Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by EBF

  1. We're wrapping up our devy draft right now and Waddle was one of my top two choices on the clock at 1.04. I ultimately went with Kyle Pitts instead (TE-premium), but it was not an easy decision. It was basically a coin flip for me and I opted for the guy who has more format-specific value. In a standard PPR league I would be thrilled to get Waddle. I noticed him last season and when I was going through highlights of this class he was one of the few guys whose ability really popped off the screen. I would say he's the WR version of Darren Sproles. Lacks ideal height, but has very good speed and absolutely unreal joystick quickness. That's his hallmark trait. He's one of the most fluid and elusive WRs I've ever seen. You can name any guy from that mold like McCluster, Cooks, and Tavon; and Waddle is better. The only real limitation on his game is size. He has solid bulk for his height, but I'd guess that he's only about 5'8". He's noticeably short and will not be a factor on jump balls or contested catch situations. On the other hand, his ability to uncover and create space is so exceptional that most of his catches won't be contested. First round talent, IMO, and possibly top 10-20 overall. I would take him over Rondale Moore and I can't say I'm 100% sold that Chase is better. Chase is bigger and more of a straight-line powerhouse, but he definitely can't do the stuff Waddle can do from a quickness and agility standpoint.
  2. Aren't you the guy who traded out of the 1.01 to take Ruggs? Too early to reach a verdict on that one, but I don't like your odds and I'm a Ruggs owner in 1 league and a Clyde owner in 0. The gymnastics some people will perform to convince themselves that they didn't make a mistake would put Simone Biles to shame. The thing about the anti-Clyde crowd is that they pick and choose which measurables count and which don't. We discussed all this in the thread about Clyde. His absolute weight/speed don't look special on paper, but on the other hand he has an extremely high weight for his low height and his college metrics show solid big play capability, so there's some conflicting data. Ultimately, it may come down to which data you value most. Some people obviously latch onto the raw weight and 40 time. However, he comes out looking a lot better if you consider stuff like BMI and big play %. His production doesn't suggest plodder at all, which is a big departure from past eye sore 40 types like David Montgomery and David Cobb. To paint it like all the numbers are for him would be misleading, but it would be equally misleading to suggest that "things like height, weight, speed, and prowess" all work against him. Simply not the case. Production, broad jump, and vertical all suggest above average burst. For me he passes the eyeball test and he got a vote of confidence from the same Super Bowl-winning organization that unearthed Mahomes, Kelce, and Hill. Reid's specific track record of identifying RB talent is very strong. The sum of all that stuff is a lot more meaningful to me than his 40 time being off by .05 seconds.
  3. All the Clyde paranoia is going to seem a bit silly in 4-5 months if there's a football season. He's highly-regarded by many, but some people are really hung up on the measurables and it's pretty misguided IMO.
  4. I've seen this Asimov quote circulating the Internet and it's never been more apt: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” People who have never even been to Portland and have no first-hand knowledge of the city insist that they are more informed about Portland than people who, you know, actually live here. Like I said, it's wild to witness. It's like someone pointing at the sky and saying, "No, no, you're wrong. That's not blue. Everyone knows the sky is red."
  5. People who have been marinating in Fox News and far-right media are largely beyond the point of intervention. They live an alternate reality. They hear what they want to hear, and perform whatever mental gymnastics are required to confirm their views. With the fragmentation of traditional media and the rise of social media, it is very easy to find a dark corner of the Internet that will tell you whatever you want to believe on whatever issue. I walked by the protestors on a nightly basis for probably a month solid, but suddenly a guy from the middle of nowhere knows more about the situation because he saw a 30 second video clip of a crazed man with a hammer. It's wild. We are living out a 1984 type of situation in real time where the truth is subjective.
  6. The protests take place at night, after business hours. Some idiots were looting, vandalizing, and destroying stuff on the first few nights, but by and large the protestors have been peaceful, especially considering how many people have participated. There's one small area around the justice center where some folks have been looking to stir up trouble, and there are certainly some bad apples in the crowd, but to present the situation as an "emergency" or a city "out of control" is grossly inaccurate. Actually, the protests were shrinking until Trump decided to use our city as a publicity stunt. Unfortunately, all it takes is one moron doing something stupid on video to provide "evidence" for the "Give those anarchists what they deserve!" knee-jerk crowd. The much bigger issue affecting businesses in the city is the COVID-related closures, where Trump's flagrant mishandling of the pandemic has contributed to widespread devastation. Many popular restaurants and bars have gone under for good, and more will follow. This has affected local morale and the local economy more than some people protesting police brutality.
