what injury concern?With an injury concern and very capable backup to steal goal line carries and more? Nyet.
Food for thought.http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-bears-huddle/2012/05/matt-forte-why-no-surgery-in-2012/what injury concern?With an injury concern and very capable backup to steal goal line carries and more? Nyet.
He was terrible last year and his supporting cast doesn't look any better this year. No way do I take CJ2K and feel he's 'safe' value.How is CJ2k not the safest RB outside the top 3 is the better question.
Then you better downgrade everybody.With an injury concern and very capable backup to steal goal line carries and more? Nyet.
I'll take Forte over CJ too, but CJ was not "terrible" last year (at least not in the 2nd half of the season).He was terrible last year and his supporting cast doesn't look any better this year. No way do I take CJ2K and feel he's 'safe' value.How is CJ2k not the safest RB outside the top 3 is the better question.
That wasn't very tasty food.That was a completely speculative article, based on the Bears (DURING A CONTRACT DISPUTE) letting it be known that they were worried about Forte's knees. There were no quotes from medical people who actually examined Forte, and all they suggested is that arthritis "COULD" develop. Not that it will, or even that if it did develop, it would happen soon enough to impact Forte's career.Food for thought.http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-bears-huddle/2012/05/matt-forte-why-no-surgery-in-2012/what injury concern?With an injury concern and very capable backup to steal goal line carries and more? Nyet.
This.MJD will be once he ends his hold out. Until then he carries some risk.I agree with others pointing to C. Johnson as safer than Forte.
If I'm up in the 1st round, and the top 3 RBs and Rodgers are off the board, I' probably take CJ. I feel Forte is safer, but CJ has a higher ceiling. No way I'm taking MJD, especially if his holdout does last into September; similar to CJ last year, there's a difference (IMO) between being in shape and being conditioned for tackle football.MJD will be once he ends his hold out. Until then he carries some risk.I agree with others pointing to C. Johnson as safer than Forte.
Last year was the first time Forte has ever missed a game, and he played in the pro bowl after his injury. As for Bush stealing GL carries, I don't recall Forte even getting a GL TD last year, and he had a great year until he sprained his MCL. I had him on my team, and he got lots of points off reception yards and rushing yards. He is a huge part of that offense whether he is scoring at the GL or not.With an injury concern and very capable backup to steal goal line carries and more? Nyet.
How is CJ2k not the safest RB outside the top 3 is the better question.
Wish there was a "like" button for this. 100% agree it was dirty negotiating by the bears. Do you think that they really would have resigned him with a deal similar to what ray rice got if they REALLY felt he had bum knees??That wasn't very tasty food.That was a completely speculative article, based on the Bears (DURING A CONTRACT DISPUTE) letting it be known that they were worried about Forte's knees. There were no quotes from medical people who actually examined Forte, and all they suggested is that arthritis "COULD" develop. Not that it will, or even that if it did develop, it would happen soon enough to impact Forte's career.Food for thought.http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-bears-huddle/2012/05/matt-forte-why-no-surgery-in-2012/what injury concern?With an injury concern and very capable backup to steal goal line carries and more? Nyet.
I would much rather take CJ2k with a full offseason than Forte with yet another new offensive coordinator, 2 supposed top WRs, and a team that is trying to catch up to the Pack/Lions in the pass department.He was terrible last year and his supporting cast doesn't look any better this year. No way do I take CJ2K and feel he's 'safe' value.How is CJ2k not the safest RB outside the top 3 is the better question.
Right, because all Forte does is put up RB1 fantasy numbers no matter who the OC is, the QB is, the WRs are, or how the other teams in the division are doing.I would much rather take CJ2k with a full offseason than Forte with yet another new offensive coordinator, 2 supposed top WRs, and a team that is trying to catch up to the Pack/Lions in the pass department.He was terrible last year and his supporting cast doesn't look any better this year. No way do I take CJ2K and feel he's 'safe' value.How is CJ2k not the safest RB outside the top 3 is the better question.
less RBs that carry the full load is exactly what makes them more valuable than ever this year. RBs drop off in a hurry. I've done plenty of mocks at #6 taking Braduy, Calvin, or RB and my teams are always better when I take a RB 1stTotal crapshoot....that's why I don't understand why in redrafts, people would pass over proven big play QB's(Brady, Brees,Rodgers) or WR's like Calvin, for the hope and and a prayer Forte, Johnson, et al. Last year I couldn't trade Cj2' for a roll of toilet paper, and now he is being projected as top 5 overall? Been playing FF, for well over a decade, and the game has changed. The days of the stud running backs are over.....teams do not employ the every down back anymore due to fatigue, injury and money. Why would I invest a #1 to anchor my team, when I am uncertain they are the anchor of their team? Todays NFL, is a passing league, just as the powers that be would like. The star player are QBs, and this league is set up, from a rules perspective, to make that happen. In all my years watching football I have never seen anything like the past few years from a pure passing/receiving numbers. It is like the Steroid era in baseball, except these are rule changes that are making this happen, not juiced up ball players.So my point is, after the top 3 (cant say BIG), go QB or WR and wait on RB. Almost every team has a time share, and you can fill in the RB hole later in the draft. In my mind, there is nothing worse than playing the QB carousel all season long, however, old habits die hard.
