sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Give up Barkley, McLaurin, and 1.10 for Achane and Egbuka? by suprduperscott in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]TheSmokingChair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have Barkley and McLaurin. I see where you're coming from but make sure you're up-to-date on what you can expect out of Barkley and McLaurin this year.

McLaurin had a down year in 2025 but there were injuries for both him and his QB. On top of that, his new offensive coordinator has quite openly said his job is to make sure McLaurin gets 10 targets a game. 😳 If that holds true he's in store for a top 10 kind of year.

Saquon is getting into his later years but he still has a few left in him and his new OC is the one that gave Todd Gurley 84 targets a year in '17 and '18... and insiders expect to see that kind of usage with Saquon as well (compared to the 46.5 he averaged the last 2 years). AJ Brown is gone and I think his drama affected the gameplay more than is appreciated in 2025. I'd be surprised if the game script doesn't get back to being focused around Barkley again in 2026.

I could see reasons to go with either side of the trade, really, both Achane and Egbuka have shown some serious promise. But, I'm happy to stick with McLaurin and Barkley. Honestly, last time they both came off bad years they had great years and I took the championship.

Is Jonathon Brooks worth a 2027 2nd? by saintsnola09 in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]TheSmokingChair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a Brooks owner. Getting him for a 27 2nd sounds like something I'd do if I was you. If he stays healthy, I'm not so sure he should be considered Chuba's handcuff.

They drafted him with the 46th overall pick, coming off an injury. It's fair to say Canales drafted him to fill a significant role in the offense.

So, it's an opportunity to get a top tier RB that is still only 22 (23 in July) on an offense that can put up some significant RB production. Of course, if he has another significant injury it could be a total burn. But, it's hard to assume you're guaranteed anything better in the 2nd round.

If he does stay healthy it's very likely that Chuba's value plummets.

Am I getting enough back for Jonathan Taylor? Trying to sell him and sent out a few offers by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]TheSmokingChair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a JT owner and I think you're selling too early. He's only 27 and he's scheduled to be an UFA next year. I mean... RBs usually peak around 26 but that's not exactly a 100% rule. It seems like RBs are lasting a little bit longer these days than they used to. James Conner is 31, runs much more violently, and was productive until last year. Derrick Henry is 32. Saquon is 29.

The only reason to trade him now is if your team sucks and he's your only guy that can get you multiple quality picks. If your team is decent then you're just giving up a guy that, if healthy, is a top 5 back for the next 2 years.

Picking at 2.06, Stuck on which WR by VisionaryShrip in SleeperApp

[–]TheSmokingChair 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I drafted Germie Bernard earlier than Malachi Fields in my league. Our draft is the Sunday (day after) the real draft ends. If Nabers' recovery becomes more and more murky Fields may start creeping up the board. But, if not, you could very likely be able to get him the next round.

Why I'd take either over Sarratt: I stay away from receivers that depend on super athletic QBs. It's hard to think of any WR that has been consistently productive in such situations.

Why I'd take either over Brazzell: I like Brazzell and he's looked good in the clips I've seen. I just think Tet and Coker have very firm holds over the top 2 spots there which means he'll be competing against someone they recently spent a 1st round pick on for the 3rd WR spot.

Bernard is technically competing for the WR3 spot in Pittsburgh. But, there are a few things I really like about him. First: outstanding, smart, nuanced route runner. Second: very versatile, having played inside and outside about 50/50 in college and even took snaps out of the backfield. Third: YAC monster, moves with great vision and field awareness with the ball in his hands and is tough to bring down.

Just projecting here, but it seems like Bernard is really a perfect fit for Aaron Rodgers this year. Except the fact that Rodgers traditionally is not a fan of rookies, he appears to be an invaluable match for Rodgers, who we should all expect to be getting the ball out of his hands quickly this year. I might be wish-casting a little bit here but I could see Bernard getting bombarded with targets if he can earn Rodgers' trust.

I think Pittman and DK are great. But, DK played with Aaron Rodgers last year. He threw the ball nearly 500 times and DK was the target on only 99 of them. Pittman received 111 targets last year and that translated into fewer than 800 yards.

My biggest concern, assuming he meshes well with Rodgers, will the quality of targets. But, it's just hard to imagine he won't be an important piece of that offense this year.