  7. Been living in Portland for the last three years. Situation has been grossly blown out of proportion to feed narratives. Great copy for the Fox News propaganda machine, but not an accurate reflection of everyday life in this city. The area affected is tiny. Outside help was both unwanted and not needed. Publicity stunt for a failed administration testing the waters for more authoritarian tactics to cling to power amid catastrophic poll numbers and ever-declining approval ratings. Makes a great bogeyman sideshow to distract from Trump's gross ineptitude re: COVID, but don't believe the media hype. I'm getting e-mails from concerned family about "violent riots" tearing apart the city and LMAO. Business as usual here except for the quarantine-related closures.
  8. My hunch is that NFL owners are too greedy to allow this possibility, but we'll see.
  9. Tough luck. Short-term arrow up for Aiyuk. Wasn't anticipating massive FF impact for Aiyuk this season, but now he'll potentially be the WR1 out of the gate. Big opportunity for him. His skill set is a type that often impacts early, so there's some intrigue there for best ball formats and deep redrafts.
  10. Reed is a really good athlete for his size and was one of the most promising day 3 skill players I saw in highlights this year. He has a rare combination of size, speed, and quickness. However, I would say he was drafted more for his return ability than anything else, as he was relatively unproductive in college purely as a WR. I think he's an interesting project for super deep leagues because of his athletic traits, but up to now he hasn't produced much outside of the return game and that doesn't bode very well for his chances of blossoming into a monster WR in the NFL. He's definitely an interesting ball of clay for a team to work with though.
  11. The hit rate on day 2 RBs (i.e. Swift/Akers/Dobbins) doesn't justify giving up a bird-in-hand young star WR like Moore, JuJu, or AJB except in leagues with extremely skewed formats that lend artificial value to the RB position. There are 4-5 RBs this good in every draft class. They aren't a special commodity. The idea that "they'll carry value a year from now even if they don't hit long-term" is built on the hypothetical reality where you can always recognize the hits from the misses and sell accordingly, but that's not how things typically work in practice. If you burned a top 5 rookie pick on a back like Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, Anthony Thomas, or Doug Martin who peaked as a rookie, it's pretty likely that you would've bought into the hype after his big rookie year and held the bomb while it exploded on your roster. Most people don't cash out when their young RBs show promise. I don't see Miles Sanders or Josh Jacobs owners desperate to make deals right now. If you draft someone like Swift and he ends up being a long-term mediocrity, there's a pretty good chance that you'll be the one stuck with him. 3/5 of my leagues are very flex-y with only 1 mandatory RB spot, so maybe that colors my perspective some, but I'm definitely not itching to trade my rookie draft hits like Deebo and JuJu for a Cam Akers who's probably a 30% chance to become Ray Rice/40% chance to become Zac Stacy/30% chance to become Kenny Irons. I don't believe the math supports that move, and if I were desperate for RB help then there are numerous alternatives I can explore (pay a premium for an elite back, pay less for an aging veteran, or buy a cheaper prospect). I'd rather make a big play for a Mixon, go the short-term rental route with a Henry/Gordon/Drake type, or make a bargain play for a D Harris/Edmonds/Mattison than sell off top 10-15 dynasty WRs for an average day two RB talent. If your league format makes it logical to sell off your best young players for mediocre rookie prospects at another position, your league format is pretty imbalanced.
  12. I guess I'm down on the 1.03 compared to most people because I wouldn't give a top 15 dynasty WR for it. Players like JuJu, AJB, and Moore are the best-case scenario for how a rookie might turn out, so there's no sense giving them up just to roll the dice again. Only makes sense if you need a RB and think one of Dobbins, Swift, or Akers is a lock. It's likely that one of them will hit, but I wouldn't give up a top WR to find out.
