BC Fantasy Football League

oldngray

nowhere special
Interesting, but horrible. In my opinion, if you have 2 receivers on same team, you should have their QB, too. Reason being, if they both going to have a good game, their QB is going to, too.

I took some chances since it didn't cost anything to try. You seemed to go more for big names that may not produce on the field.
 

1989

Well-Known Member
I took some chances since it didn't cost anything to try. You seemed to go more for big names that may not produce on the field.
In theory the players with the most opportunity will give you the production. RBs that get a lot of touches. WR that get a lot of throws their way. A team that can't get into the end zone would have a productive kicker.
 

upschuck

Well-Known Member
I took some chances since it didn't cost anything to try. You seemed to go more for big names that may not produce on the field.
I like my team this week, not too sure about Diggs, suppose to be rainy there(should need to pass though), but like the rest.
 

Turdferguson

Just a turd
I didn't use my $200 in the cup this week, but will win some money.


Remember all, this is a free contest that you can win real money.View attachment 156006

I am ashamed to be in the same league as you two.
Horrible, simply, horrible
Screenshot_2017-09-16-10-36-24.png
Screenshot_2017-09-16-10-36-30.png
 

oldngray

nowhere special
In theory the players with the most opportunity will give you the production. RBs that get a lot of touches. WR that get a lot of throws their way. A team that can't get into the end zone would have a productive kicker.

But kickers never get that many points. You really need TDs.
 

oldngray

nowhere special
Should have put Abdullah in over Bernard. At least you'd have a starter over the mess of the Bengals backfield.

I took a chance and thought Bernard would score at least 1 TD. I benched Addullah this week because he is up against a good defense. I knew Cinci sucked but didn't expect them to set a record for no TDs.
 
Top