Roddy Fields

@FantasySource_ Which 2 for my flex in 0.5 PPR: Odunze Wandale Monangi Treyveon

Who’s got a last minute Week 10 Start / Sit question ? 👋 Post yours down below (Poll format preferred) 🫡

@FFToday #AskFFT need 2 of Odunze, Wandale and Monangi for Flex. 0.5 pt PPR

2 HOURS UNTIL LINEUPS LOCK! Use #AskFFT to get your fantasy start/sit questions answered

@FFToday #AskFFT Treyveon Henderson Or Chase Brown in 0.5 Pt PPR?

Got questions about your Week 4 fantasy football lineup? Comment using #AskFFT, and we'll get to as many as we can before kickoff!

@EricNMoody Treyveon Henderson or Chase Brown? 0.5 pt PPR

What is your most DIFFICULT start/sit decision in Week 4?

@EricNMoody Njoku or Fannin in 0.5 PPR?

What is your most DIFFICULT start/sit decision for Week 2?

@ShaneDempsey205 @mikerodak Except they are professionals now...

@mikerodak For the 20% of the Fanbase

Alabama TE Josh Cuevas when asked what statement the team wants to make to fans Saturday: "We just apologize, I guess, maybe. We lost. I apologize. That's not the standard we're used to here at Alabama. We expected to win. We have championship effort and meeting habits, and just kind of, like, practice habits and stuff like that. We'll get them next time. We'll bounce back."

That's correct, Joanne. You do struggle to see. Here, let me help you. Deep breath now. Focus. Read this next sentence over and over again until you realize I really mean it. It does not matter if Trump is guilty. Have you got that? Do you believe I sincerely think that? If so, you're probably wondering why. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not a moron enough to think the answer is "because he's my guy". I don't have a guy. For the moment, just accept that I don't think it matters if Trump is guilty. In order to explain why, I will demonstrate that you agree with me. You think you don't, but you do, and I'll show you why. So, after writing a series of books about a wizard school for kids, and making so much money that you would never have to work a day in your life again, you decided that you didn't actually want to be idle. Commendable. So you invented "Robert Gailbraith", and you started writing more novels. Novels about a private detective who is hired to solve crimes. This is well explored genre, and there's quite a few people who enjoy this sort of thing... enough that these type of novels have some colloquial names. They're called "mystery" stories, but they are also often called "whodunnits". Cormoran Strike (ludicrous name, by the way) is hired to investigate crimes, in order to find out who it was that dunnit. He is not hired to investigate a person to see "whutHeDun". There's two reasons you write it that way. A "whutHeDun" would be a boring story. There's no way for the reader to wonder who did the thing, or how the thing went down. Nothing to puzzle over. They can wonder, I suppose, what crime the target will eventually be charged with, but with that as the major question, how would you tantalize the reader with clues? Surely, as an experienced writer, you can see that such a story would not work. But there's another reason. A "whutHeDun" isn't heroic. When your main character selects a crime to investigate, it's easy to make the readers root for him, simply by writing the crime as some awful thing that needs to be solved, so the perpetrator won't do it again. But if Cormoran Strike were to investigate a man instead of a crime, his actions would not be so admirable. If he don't have a heinous crime to instigate his investigation, then why is investigating this man and not that one? Clearly, the man is being targeted not because he is guilty of a heinous crime, but for some other reason. This wouldn't work even if you wrote so that every "he" in your series of "whutHeDuns" turned out to be a goat rapist or something equally vile and disgusting, because not only would your readers' sense of immersion be damaged by how everybody he investigated turned out vile, but also because he wasn't motivated by something he couldn't have known or been sure of. And if, instead, they were guilty of tax evasion, or failing to pay their television license fee (apparently that's a thing in Brit-land?), or cheating on their wife/husband... well, it would be hard to see ol' Cormoran as a heroic character at all, now wouldn't it? No, he would basically be a professional character assassin, wouldn't he? Hired to dig up dirt on somebody that his rich clients wanted to stick it to. Cormoran Strike, sticky divorce investigator! Thrilling tales of how he catches cheating wives so rich dudes don't have pay alimony! Would you write a story like that? I think you wouldn't. It wouldn't be fun to write, and it would be very difficult to sympathize with the protagonist. He wouldn't be heroic. Well, that's the real justice system for you. It has to be heroic. It has to stand for justice, not just law, especially not if that law is selectively applied. In a free society, we investigate crimes to see who can be charged with them. We do not investigate men to see what they can be charged with. Because the law is intended to be a shield to protect the people, not a sword to attack them. You already believe this. You already have left-wing beliefs that is unjust to selectively target unpopular people with the justice system, even if some crime can be found they are actually guilty of. You understand how if the police arrested only black men, this would be wrong even if only the guilty were convicted. You also understand that sleazy divorce PIs who dig up dirt on preselected targets are not heroes, even if dirt can be found. That's why Cormoran Strike investigates disappearances and murders and such instead. So you already agree with me. You even agree with me if you are so lost to knee-jerk tribalism that you don't care about targeted investigations and malicious prosecution, and you just want to see Donald Trump go to jail, principles be damned. Because, remember, my original thesis was "it does not matter if Donald Trump is guilty". If you believe in the principle of blind and equal justice, then it doesn't matter if he is guilty, because target prosecutions are wrong. And if you don't care about principle, and you just want to get him at any cost, then it still doesn't matter if he's guilty, because then you want to get him even if he's innocent. In no world does it actually matter if he is guilty of the things he is accused of doing, which I doubt you could even explain to me off the top of your head. What matters a great deal is whether the most powerful, most nuclear-armed nation in the known universe is ruled by laws and principles or by men and agendas. Why? Because one day you, Joanne Rowling, might visit the United States of America, and suddenly find yourself in handcuffs. Because someone decided "let's get that transphobe", and assigned a team of federal prosecutors and forensic accountants to go over your entire business empire with a fine-tooth comb. Ah-hah! They would cry, this billionaire has falsified her business records! This is wrong, whatever the context! We must prosecute her at once! And we would all know that the real reason would be your refusal to agree that a man in a dress is a woman. Just as the real reason here is that Donald Trump is a threat to the regime. You may not like it, because you don't like Donald Trump. You may refuse to admit it, because you don't like Donald Trump. But you know I am right about this. Donald Trump is a political prisoner in the same way that a man in a dress is still a man. Because wanting things doesn't change facts.

