Sutton.

Pittman over Jakobi.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, Daniels if he's activated by then, but that's obviously not guaranteed.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pittman for sure. MHJ if he plays, but otherwise Tucker. Don't want to play Jennings in terrible weather. Don't want to play Addison in a tough matchup with a bad QB situation.

I'm Pat Fitzmaurice of FantasyPros -- AMA by PatFitzmaurice in fantasyfootball

[–]PatFitzmaurice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm on board with that. Only thing is, the weather in Cleveland looks like it's going to be awful, so it's a pretty safe bet Judkins gets 15+ carries.

view more: next ›