Fantasy Football 2017 - Championship Week, Pump the Brakes, Mike Tilt Check

don't like Case Keenham this week at all. I think it's going to be a very cold weather game without Aaron Rogers. I think Minnesota dominates this game. They're not going to need Case Keenham to do much. He'll probably throw a touchdown. Maybe safe is the right word because he is a good quarterback. But I agree with you that Foles isn't. But your decision specifically here is lights out easy. Jared Goff is an incredible play this week. He has a great matchup. He is a good quarterback on.

what is at least a top five offense. I mean, I can't imagine Jared Goff. We haven't finished our rankings, but I can't imagine Jared Goff being outside my top five. Really? I think Goff's going to be great this week. So last week, Jared Goff, in a 40-to-nothing matchup, put up 15 fantasy points. That's the problem. Well, yeah. I mean, obviously Todd Gurley could go ham and eggs and potatoes. But we've also seen Goff have incredibly great games this season.

Tennessee? Tennessee, the last six weeks are their 16th against the quarterback. Yeah, Goff hasn't really been in that upper echelon, no more than two touchdowns in each of the last five weeks. I think he's fallen completely out of the quarterback once. Yeah, I would rate these foals for upside and then Keenham and then Goff. Yeah. Really? Absolutely. Yeah. Keenum's numbers are higher than Goffs every single week.

For the last five weeks. Let's take a golf Keenham water bet then because I feel very confident on that. I think you got the golf cough over there. Am I right? Yeah, the vapos. You got the vapors for golf. We finally agree, Andy. I think Foles is the upside play. And I would rather play Case Keenham. Yeah, I would rather play him over Jared Gough. Wow. Yeah. Yeah. All right. My brain has exploded. It's all right. You'll put it back together again.

That's the essence of this show. But I don't get a waterbed on that? No. All right. Yeah, I don't think so. I mean, it's... Hey, it's smart of you guys. I don't blame you. We'll bring it up, though, if we win. Your child's antics do not phase me. Yeah, they phase Andy. Waterbed. Yeah. Loud and proud. Sorry, everybody. Nobody called the volume up for... Chicken.

Yeah, because Andy's got that Marty McFly built into it. Yep. It's fine. I might lose. Whatever. Brian Hunt has a question. He's also got a better Twitter handle at BioHat. BioLizzard. Got a great end of season discussion topic for you guys. Should a mandatory...

dedicated tight-end only spot be eliminated from fantasy football. Many leagues I plan have changed the tight-in spot to a flex spot or a wide receiver tight-in spot on rosters. What say you, in my opinion, tight-end-only spots no longer have a place in fantasy football? An argument can definitely be made for that because if you look this year, you got a couple of good guys of the position and then just hot garbage. So, you know, I love more flex positions. If you want to get rid of tight-in and roll another flex out there,

I support that. But I would disagree with the notion that it should be done away with. I still like it. I like the tight end spot. Yeah, I would hold on to it. I think I like the added strategy of the extra position of the tight end. And it's fine. At the top of tight end, yes, there's fantastic plays. But this is, every position has that. Tight end just might seem a little more exaggerate. But look at the running back. The top three running backs are always.

miles ahead of the running backs at running back 12 wide receivers the exact same thing so well take this to the int degree because we have time to muse on this let's say every position was a flex position all quarterbacks okay i just mean let's say you had seven eight flex positions that's what you started any you started the best seven players you want to you want to play at any position that would be a very interesting league that would now you but but see what happens when you do that is you lose some of the

nuance to fantasy football. You lose the nuance of having like, I don't know, a position that you have to go find and trade. Look, you don't get the opportunity to draft an Evan Ingram late and find a diamond in the rough. You don't get the opportunity to slide somebody in there because you're just going to play the next. Nobody's going to draft them. Nobody's going to play them. I just think you lose the nuance if you take everything and flex it all out. So that would be my take. I think that's a really strong argument because there is fun. I mean,

You know, my guy, Zach Ertz this year, was a great late round pick that really helped. It still hurts. It still hurts you that he's one of my guys. It hurts that hurts as yours. Yep. And I would say unlike kickers, which are have such a high variance and randomness to them, tight ends, you can still find trends. You can still play matchups. What would this shall be without baby hands, Jack Doyle? Yo. Right. Nowhere. Now where. Brooks is tearing up over there at the thought. Regular size.