His worse season he has 1k rushing 500 receiving and 4 tds (something forte matched in 12 games, but cj2k didnt miss any time).His best season he has 2k rushing and 500 receiving and 16 tds.He was terrible last year and his supporting cast doesn't look any better this year. No way do I take CJ2K and feel he's 'safe' value.How is CJ2k not the safest RB outside the top 3 is the better question.
Define safe, because I think you are all using the wrong word.no way id take CJ as a "safe" pick. Forte is safe
I agree with this. The difference between the RB you get in the first and in the 4th-5th is just too big of a drop off. QB is deep. Its always deep. Yes, Rodgers, Brady and Brees score more but when you add them to the rest of the team you end up with, it wont be as good as if you grab two stud RB, two Stud WR and Romo or Rivers. I have gone over the scenarios about 20 times with different mocks I have done and the best team is RB-RB. By at least 10 PPG. WR is ridiculously deep. In the third round, you are grabbing junk RB. In the third round I have had my pick of top tier AJ Green, Jordy Nelson, Cruz, Nicks, Dez, etc. Stud WR. With the exception of Megatron, those guys had great seasons. When I went with a QB first round, the RB weren't as good and the WR were average. When I went with Megatron first, I still ended up with the likes of Redman, BJGE, type guys as my every week starters. Did not like that at all. When I went with Forte first, I ended up with Forte, St Jax (sometimes Sproles), AJ Green, Cruz, Romo/Rivers.I even waited a couple of times and ended up with Witten/Finley/Gates and still grabbed Rivers/Romo in the 6th. Rivers had his worst season last year. I think he will be better. There were solid QB in the 5th and 6th like Eli/Ryan/Peyton as well. Not saying this is the end all or anything, just my observations so far.less RBs that carry the full load is exactly what makes them more valuable than ever this year. RBs drop off in a hurry. I've done plenty of mocks at #6 taking Braduy, Calvin, or RB and my teams are always better when I take a RB 1stTotal crapshoot....that's why I don't understand why in redrafts, people would pass over proven big play QB's(Brady, Brees,Rodgers) or WR's like Calvin, for the hope and and a prayer Forte, Johnson, et al. Last year I couldn't trade Cj2' for a roll of toilet paper, and now he is being projected as top 5 overall? Been playing FF, for well over a decade, and the game has changed. The days of the stud running backs are over.....teams do not employ the every down back anymore due to fatigue, injury and money. Why would I invest a #1 to anchor my team, when I am uncertain they are the anchor of their team? Todays NFL, is a passing league, just as the powers that be would like. The star player are QBs, and this league is set up, from a rules perspective, to make that happen. In all my years watching football I have never seen anything like the past few years from a pure passing/receiving numbers. It is like the Steroid era in baseball, except these are rule changes that are making this happen, not juiced up ball players.So my point is, after the top 3 (cant say BIG), go QB or WR and wait on RB. Almost every team has a time share, and you can fill in the RB hole later in the draft. In my mind, there is nothing worse than playing the QB carousel all season long, however, old habits die hard.
the term is less risky.Forte, CJ2k and MJD are in that next tier after the BIG3 RBs.mcFadden, ADP etc. after them have severe injury issues.Define safe, because I think you are all using the wrong word.no way id take CJ as a "safe" pick. Forte is safe
Even in a non-ppr?Very hard to call someone who looked as bad as Johnson did last year, safe.Id go with Forte because of the receiving numbers.
Totally, the guy who played 12 games looked great, for those 12 games.Very hard to call someone who looked as bad as Johnson did last year, safe.Id go with Forte because of the receiving numbers.
True, but you knew he wouldn't play the other 4, so you could start another RB.Johnson, on the other hand, played all 16, and looked great in, what-3 of those 16? I'll take the RB who looks great in 12 games, then have to start a mediocre replacement over the guy who looks great in 3 games, and is mediocre (at best) in the other 13 games.Totally, the guy who played 12 games looked great, for those 12 games.Very hard to call someone who looked as bad as Johnson did last year, safe.Id go with Forte because of the receiving numbers.
