Or at the least take back-up duties from Hasty if Mitchell needed to be active for special teams. Not being able to contribute to special teams doesn't stop most rb2's in the league from being active. Right now Sermon is apparently buried deep on the depth chart to where being a special teams contributor is even relevant, and that is shocking based on where expectations were.

Yeah, this is the issue I'm struggling with in my redraft league. Not really an issue in dynasty because all these players are rostered anyway. I went with Hasty because he's higher on the unofficial depth chart, and it seems like maybe Mitchell was chosen to be active because he's a special teams starter. Who knows if that depth chart means anything though because Sermon was RB2 on that same depth chart. I kind of wanted to grab both, but I don't think I can justify losing the depth elsewhere to keep like 8 rb's.

You also don't just hold out players who you think can help you win in the NFL because you're playing a relatively weak opponent. This isn't college. Any given week any team can come out and win. It's also week 1 so we don't know what any of these teams are really made of in live competition.

Unless there's some undisclosed injury or maybe personal family matter holding Sermon out this is throwing up some serious flags about his status with SF. I'm pretty confused. Maybe I missed something, but this came out of left field for me.

Trey Sermon the new Joe Williams? Any word about any pounding of tables.

Seriously, though this is weird for Sermon. Were we so off base about thinking that Sermon was part of the 49ers game plan this year? Healthy scratches are for fringe players where there isn't much expectation for them to be able to contribute.

1.5 PPR is a huge boost for cooks value over typical settings. I don't think that guy was actually paying attention to what you were saying. I don't know the answer, but it isn't a no brainer.

There are lots of women who like hairy men. She was just a bitch.

People work to make a fair exchange of services and goods. There is nothing inherently dishonest about it. It says something about your perspective that you think it does. That you are an inherently dishonest and untrustworthy person. There's a lot about your presentation of the situation that is an outright lie or misrepresentation. Many concert tickets cost far less than $500 for example and are accessible to normal working class people. Lol at that crock of bullshit.

I've said before in this thread, but out of those 500 people there inevitably were probably people who needed the money more than him and to whom $10 was a significant amount of money. People who worked hard for their money and were just trying to give themselves and small treat and whose lives were made incrementally unnecessarily harder by his greed. If you're justifying that or over the course of your life haven't learned to think through that your actions can have negative effects on other people's lives than you're simply a bad person.

Being illegal isn't even the thing. It's wrong. Taking things that don't belong to you is wrong. If you want to pull on heartstrings, even though in reality it isn't relevant, it is a virtual guarantee that out of the about 500 people he stole from there was some amount where the $10 was a significant amount of money. Somewhere in there it's a very real possibility that he stole from children or others who may have been struggling to make ends meet themselves and were just trying to give themselves a nice treat.

The entire idea of the grammy's is stupid, in my opinion at least. It's all just marketing for the music industry. I don't need to get validation for the music I like from what is essentially one big advertisement.

Yeah, op, probably as usual, is hugely misleading if that's what the study is saying.

Related sort of:

"I happen to know you were high at my mother in law's wake. You were talking nonstop for 20 minutes, nothing but gibberish."

I'm 95% it's either a troll post or a joke post, if there's any difference. For several reasons, some that you listed and some others that I'm not going to put the effort into adding to it, it is obviously fake and in a seemingly deliberately ironic way. But because of how the internet is, lots of people will take it seriously and even believe it. I have seen Trump supporter family members unironically post just as obviously fake stuff before.

I feel like the wolves in Alaska would be bigger than wolves elsewhere. A lot of animals get bigger the further north you go. Bergman's Rule, which apparently is at least somewhat contentious. I'm just speculating though.

I'm rolling with him. I could use the rb depth, especially after losing JK Dobbins a couple weeks ago.

Almost all people have played the roles of bully and victim of bullies at some point or another. It's very rare that someone has just taken shit without giving it back.

I'm an LSU fan. I've watched lots of college QB's who couldn't throw the ball down field.

Playing "in different decades" is hugely different than "for decades."

Down by the river?

Doesn't really matter, but I think you need to get to 20 years before you say "decades." That's when it becomes multiple decades. 10+ is just a decade plus a little.