Greg Jennings vs. Roddy White

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:22 am

I'm concerned about White's #s going down due to Gonzo coming to town. I think he could have a few more TDs but a lot less Catches/yards..

Boldin's final value is very much dependent on what heppens between now and the start od the season.

Jennings appears to have the most stable of situations to me.

[ July 20, 2009, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Just Russ ]

Sound Advice · Post by **Sound Advice** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:35 am

Originally posted by GK:
...this was a simple question...thanks much...

I've been to 100's of forums.
This is the ONLY one where people just copy the whole thread.
It's much more annoying than a pissing match.
Those ARE on most forums.

Would it be too much to ask anyone that uses a quote to limit it to the 1 question they are answering or addressing? Not the whole frickin' thread repeated?
Billy? John? Snake? Tom K? Russ?
I'm keeping my good eye on you repeat offenders.

That is basic forum-etiquette.
You know, like when you blow up, you're supposed to say "rant over".

Team Canada · Post by **Team Canada** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:46 am

Boldin has his own injury history and more importantly old man Kurt getting injured.
I am not going to predict Warner goes down this season but I will say he is probably #1 on the must avoid list taking in consideration his adp

Jennings is solid wouldn't have a problem as a very late 2nd round but the spread the ball offence had a tendancy to not feature him in a few games so would probably go in a different direction.
Roddy will have as good or IMO better numbers this year with Gonzo helping ease the coverage and is a very safe and most appropriate pick here

White
Jennings
Boldin (best wr of the 3 IMO just can't take the risk yet)

trueblue · Post by **trueblue** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:50 am

FYI

fantasysportsmag.com just posted it

7. jennings
8. white
9. boldin

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:15 am

Originally posted by Team Canada:
Jennings is solid wouldn't have a problem as a very late 2nd round but the spread the ball offence had a tendancy to not feature him in a few games so would probably go in a different direction.
The Packers really set up Jennings for the big play, so if he's on your fantasy team it can be frustrating at times. He may go the entire first quarter without a target and then suddenly he hits on two big plays in the second or third quarter. They don't throw to him as much as they do to the wideout in the slot, like Driver, but when they do it usually produces good results.

Last year he averaged 16.2 yards per reception on 80 catches, compared to 17.4 and only 53 catches the year before. He also had five 100-yard receiving games last year, 12 games of 60 or more yards receiving, 10 games with five or more receptions and nine TDs. Those are pretty steady numbers and they could even go up this year.

We actually ranked White ahead of Jennings in our first issue of Fantasy Sports Magazine and then flip-flopped the two for our second issue. Boldin has the potential for the best numbers, but we felt that it could be tough keeping him on the field for 12+ games with his injury history. He has missed four games each of the past two years and is probably the more injury-concerning of the three wideouts.

trueblue · Post by **trueblue** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:35 am

IMHO
i feel jennings is the man in this group. he should be middle 2nd round material. because of all the reasons aforementioned and with the 3RR. if your drafting in the late first and you can walk away with white or boldin in the third, you've had a good start.

bill

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:43 am

Originally posted by Sound Advice:
Originally posted by GK:
...this was a simple question...thanks much...

I've been to 100's of forums.
This is the ONLY one where people just copy the whole thread.
It's much more annoying than a pissing match.
Those ARE on most forums.

Would it be too much to ask anyone that uses a quote to limit it to the 1 question they are answering or addressing? Not the whole frickin' thread repeated?
Billy? John? Snake? Tom K? Russ?
I'm keeping my good eye on you repeat offenders.

That is basic forum-etiquette.
You know, like when you blow up, you're supposed to say "rant over". So, I decided to copy your whole post as it's the first time I did that in this thread that you've decided to become the MB police.

While I appreciate the education on MB etiquette, I do believe there is also etiquette about not hijacking a thread with unrelated information,requests, etc.

The purpose of the quoting is to insure fluid conversation IMO.

While I will consider your request going forward, I will do what I think is necessary to make sure my comments are directed towards the intended recipient.

Now, do you have anything to contribute to THIS thread?

"rant over"

RiFF · Post by **RiFF** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:29 pm

Originally posted by Just Russ:
quote:Originally posted by Sound Advice:
Originally posted by GK:
...this was a simple question...thanks much...

I've been to 100's of forums.
This is the ONLY one where people just copy the whole thread.
It's much more annoying than a pissing match.
Those ARE on most forums.

Would it be too much to ask anyone that uses a quote to limit it to the 1 question they are answering or addressing? Not the whole frickin' thread repeated?
Billy? John? Snake? Tom K? Russ?
I'm keeping my good eye on you repeat offenders.

That is basic forum-etiquette.
You know, like when you blow up, you're supposed to say "rant over". So, I decided to copy your whole post as it's the first time I did that in this thread that you've decided to become the MB police.

While I appreciate the education on MB etiquette, I do believe there is also etiquette about not hijacking a thread with unrelated information,requests, etc.

The purpose of the quoting is to insure fluid conversation IMO.

While I will consider your request going forward, I will do what I think is necessary to make sure my comments are directed towards the intended recipient.

Now, do you have anything to contribute to THIS thread?

"rant over"

[/QUOTE]Two posts that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter.

Now 3.