  13. How have I not posted in this thread already? I really liked Hurst as a draft prospect and think he was a bit unfortunate with how things shook out in Baltimore. He got injured in his rookie season and then Andrews just took control of the receiving TE position and never looked back. The fact that Hurst reaped a decent windfall in a trade shows that he's still highly-regarded in the league and this seems like a great opportunity for him to finally showcase what he can do. I know he was over-aged in college, but all the same he did some special things for a 250+ pound TE. They even had him handling some reverses and carries, which is not something you often see from a TE. Strong breakout candidate. Easy buy/hold for me in both dynasty and redraft.
  14. That's the big question, right? The argument against him would be that he didn't do enough special things to transcend his situation. For an NFL parallel, you see Mixon on these horrible Bengals teams and he's still able to scrape together respectable numbers because he's just so good that he can pull those plays out of thin air. Even when the play design totally fails him, he can still sometimes turn it into a positive play. Another nice one here. I would say getting more than what's blocked is one of the hallmark traits of a special back. I haven't gone back and looked at Akers in the last couple weeks because all my drafts are over, but off the top of my head I don't recall seeing a lot of plays on his 2019 tape where he was able to do those special things. As someone with no real horse in this race (I have barely any ownership in this rookie RB class), my recollection is that Clyde and Dobbins had more "wow" type of reps than Akers. They also happened to play on much better offenses, but I'm not sure that was the cause, as what I try to do is isolate the ability separate from the yards created by the scheme/play design. Often times with QBs and RBs you learn most about them when the play breaks down because that's where their special traits are demanded. Anyone can run around the edge for a huge gain when there are no defenders in sight, but only a special back can make those plays like the Mixon reps linked above.
  15. I still like him, but the price doesn't make sense to me. I just don't think the price factors in much bust risk, when the player seems to have a lot of it. One of the stats I like to look at with RB prospects is long run % because it can offer hints of explosiveness and Akers really suffers here. Last season he ranked 21st in carries among NCAA players with 231, but was behind 43 players in long runs, with just 8 rushes of 20+. His sophomore year was even more futile, with just 3 long runs on 161 attempts. He wasn't great in this department as a freshman either. That's the real puzzle here: Is this guy just not very good or was his usage so bad that we never really saw what he can do? Here are the 2019 long run percentages for some of the top backs in this draft: CEH - 7.4% Dobbins - 6.6% Swift - 5.6% Evans - 4.7% Taylor - 4.1% Vaughn - 4.0% Dillon - 3.5% Akers - 3.5% He did not excel at creating explosive plays in his college career and always had a relatively pedestrian YPC in general. Now, this doesn't have to be the kiss of death. Other successful NFL backs like Zeke and Jacobs did not necessarily have great long run stats in college. I remember way back in the day Steven Jackson had a very underwhelming YPC in his last season at Oregon State, where he was the sole focus of opposing defenses. I've seen a back as great as Adrian Peterson get dominated because his supporting cast failed him (bowl game vs. USC). It's possible for a situation to be so bad that no back can thrive. I'm just not sure this applies to Akers. For a guy with his physical talent, you probably would've expected more big plays, even on a lackluster team. For example, Cook in his final season at FSU had a 6.1 YPC and 4.5% long run percentage. Akers has quality size, quickness, and speed, but also isn't elite in any of these areas. Is he just an athlete whose effectiveness on the football field doesn't match up with the sum of his parts? It's possible. I also think it's possible that he will thrive in the NFL when he gets a more competent system around him. As I've said, the issue for me is cost. At the price of a 1.05-1.07 rookie pick, the only way you can really turn a big profit is if he becomes a Ray Rice/LeSean McCoy type of home run and I'm not sure that's very likely. It puts me in a weird position where I don't hate the player, but I also think he's too pricey to justify selecting at his ADP. I will say that I like his tape more than Darrell Henderson's and I think there's a good chance he'll get a long audition in his rookie year to let you know right away whether you have a hit or a miss on your hands.
