Beerball Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 According to an ESPN fantasy guy (Eric Karabell) he is. This article talks about whether fantasy players should stay away from Shaun Alexander because of his threats to hold out. He says take him...he has him ranked #2 overall. Here's what he had to say about EM: If Correll Buckhalter or Eric Moulds says he'll hold out, I care even less but would quite possibly drop him a notch on my rankings. They're not, but use them as examples for this argument. One is a running back guaranteed of nothing -- neither playing time nor success -- the other now a dime-a-dozen receiver. If choosing between two players in round five, sure, the potential baggage could break the tie on whom I select. Now I know Moulds has dropped somewhat, but dime a dozen?
aussiew Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 Compared to other receivers througout the league - he may be right. Just something we may not be ready to admit yet. Especially me.
ch19079 Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 for those fantasy players.. he may be a "dime a dozen". but on the football field, hes anythign but.
gantrules Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 For fantasy purposes he is. Especially with a rook QB.
Sound_n_Fury Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 for those fantasy players.. he may be a "dime a dozen". but on the football field, hes anythign but. 377340[/snapback] I agree. There's a big difference between Fantasy football (stats) and Real football (wins). I'm happy EM's on my Real football team.
buffaloboyinATL Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 for those fantasy players.. he may be a "dime a dozen". but on the football field, hes anythign but. 377340[/snapback] Exactly, fantasy football does not award points for drawing double coverage so that other players on the field can make plays. Real football does, just ask Peerless Price.
R. Rich Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 Exactly, fantasy football does not award points for drawing double coverage so that other players on the field can make plays. Real football does, just ask Peerless Price. 377346[/snapback] You mean Alvin Price, don't you? Or, is it Peerless Harper?
buffaloboyinATL Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 You mean Alvin Price, don't you? Or, is it Peerless Harper? 377349[/snapback] LOL. To hear them talk on sports talk radio down here, he's all that and more. Every day people call in and say they just have to cut Peerless and move on.
R. Rich Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 I don't think Peerless is a bad player, but people had to realize that, like Harper, he greatly benefitted from playing opposite a Pro Bowl wideout. To think he would just seamlessly make the transition to being THE receiver on a team was premature. Obviously.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 I agree. There's a big difference between Fantasy football (stats) and Real football (wins). I'm happy EM's on my Real football team. 377345[/snapback] Main reason being, receivers don't get double- or triple-covered in fantasy football. If I'm putting together a fantasy team, I might actually take Lee Evans over Moulds (on the premise that the coverage Moulds gets makes Evans a bigger threat). If I'm putting together a real team...Moulds is strong, can run after the catch, can (and is willing to) block downfield on running plays; I take Moulds over Evans every time.
buffaloboyinATL Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 I don't think Peerless is a bad player, but people had to realize that, like Harper, he greatly benefitted from playing opposite a Pro Bowl wideout. To think he would just seamlessly make the transition to being THE receiver on a team was premature. Obviously. 377354[/snapback] Lots of talk about him not being able to get separation, not reaching out for the tough catches and having a bad attitude in the locker room. He complains after a win that Vick didn't throw to him enough instead of just being happy they won. I can see these factors being a problem because they are magnified by the fact that he got elite receiver kind of money.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 I do see where he gets this from as Moulds was 10th in receptions, 21st in yards and off the charts beyond #30 in TDs last year if you care about the #s. However, his comments say more about the lack of reality associated with fantasy football than about the reality of a game that is a fantasy in itself anyway (is a fantasy about a fantasy like a double negative- you'd by this if you are into "reality" TV). I once long ago owned a fantasy football team (They were named The FOG which stood for Friends of God. We were coached by the born again Tom Landry I chose Webster Slaughter as my WR and in our fantasy press release Tom complimented him on having such a biblical name). I once pluncked down with a budy to watch a late 89s Monday night game against the Niners and Skins which would decide a fantasy league match-up I had that week. I had Jerry Rice on my team which was a nice place to be. Unfortunately my opponent has Joe Montana. My roomate listened with amusement while I finally decided that since Rice got a point for every 10 yard gained and Montana only got a point for every 20 yards gained in a throw, and also that Dice got 6 points for a TD catch but Montana only got 3 points that I actually would win if Montana had a big night with Rice but not with other receivers. That is what I rooted for. In fact this meant I initially rooted for the Skins as if the 9ers fail behind Montana would need to go to his deep threat to make up the gap. My roomie was from DC so though he could not follow my fantasy silliness he tolrated it as I was rooting for the good gus. However, as the game progressed, I note that when Montana faded back and looked left it meant he was likely to throw to Rice on the right side. I began rooting for the 9ers when Montana faded back but only if he looked left. My roomate began to get a bit frustrated with my herky-jerky changing rooting. Suddenly Rice went out with an unknown injury. At that point I began to root for the 9ers (by that point I was ahead due to a Rice TD and his yardage) and particularly for the 9ers ST and D because i figured if the 9ers got a big lead they would go to the run to burn some clock or at worst short safe passes which would not give Montana a lot of points. However, Rice was only nicked and I then began rooting for the 9ers again. it was at that point I noticed my buddy had not come back from a bathroom trip and was long gone to enjoy watching football without the distraction of me enjoying fantasy football. the two games are really different things.
gantrules Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 Yeah but it makes those games that you don't give two craps about, say Arizona v. Detroit, more fun.
Astrobot Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 Exactly, fantasy football does not award points for drawing double coverage so that other players on the field can make plays. Real football does, just ask Peerless Price. Spot On. That said, would you take Peerless Price back as your #3 with Moulds and Evans?
buffaloboyinATL Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 Spot On.That said, would you take Peerless Price back as your #3 with Moulds and Evans? 377424[/snapback] From a skill perspective, yes, without a doubt. However with his salary and his ego, I don't believe that would ever be possible.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 Compared to other receivers througout the league - he may be right. Just something we may not be ready to admit yet. Especially me. 377333[/snapback] I would disagree some. If you had tape of every pass DB threw to EM last year, more than half were overthrown, underthrown, thrown behind him, or just plain uncatchable. I think you will see a vastly improved EM with JP tossing him the ham. PTR
AJ1 Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 I would disagree some. If you had tape of every pass DB threw to EM last year, more than half were overthrown, underthrown, thrown behind him, or just plain uncatchable. I think you will see a vastly improved EM with JP tossing him the ham. PTR 377476[/snapback] Exactly. Sometime this season I expect EM to publicly announce what a pleasure it is to hookup with a QB that not only calls his number but can actually hit him with a skillfully thrown pass.
obie_wan Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 I don't think Peerless is a bad player, but people had to realize that, like Harper, he greatly benefitted from playing opposite a Pro Bowl wideout. To think he would just seamlessly make the transition to being THE receiver on a team was premature. Obviously. 377354[/snapback] would also help if he had a QB that could throw the ball.
gantrules Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 Exactly. Sometime this season I expect EM to publicly announce what a pleasure it is to hookup with a QB that not only calls his number but can actually hit him with a skillfully thrown pass. 377509[/snapback] This is assuming a lot.
col_forbin Posted July 8, 2005 Posted July 8, 2005 He had Bledsoe for two years, he can make anybody seem dime a dozen.
Recommended Posts