Well good luck with that guys.Ill wait till week 9 to bump this thread.True, but you knew he wouldn't play the other 4, so you could start another RB.Johnson, on the other hand, played all 16, and looked great in, what-3 of those 16? I'll take the RB who looks great in 12 games, then have to start a mediocre replacement over the guy who looks great in 3 games, and is mediocre (at best) in the other 13 games.Totally, the guy who played 12 games looked great, for those 12 games.Very hard to call someone who looked as bad as Johnson did last year, safe.
Id go with Forte because of the receiving numbers.
I like Forte, but I think the potential upside of McFadden would be too tasty for me to pass on.Sometimes you got to gamble to win. If you want safe though... Forte is a good choice.
Also have to agree with going upside over safety. the fantasy football season is short...it's about winning week to week, and McFadden will help you win the weeks he plays more than anyone else on the board after the big 3 (expect better per game numbers than Forte, MJD). Handcuff him or play the wire early in the season for the RB that emerge for the weeks McFadden misses. That said, I probably go Chris Johnson and then McFadden #5.'renesauz said:'Vector said:I like Forte, but I think the potential upside of McFadden would be too tasty for me to pass on.Sometimes you got to gamble to win. If you want safe though... Forte is a good choice.This. Forte is certainly safe, but outside the top three I think McFadden has the most upside.
Handcuffing McFadden is another issue with drafting him. Who is his handcuff? Last year, the risk in drafting him was much more manageable because you could just get Bush.Also have to agree with going upside over safety. the fantasy football season is short...it's about winning week to week, and McFadden will help you win the weeks he plays more than anyone else on the board after the big 3 (expect better per game numbers than Forte, MJD). Handcuff him or play the wire early in the season for the RB that emerge for the weeks McFadden misses. That said, I probably go Chris Johnson and then McFadden #5.'renesauz said:'Vector said:I like Forte, but I think the potential upside of McFadden would be too tasty for me to pass on.
Sometimes you got to gamble to win. If you want safe though... Forte is a good choice.This. Forte is certainly safe, but outside the top three I think McFadden has the most upside.
Not unless Bush gets hurt or fails miserably.'Rick James said:Let's talk about Forte's poor TD production. Is there any way that was by design the last couple years (Martz)? Now that he's gone, could Forte get up to 10 TDs?
Handcuffing McFadden should not be an issue at all. You simply pay attention to who the back up is after week 1 and pick that guy up off of waivers in you're league. Nobody will be drafting the back up RBs in Oak unless you play in an unusually deep league. Nobody is going to rush to the WW to pick him up either unless you own Mcfadden. While I wouldn't expect McFadden or Bush type numbers from whoever that ends up being, I do expect productivity. Oak has a great offense for RB production and that will continue to be the case for whoever steps in for McFadden.Handcuffing McFadden is another issue with drafting him. Who is his handcuff? Last year, the risk in drafting him was much more manageable because you could just get Bush.
No more Jeff Fisher and Vince Young. No Britt maybe. I've owned him the past two years, horrible timing, he just seems to get caught either from behind the los or before he breaks that 100 run like CJ2K.How is CJ2k not the safest RB outside the top 3 is the better question.
This. Bush is locked in as the Goal line and short yardage. Would probably take an injury, which is far from impossible given Bush's history.Not unless Bush gets hurt or fails miserably.'Rick James said:Let's talk about Forte's poor TD production. Is there any way that was by design the last couple years (Martz)? Now that he's gone, could Forte get up to 10 TDs?
The reason Bush was such a great handcuff for DMC was because he had shown that he could put up good/great numbers if/when McFadden when down, and that he would be "the guy" if/when McFadden went down. We don't know if anyone of the other Oakland RBs will put up serviceable numbers (much less great ones) if/when McFadden goes down, nor do we know that it won't be some kind of RBBC which would negate the whole purpose of handcuffing DMC.And, in deep leagues, the WW option won't work. I play in 2 dynasty leagues, and Goodson, Jones, and Reece are owned in one, with all but Reece owned in the other one. I play in 1 redraft league, but we go 20 players (12 teams, no IDP), and I can all but guarantee Goodson and Jones will be drafted in that league. If you are in a small, or non-competitive, league, you can work the WW and pick up viable RBs off the WW, but in deeper leagues, it isn't that easy.Handcuffing McFadden should not be an issue at all. You simply pay attention to who the back up is after week 1 and pick that guy up off of waivers in you're league. Nobody will be drafting the back up RBs in Oak unless you play in an unusually deep league. Nobody is going to rush to the WW to pick him up either unless you own Mcfadden. While I wouldn't expect McFadden or Bush type numbers from whoever that ends up being, I do expect productivity. Oak has a great offense for RB production and that will continue to be the case for whoever steps in for McFadden.Handcuffing McFadden is another issue with drafting him. Who is his handcuff? Last year, the risk in drafting him was much more manageable because you could just get Bush.