There are people who are wrong once in a while. There are people who are wrong as often as they are right. And then there is a small minority of nitwits so clueless that they would drink bleach if enough of the pet journalists of the political class told them it would avert the apocalypse. Adult talk time. The world will never make any scrap of sense to you until you understand one basic principle: There is no such thing as social justice, or social progress. There is only technological justice, and technological progress. Doesn't make sense? I'll explain. Imagine, for a moment, the medieval era. Nations are ruled by kings, who command nobles, who command knights. The armored knight, charging on the back of his armored destrier with leveled war lance, is the basic unit of warfare. And he costs a lot. All that armor must be hand-made and custom-fitted by skilled craftsman at a high price. The horse? Even more expensive. And then it must be trained. And the knight himself must train in arms constantly, and others must work to support him. Knights are expensive, which means the nation can only support a few of them, relatively speaking. Which means that a king must only command the loyalty of a solid majority of this very small minority to control the kingdom. Peasants don't have armor, warhorses, or lances, so their opinions don't matter. King doesn't have to keep them happy. So, as an obvious consequence, power concentrated in the hands of the few. Monarchy, autocracy. Consequence of technology. It wasn't black powder that changed the equation, not precisely. Musketeers and cannon co-existed for hundreds of years with armored knights and pikemen, and there was plenty of expensive armor that could turn a musket ball. No, what changed was rifling. A spin-stabilized rifle bullet will make Swiss cheese of any suit of full armor that a man can wear and still walk. Now, suddenly, the basic unit of violent force isn't the expensive armored knight, it's the peasant farmer with a modestly-priced tube. What we call "democracy", really meaning the wider distribution of political influence becomes inevitable. It takes two revolutions and a whole lot of arguing, but the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Had the American and French revolutions failed, the next ones would have succeeded. Tech determines outcomes. What the principle behind this example means is that all those social movements, all that marching around, all that university stuff they think is so important... it might be just an afterthought. A renegotiation to reflect changing market conditions. That would mean that Clover Hogan doesn't matter. Only nuclear plants matter. Naturally, the Clover Hogans of the world are opposed to this idea, because it doesn't give them anything to do, or anything to feel virtuous and important over. Hell, it doesn't even give them anyone to fight, because your standard monster-truck enthusiast is gonna have no objections whatsoever to building more reactors. Hell, he's even going to buy an electric monster truck, once batteries get somewhat better, people stop shouting in his ear, and he has some time to really contemplate what the phrase "full torque from zero rpm" actually means. And oil company execs aren't on social media for Clover to yell at. Meaningful social progress is produced by engineers, not community organizers. This is why all the "green tech" political programs in the world have produced nothing but corruption, graft, arguments, and stupid wind farms that don't work. And this is why one software-company mogul with money to burn outdid them all by producing an electric car you're not embarrassed to be seen driving. The "green revolution" isn't waiting on a bunch of idiot twenty-somethings waving signs, blocking freeways, throwing paint on art treasures, and having toddleresque tantrums in front of the UN. It's waiting on cheaper, simpler reactors, on better batteries, on high-temp superconductors, on photoelectric cells that don't totally suck, on fusion containment that works outside the lad. Don't care about carbon emissions? Don't think humans are powerful enough to significantly warm the planet? Notice the polar ice is still there and the sea levels haven't risen? Fine. Do it for cheap power and the second industrial revolution. Because if you thought the first one gave us cool stuff, if you like the fact that "poor" people now have cars and heated homes and clean clothes to wear and plenty to eat, then wait'll you see what the next one has in store for you. Because the thing that lifts people out of poverty, the thing that brings about liberty and justice for all, the thing that fixes the world and makes things better in every way... is the thing that lifted us out of the muck in the first place. Innovation. Now go make something.