  16. Hard to say that when his rookie draft ADP is around 5-7, and there are numerous guys going after him in most drafts who were higher NFL draft picks (i.e. Ruggs, Reagor, Jefferson, Aiyuk, Shenault, etc). I don't love all those guys as prospects, but arguably the RB and instant opportunity factors are already pushing his ADP several spots higher than where it should be based on the generic traits. I'm repeating myself, but the scariest thing about Akers is that he was an ineffective college football player. He may be the best pure athlete in this RB class, but it never translated to dominance in college, so picking him at his ADP requires you to believe his situation was so bad in college that it hid his true talent level. I'm skeptical. I actually liked him a lot out of HS and I still think the talent is compelling, but there seems to be a lot of bust risk and his ADP doesn't offer amazing margin for error. I don't hate him in a vacuum, but I think he's probably overpriced based on the risk/reward outlook. I'd want to get a guy like this about 5-6 spots later than where he goes, so he's kind of a non-starter for me this year in rookie drafts.
  17. His biggest strengths as a WR are his size and field-stretching speed. His biggest weaknesses are a lack of suddenness, quickness, and RAC ability. He would be very small for a TE and doesn't stack up with the Reed and Hernandez types in terms of routes and RAC. A guy like Hayden Hurst, who weighs 250+ pounds, is still more elusive and agile than Claypool, albeit without the sheer speed. As a TE Claypool would really just be a seam threat and nothing more.
  18. Right. Why does there seem to be a perception that he's permanently locked into the role he played as a rookie? It used to be that we gave WRs 2-3 years before we judged them, but now his ceiling is capped after his rookie year? Makes no sense. I went through and looked at the top 20 WRs in the NFL last year in receiving yards. 16/20 of them had more targets in their second season than they did in their rookie year, and one of the guys who didn't was injured in his second year (Kupp). Another one was Edelman, who didn't really break out in any real capacity until his 5th NFL season. By and large, the WRs who eventually became good NFL players saw their role GROW in year two. Every now and then you get a fluke type of guy like Michael Clayton or Keary Colbert who has a solid rookie year and then falls off the face of the Earth, but it's pretty odd that so many people are just locked into this notion that the SF offense is static and that Samuel's role can't grow. Guys like Tyreek and DJ Moore offer a compelling best-case scenario of how dynamic weapons can gradually see their usage increase. If that happens in SF with Deebo, you have a likely top 15 FF WR. I see people citing all the fear factors without acknowledging the growth potential. It's the same with the Aiyuk stuff. All these people are mentioning Aiyuk as a bogeyman while neglecting to point out that he's just filling the spot Sanders vacated when he left for NO. I'm higher on Aiyuk than most people, but the presence of another good WR on the roster doesn't relegate Deebo to irrelevance, and if we're handicapping that battle we probably have to favor the guy who has already thrived.
  19. Think this was discussed a couple pages ago, but I gave the #25 rookie pick and a future 3rd for him in one league recently to cuff Dobbins. In a rookie class this deep I wouldn't give anything more than a late 2nd-early 3rd for him. He has the double Dobbins/Lamar vulture factor and no long-term value to speak of, so he's really just a short-term depth play.
  20. The argument is simply that he had freakish efficiency last season and could scale into an FF monster with more looks. Very similar to the arguments about Tyreek after his first 1-2 years in the NFL when he hadn't gone nuclear yet. Deebo's rookie year was actually a lot better than Tyreek's, so you'd have to go to Tyreek's second year to find a decent parallel: Hill 2017 - 105 targets, 75 receptions, 1,183 yards, 15 "big" plays (20+ yards), 11.3 yards per target Samuel 2019 - 81 targets, 57 receptions, 802 yards, 17 "big" plays (20+ yards), 9.9 yards per target This is a guy who showed a freaky ability to break big plays in the preseason, carried it over into the regular season, and had a strong overall FF campaign on just 81 targets. The idea that somehow he lacks upside or has hit his ceiling already seems borderline insane. He ranked 65th in the NFL in targets last season. A modest uptick in targets without a major loss in efficiency can pretty easily catapult him into the top 10-15 FF WRs. I understand that some people can't get past the idea that SF's offense will limit his chances, but there's really nowhere to go but up from a targets/looks standpoint. I don't really get how people look at rookies like Lamb and Jeudy and think they have more upside. They have less physical talent and are less proven, whereas this guy has a freaky size/speed combo and has already shown that his skill set translates to the NFL. It's just a strange market inefficiency, but I think most of his owners recognize that they have a good asset on their hands and won't sell for skeptic prices. It took a while for Hill's consensus value to catch up with his actual value and it feels like a repeat of that here. I don't think Samuel is as elite as Hill, but most sites have him around dynasty WR25 right now and that's underselling the risk/reward equation that he offers. He belongs 5-10 spots higher on the overall dynasty WR board and should be drafted ahead of every rookie WR in startups.