Living under a bridge. Yeah. All right. How about this one? Because Mike, I think you brought it up earlier. Herbs says, should I sit Brady? Yeah, Brady's a really interesting guy this weekend. He's handsome. He's an interesting fellow. He has a strange diet that you can get in if you want to pay $100 per meal. Check it out. I don't think that Brady is a locked and loaded.

top three quarterback option for me this week. Are you the one who brought it up, Jay, to me earlier? No, Mike was the one that brought it up, but I did agree and support that, you know, he 12.5 point favorites at home in a 47 point over under tells me I'm starting Tom Brady. Yeah. What would you say he, in a six point per passing touchdown over the last three weeks, Andy, what would you guess he's averaged? A low amount. 12.4 fantasy points. And so, yeah, he missed Gronk for one of those games.

played Pittsburgh for the other one on the road. I'm not going to let those games dictate what I know about Tom Brady. Sure. Over the last, I don't know, 15 years. Yeah, but he, this is not the first time that Tom Brady has let people down in the fantasy championship weeks. This is Bill Belichick is a great coach because Bill Belichick plays matchups. And when he knows that Tom Brady can, is the absolute.

Key to his matchup victory, he goes with Tom Brady, but the Buffalo Bills have a pretty decent secondary. They have a pretty solid passing defense. Meanwhile, their rush defense is terrible. You're not wrong about what Bill Belichick does, but he's, Tom Brady's won people mini championships as well. Yeah. So I'm not going to let those, you know, anomalies and these matchups you're talking about, those Bill Belichick circumstances in previous games dictate.

I mean, what am I going to start over Tom Brady? I was going to say that's the bigger question. If I have Tom Brady, I'm not going to start Nick Foles over Tom Brady. I'm not going to start Joe Flack over Tom Brady. I'm not starting Keenham over Tom Brady. Mike, are you starting Blake Bortles over Tom Brady? Mike, are you starting Blake Bordles over Tom Brady? Mike, are you starting Blake Bordles over Tom Brady? I'm not saying I would, but I might. I'm not going there, but this is a legit question because this could have happened in your draft. What? You're starting Blake Bortals over Tom Brady? I'm not saying I would, but I might.

I would have a serious conundrum there, but go on. I'm not saying I would, but I would. Big Ben. Big Ben against the Houston Texans are Tom Brady. It's a very, this is a very plausible. Yeah, I would go Big Ben. I would go. I would go Brady. I would go Brady there. No, Antonio Brown. I'm not going to. I'll go Brady. Okay. And then Stafford. Stafford against the Bengals who have given up on everything this season. On life. Or Tom Brady. That game's in Cincinnati.

Yes. Four point gap there. Probably go Brady. I'll go Brady. Yeah. But that's what I'm saying. There are real questions. This is not a week where you go, I have Tom Brady, no matter what. Tom Brady's in my lineup. Not for me. A lot of people, yeah. Other than. A lot of people who have Tom Brady on their roster, they don't have another quarterback. I mean, they could go look on the waiver. I'll play Cam Newton. I'll play Cam Newton over Tom Brady. Yeah. And it's possible that you have both based off draft stock. Interesting.

All right, who to start question from Matt in Pinol, California. Who has more upside? Breeze or Rivers? So Breeze is at home against Atlanta. Rivers is on the road against the Jets. And because of the geographic situation for Philip Rivers, I lean would Drew Breeze. I would agree. I will third that. All right. Dak versus Bortles.

