What a Tuel

Eh. Good QB is a funny thing. If the team is doing good, then the QB must be good (Dalton, Bridgewater, Newton, Roethlisberger), but if they are doing bad then they don't have a good QB (Rivers, Either Manning, Brees). Even Rodgers was starting to get questioned for a bit there. Good QB play will beat a team that doesn't have a good QB (ala Bills vs Pats last 15 years), but it doesn't guarantee a spot in the playoffs every year (Roethlisberger 1 out of last 3 years) As for everyone giving Kansas City the 5th seed, I don't know they capitalized on a imploding Peyton Manning one week. I just don't give them a lot of credit. They lost 4 in a row at one point. They will play us tough, and maybe we lose that game, maybe we don't. It will be close for sure, but I don't think their games against the Raiders (Twice), Ravens, or us are easy games by any means.

Depending on other games if the Bills win in NE and lose to KC. The Bills would be 6-5 and the Chiefs will be 6-5. Then depending on the Steelers game at Seattle, the Steelers will be either 7-4 or 6-5. As it stands at that point, if they lost then KC would take 5th Wildcard, and the Bills would take 6th. If they won then the Steelers would take 5th, and KC would take 6th. Either way it completely changes from week to week. One game at a time! NE tomorrow!

No problem. It was curious to me how a play could go for 0 seconds too. Had to check it out. It would definitely be a screw up of the Patriots variety haha.

I've been meaning to go back and look because a lot of people were complaining. What seems to have happened was this: 2:34 Eli Manning throws 30 yards to Harris which seemingly takes 24 seconds off the clock and leaves it at 2:10. Patriots called timeout. Go to commercial 2:14 on the clock after commercial. They reset the game clock 4 seconds to account for the Patriots calling the timeout. The commentary even mentions that they reset the clock. 2:14 Giants run Jennings for 5 yards. 4 seconds come off the clock before Patriots call timeout leaving the clock at 2:10

As in not good? I was looking forward to it. Daredevil was awesome

It's not about the question itself, which could've been asked in a number of threads. It was the tone which could've been lost in transit, but had 3 aspects: 1. Aggravation with Williams for being questionable (What the hell is this kid doing?) 2. Annoyance that it is happening again (concussions before and now THIS?!) 3. Seemingly has to do more with fantasy than the detriment of the Bills team. (How am I going to win in Fantasy now?!) I admit it, I do it for other players all the time when talking to people about players on my fantasy team (like Forte), but when you post on a fan message board with that kind of tone, and reasoning, be prepared for some backlash. That is just people's interpretation. He could've just noticed it on his Fantasy app, and really cared about losing him for a game the Bills could really use him.

But are they prone to getting sick?

Well it seemed as though you were interpreting it as not caring about the team, but only caring about making himself look good for various reasons. In reality, I think Sammy thinks the team would do better if he was targeted more. Sammy looking good as a player, and the team doing well don't have to be mutually exclusive or competing scenarios.

Full Quote "We reached out to a couple people and tried to pull some strings like, ‘Hey, I need my targets. You came up to draft me and I’m not getting targets — that’s a problem. You’re making me look bad and you’re making yourself look bad. Why not make both of us look good?’” The lack of targets is making him look bad. Hence the criticism that he isn't doing enough to warrant Whaley's investment which is also making Whaley look bad.......It actually makes perfect sense and is pretty logical, but no he must be a diva.

Yes, I think I am convinced now that daily fantasy is just a bad idea. 91% of profits of first half of MLB season went to 1.3% of players. But sure baseballfan19192 you've got a shot! I just hope they don't take down season long fantasy with it. Sounds hypocritical but it really isn't.

No. I have no problem with injuries or players playing hard, and putting Brady in the dirt every play. I have a problem with rooting or actively encouraging our players to take other players out. I was watching the Bills vs Miami game and a Miami fan that was there was actively rooting for Miami to injure Taylor. Then cheered when Watkins got up slowly, and laughed joyfully when McCoy got hurt. It is bad sportsmanship, and distasteful.

I do as well. There's one thing to hope we hit him, there is quite another to tell our players to purposely injure him. Bad form, and bad karma.

