Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Who to Start Week 1?


Recommended Posts

Figured I would come to the Huddle fantasy gurus with this predicament:

In one yahoo league we start 2 RBs, 1TE, and 1 W/RB/TE and I would like your opinions on who I should start week one of the players below at those 4 spots:

DeMarco Murray @NYG

David Wilson DAL

Jermaine Gresham @BAL

Titus Young STL

Trent Richardson PHI

Greg Olsen @TB

DeAngelo WIlliams @TB

Santonio Holmes BUF

Mark Ingram WAS

Personally, I think Gresham and Richardson will struggle against those defenses come week 1 and both are nursing injuries and may be eased into the mix so Olsen may be a better option than Gresham.

Titus Young intriques me at the W/RB/TE spot and he should be able to create space against a St. Louis secondary that has to deal with Megatron, as does DeAngelo and Holmes. I'm thinking Holmes being out for a little while and having to catch balls from Sanchez/The Golden Calf of Bristol may hurt him.

The Saints** just have so many backs and I doubt Ingram gets a big workload but he has goal line scoring ability.

David Wilson I think is going to produce this season as he is thus far in pre-season.

What do you all think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any other opinions on this matter out there? Right now I'm starting Murray, Richardson, Olsen (should have a big game against TB), and Titus Young.

I would go with that except for I would play Holmes over Young. Jets have no real receiver other than him, and a rookie. I wouldn't expect much goal line work but he should get plenty targets one would assume especially if Keller is out. Richardson IF healthy should be somewhere Stevan Jackson of the Rams level. Lowish ceiling, but high floor because he is really the only good skill player on offense that they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...