William and Chapman wants to know, would you start Dak with Zee coming back? Would you be starting the man of fire? I think this is a fantastic question and very difficult. If you look at the splits for Dak Prescott, they're much better when Zeke is in the lineup. If you look at the game splits for Des Bryant over the past two years, they are five points better in a PPR when Ezekiel Elliott is on the field. It's a really tough one.

And Seattle is rough. It's not a rough matchup, I should say. And Blake Bortles is, I mean, he is the Phoenix right now. I mean, you literally, if you laid a finger on him, you'd lose your arm because he's so hot. So understand the flames philosophy and the matchup not being intimidating. Now Dallas is at home. Jacksonville's on the roads. San Francisco's won three straight. Oh, my goodness. What are you going to do, Mike? I want to know your answer.

He wants to know your answer. Right now, I think I'll go with DAC as the floor play and Bortles as the ceiling play. Okay. Way to Hedge. But the right answer. David and Raleigh. It's giving sound advice. Am I? Jason's over here going, I don't know. No, I know. I'll play Bortles. All right. That's. I don't trust what I've seen from Dack. Am I crazy to start Josh Gordon over Devin's scrumptious for the ship? No.

Not at all. The thing about Devin Funch is it could absolutely come back, but you have the Carolina Target pie. And Cam Newton, when Greg Olson is there, Greg Olson loves pie. He's a hearty man. It's like the cartoon. You know, when they, when they cut the piece of cake, but then they lift the outside of it up and they trick you. That's what Greg Olson does. And if it's,

This comes down to McCaffrey for me. This is McCaffrey or Devin Funches. Who do you think will get the larger target share or will Funches really be involved in the passing game? Because if he is, that's really bad news for Devin Funches. I play Josh Gordon. And I would. Oh, resident Josh Gordon Hater. Resident Josh Gordon Hater. I'll accept the moniker. Is Devin Funches a better wide receiver than Josh Gordon? Who are you going with Jason? No, but it's without a doubt to me. It's Devin S. Funches.

Oh. No, he's not the better wide receiver, but he's got the much better quarterback and the better matchup. I don't trust going in the cold weather game to Chicago, low over under for Vegas. Tampa Bay is one of the worst against wide receivers. Yeah, that's true. Somewhat decent against tight ends. So that says, okay, I get that Greg Olson did.

Greg Wilson spits on matchup advice. I agree, and he reigned on Funches' parade. But I'm not going to take one game and say, well, you can't start Devin S. Scrumptious. I would play Scrumptious again this week. It's a tough question. It is. I mean, Devin S. Scrumptious has about three games to his name. So when you talk about sample size, that's a...

You don't get a lot on either end to know what the work. And you've got none with Olson other than, you know, you got one game with Olson. So it's a tough one. It's a close one. It's a small sample for Josh Gordon. But he's not, he hasn't had a poopy pants. Guaranteed first target in Cleveland is Gordon. Funchest could be three. Right. And also he's, he played two games with Greg Olson out there. One of the games Greg Olson was Goosed.

And we go, oh, then he wasn't back yet. But he was there. He played the game. And Funches, he had massive foot problems. So. All right. Caleb Peterson says he's looking for ways to improve his league. And they are talking of switching to a new platform. One in particular where each week you get a head-to-head win loss and win loss for your score relative to average for all teams. Is that a good or bad idea? Some saying it's crazy because you can still get a.

a win if you played the top scorer. Others say it's fun to have the chaos and randomness of only having head-to-head. What do you think? Mike, describe your league that does points because this sounds, I mean, everybody I know that plays in a league like that loves it. Yeah, I love that. My Money League's scoring format is you get the joy in the randomness of the head-to-head matchup. That's a win and a loss. That's a point. But then the top six scoring teams of the week also get a point.

We've been in the scoring format now for three or four years. I think it's great. I think it really helps hedge against these teams where you get the horror stories of I've been the top scorer overall in my league, but I missed the playoffs. Like that shouldn't happen. And it really helps out of these people who are getting those freebie wins. You're the second lowest points, but you got matched up against the lowest points.