I think you need to take a step back and look at the spirit of the anti gambling laws. It isn't just a matter of if it is gambling or not, it is about the effect on society. I have no doubt that DFS were growing unchecked, and way too much money was trading hands daily which is triggering this response. The allegations of people cheating didn't help either. As for your link, it is DraftKings legal response, of course it will be full of exploited loopholes and taking apart the AG's statements in a convincing manner. The lawyer that wrote it, wouldn't be doing his job if it wasn't. The whole "paying an entry fee" rubs me the wrong way. As if we all don't know that our entry is part of the pool of money from other people, and that the pool of money is distributed to the winner based on the outcome of football games. The bolded is straight up BS.

Wait. I thought it was impossible to get to the QB in 3 seconds.

Sorry but yearly and weekly fantasy leagues are vastly different. You have to manage your team for the long run in one, and the other you pick players you think will do well and hope you get lucky. Anyone who has played both knows the difference. Not to mention you are dumping hundreds of dollars a week into year long fantasy leagues. You pay an entry fee, and 4 months later you get a pay out.

I do!

Think Forte will play this week?

Hopkins again? Even by going with stats which admittedly don't tell the whole picture. 9 games for 124 targets, 927 yard and 7 tds. Or 13.7 targets, 103 yards, and .77 tds a game. Watkins 5 games for 32 targets, 329 yards and 3 tds. Or 6.4 targets, 65 yards, and .6 tds a game. One wonders if Sammy would get twice as many targets, he would easily match Hopkins in production. But no, we will ignore that in favor of total stats. I mean Sammy hasn't put up the stats, we want him to so far this year, but it is pretty clear to reasonable people that it isn't for a lack of ability. It is a combination of system, targets, and injury.

I would have to unfortunately say him. On paper anyways. FF gets pretty wacky, I've learned to never say a matchup is a sure thing. Do you have a replacement for Langford if Forte plays? (I really really need Forte to play haha)

Especially when the dollar amounts for prizes are usually even, and not so random as that number, so unless he is doing the tax math for us.....I call BS too. 1st $300,000 2nd $100,000 3rd $70,000 4th $50,000 5th $35,000 6th $25,000 7th $20,000 8th $15,000 9th - 10th $10,000 11th - 13th $7,500 14th - 17th $5,000 18th - 22nd $4,000 23rd - 28th $3,000 29th - 35th $2,500 36th - 45th $2,000 46th - 55th $1,750 56th - 65th $1,500 66th - 80th $1,250 81st - 100th $1,000 101st - 140th $750 141st - 200th $500 201st - 300th $400 301st - 500th $300 501st - 750th $250 751st - 1000th $200 1001st - 1500th $175 1501st - 2000th $150 2001st - 2750th $125 2751st - 4000th $100 4001st - 7000th $75 7001st - 12500th $60 12501st - 21840th $5 Not to mention, I bet he just doesn't do it often because it's too easy and boring for him to bother with it every week.

There are ways to do a lot of things online illegally. But if you make it inaccessible enough, then the masses won't bother. FanDuel also says this now on the homepage - As of 2:30 PM EST, we are temporarily restricting paid entries from users located in New York.

Or if after picking Russell Wilson, Burnett runs into field goal range instead of sliding as if the game was over 19-7 with 5 minutes left. Then GB proceeds to do the following: Eddie Lacy to the left -4 yards Eddie Lacy to the right -2 yards Eddie Lacy up the middle 2 yards Punt GB blew that game.

Do you think if situations were reversed Watkins would be putting up for the Giants numbers closer to what he has now, or Beckhams? Or somewhere in the middle? What about Beckham for the Bills? I have a hard time believing that Beckham's stats would look much different than Watkins here. Call me crazy or what, but we haven't been very WR1 friendly with how we play the games. Does that mean we really needed to trade up? I think that could be argued, but comparing Beckham to Watkins is absurd. Wait til the end of their careers before we start down that road.

Yep. I had a score of like 73. Brutal. Not only did it knock me out of the BYE week spot, but I lost $100 in a last man standing elimination aspect of the league.

At least you didn't play Peyton this week.