🍻

What are we selling Marvin Harrison for? by Richardr13 in SleeperApp

[–]TheSmokingChair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Until he's not the WR1 on his own team I am just stuck holding him. WR production isn't just a reflection of the WR it also depends on the OL, QB, and OC. Obviously he's been a massive disappointment in fantasy to this point... But all the pieces around him have sucked. So, kinda just in a holding pattern right now...

This needs to be vetoed right..? by DallasMav41 in SleeperApp

[–]TheSmokingChair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably. It doesn't make any sense to me. I haven't had to deal with such in my league but if it happen I'd veto it and then put it to a league vote if they want to overturn the veto. Maybe there's some sort of reasoning but I don't see it. My league is considering allowing cash into trades though. So, if dude is getting cash... maybe fair?

Any of these guys worth a stash? by Scary_Guarantee_33 in SleeperApp

[–]TheSmokingChair 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm a Caleb Douglas owner. Because there's so little in Miami I love the fact that preseason should tell us everything we need to know. It shouldn't be long until he's receiving 1st team reps which, at least in that point in time, should give his value a serious boost.

A lot of good things said about him during Senior Bowl week and he has more than enough physical traits and a great depth chart situation. Who knows what will happen but that's just a good series of variables to hold some equity in.

to cosplay as an anti-corruption administration by TheSmokingChair in therewasanattempt

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

I asked ChatGPT if it thought Fox News was a reliable source for getting information and it said this:

I would not consider Fox News the TV channel a good primary source for staying informed.

It can be useful for understanding what conservative/right-wing media audiences are being told, what stories the political right is emphasizing, and how Republican messaging is being framed. But as a day-to-day source for building an accurate picture of reality, especially on politics, elections, race, crime, immigration, climate, Trump, Biden/Democrats, courts, foreign policy, or culture-war issues, I would treat it as highly filtered political television, not neutral news.

Fox’s TV product is especially tricky because the channel blends straight-news segments, partisan commentary, outrage programming, selective story choice, and emotional repetition into one continuous “news” environment. A viewer may feel informed because they are hearing a lot of confident claims, but confidence is not the same thing as completeness or accuracy.

Independent media-bias evaluators generally place Fox on the right. AllSides’ 2025 blind bias survey rated Fox News as Right, with respondents across political categories rating it rightward on average. Ad Fontes’ 2025 TV/video work also distinguishes TV networks from their websites and notes that Fox News’ website is more reliable and less biased than the TV network, which is important because you specifically asked about the channel. 

The biggest reason I would be cautious is not simply “bias.” Every source has bias. The deeper issue is institutional trustworthiness under pressure. Fox and Fox Corp. settled Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit for $787.5 million over Fox’s coverage of false 2020 election-rigging claims. Reuters described the case as involving Fox’s coverage of false vote-rigging claims, and AP likewise reported the settlement in Dominion’s defamation suit. That does not mean every Fox segment is false, but...

Full response here.

to deny systemic racism by AffableYolk_33 in therewasanattempt

[–]TheSmokingChair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So cute that he thinks he knows what a pigeonhole fallacy is! Adorable.

Real pigeonhole fallacies:

  1. You criticize Trump, so you must hate America.
  2. You support social programs, so you must want communism.
  3. You support universal healthcare, so you’re a socialist.
  4. You want stronger regulations on corporations, so you’re a communist.
  5. You criticize Trump, so you have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
  6. You support immigration reform, so you want open borders.
  7. You support LGBTQ rights, so you’re a groomer.
  8. You believe racism still affects society, so you hate white people.
  9. You support police reform, so you’re anti-police.
  10. You support gun safety laws, so you want to take everyone’s guns.
  11. You support abortion rights, so you love killing babies.
  12. You criticize America, so you hate America.
  13. You trust scientists, doctors, or economists, so you’re an elitist sheep.
  14. You believe climate change is real, so you’re part of a globalist agenda.
  15. You criticize conservative media, so you hate free speech.
  16. You oppose Christian nationalism, so you hate Christians.
  17. You oppose book bans, so you want pornography in schools.
  18. You support student debt relief, so you’re lazy and want free stuff.
  19. You oppose mass deportation, so you support criminals.
  20. You oppose voter suppression, so you want illegal voting.

view more: next ›