@Anitagonist @GoWithNoah @ChrisChattin @_NickKelly @tuscaloosanews Lol Louisville? This is all that mattered: Top 7 Team’s Overall Opponent Record: Alabama 97-60 (.617) Texas 90-67 (.573) Ohio State 82-62 (.569) Georgia 87-69 (.557) Michigan 83-74 (.528) Washington 75-70 (.517) FSU 77-79 (.493)

@RoddyFields @GoWithNoah @ChrisChattin @_NickKelly @tuscaloosanews I mean they beat a top offense with a third stringer

If Alabama is left out of the CFP, could discourage scheduling good out of conference games in the future. Alabama AD Greg Byrne to @tuscaloosanews: “If we would have played a Group of Five game instead it Texas, there’d be no debate right now.”

@ilikethisteam11 Against Louisville lol

Our entire d-line just got their draft tape lol

@HowTheProsDo @MikeNash15 @BarstoolBigCat Are we forgetting the BC game? Same BC who lost to Northern Illinois

@MikeNash15 @BarstoolBigCat Are we pretending it’s a TEAM game. Includes Defense. Bama is 2 luckbox plays away from 9-3

I’m starting to rethink the games should matter after watching this FSU first half. It’s a tough tough watch

@360Bss @PerfectFratGuy @mcfaddenwalker1 @Commissioner69 @BarstoolBigCat Have you watched any of this game?

@PerfectFratGuy @mcfaddenwalker1 @Commissioner69 @BarstoolBigCat If this rookie beats #14 Louisville, you have the same case

@S_tothe_AM @ChaseGoodbread And won. FSU didn't play a team close to Texas this year. Ni need to argue though. The committee will crush you shortly

@RoddyFields @ChaseGoodbread And we still didn’t lose at home Lol. What are you doing dog, you guys needed a prayer to beat Auburn a muffed kick and a 31 yard prayer.

Whether you want to play the "deserving" game or not, this FSU team doesn't look like it could play within two touchdowns of Alabama. Or Michigan. Or Georgia.

@S_tothe_AM @ChaseGoodbread

@RoddyFields @ChaseGoodbread If you think that I don’t know what to tell you, Auburn almost lost to a horrible cal team and New Mexico State, that team dog walked Arkansas

@EdwardMcMaste15 @justin_everett @atalbe20 @RevDJEsq @_NickKelly @tuscaloosanews Copium

@justin_everett @RoddyFields @atalbe20 @RevDJEsq @_NickKelly @tuscaloosanews It's all good bro

@EngineGreg23 @MatthewBerryTMR Sounds like you haven't watched this Bama team since week 5. Are they as good as past Alabama teams, no. Are they a top 4 team AT THIS POINT of THIS SEASON? Absolutely yes after knocking off #1 tonight (w 4 top 25 wins)

@MatthewBerryTMR It’s 2023. Not last year. Not the last five years. Alabama is not a top 4 team.

It’s unlikely to play out this way but IMO Alabama and Georgia are among the top 4 teams in the country.

@RevDJEsq @ImDatFish @MatthewBerryTMR

@S_tothe_AM @ChaseGoodbread Absolutely yes. Auburn and Ark would be top half ACC teams this year.

@RoddyFields @ChaseGoodbread Are any of those comparable to a horrible USF team, Arkansas and auburn lol

@EdwardMcMaste15 @justin_everett @atalbe20 @RevDJEsq @_NickKelly @tuscaloosanews What does that even mean? You aren't even making sense with your argument anymore lol

@justin_everett @RoddyFields @atalbe20 @RevDJEsq @_NickKelly @tuscaloosanews Neither was Auburn and they should've won