  21. Feels like there are two big factors at work here: - Prospects like Higgins and Mims were more popular in the dev community and more hyped over the last year. That tends to bleed into rookie draft ADP. - People draft for situation and don't think SF will be a good offense. It's hard to argue with the value of Aiyuk at his ADP, which seems to be around 12-15 based on my leagues. Not only did he sneak into the first round of the NFL draft, but he was the 25th pick and SF traded up to get him, suggesting that they had him much higher than alternatives like Mims/Pittman/Higgins who often go before him in FF rookie drafts. Do we really know more about talent than SF's scouting department? Sometimes these out-of-left-field 1st round WRs end up being as bad as the community thinks they are (Craig Davis and AJ Jenkins come to mind), but I like what he offers and the price is reasonable for what you're getting. The situation stuff is largely a nothing burger for me in the long run. Either he can play or he can't, and Kittle/Garoppolo won't dictate the long-term trajectory of his career.
  22. Aiyuk. 🥂 I like that fade list as well except for Asiasi. Feel like he's quality value at his ADP. Not sharing the fascination that my league mates have with the day three dart throws (Kelley, McFarland, Gandy-Golden). I guess I can see McFarland being decent in spurts, but all those guys go pretty high for being longshots on paper.
  23. Kelce was the alpha in KC until Hill really broke out. Not saying Samuel = Hill or that Garoppolo is anywhere close to Mahomes, but a lot of the commentary on Deebo stresses the fear factors while downplaying the latent upside. Just seems odd to me. If Lamb or Jeudy has an identical rookie year, people will be bullish going into 2021, but mostly what I'm hearing about Deebo is all the bad stuff and none of the good stuff. The size/speed combo is freaky and he was an efficiency monster last season. Could this be his ceiling? Perhaps, but there's also a fairly decent probability that he can push for a top 10-15 finish and become a real top flight asset. If someone like Akers or Swift hits big and becomes another Ray Rice or LeVeon then of course you will love that pick, but people thought they were getting instant starters when they drafted David Montgomery, Rashaad Penny, Ronald Jones, and so many others. Every year people reach for the instant opportunity and only a fraction of these prospects fulfill the most optimistic visions of who they can be. I understand the argument of swinging for the fences to land the real difference-maker, but I think Deebo has a non-zero probability of growing into that type of contributor along with a much lower probability of crashing and burning, so I think the risk/reward equation favors him if your league format isn't too insanely skewed towards RBs.
  24. I like Dobbins somewhat and think can Swift can at least be decent, but I wouldn't classify either as a "top" RB prospect. Ditto Akers. Will 1-2 of those guys be solid? Probably, but they're not Saquon or even Chubb/Mixon from a tools/talent standpoint. This may be where I deviate from a lot of drafters. I don't think the upside of this year's rookies beyond the top couple slots is obviously any higher than the upside of a player like Deebo, so it makes sense to favor the guy who has already shown viability, as you're getting the same potential potential payoff with reduced risk. All it really comes down to for me. A 75% chance at a HR is worth more to me than a 50% chance at HR, which is a more accurate analogy for how I view it.
  25. Not remotely true, but he was a top 10 WR in the second half of last season and top 20 in that stretch on PPG. Pretty good for a rookie year. A lot of teams were starting Deebo in the FF playoffs last season, and that's a pretty good outcome for your rookie pick. What's encouraging for his future trajectory is that he put up those numbers on a relatively low number of targets, suggesting that he could potentially scale to much higher production if his targets rise without huge loss of efficiency. He was possibly the most explosive WR in the NFL last year in terms of big play %. He looks like a "hit" from last year's draft class and trading a hit for a chance at a hit is not ideal dynasty strategy. There' s an argument that Lamb/Jeudy/Ruggs/etc have more upside, but the problem is that they also present massive bust risk based on the historic fail rate of rookie WR prospects. Even if you buy the notion that Deebo's upside is capped in WR2-WR3 territory (I don't, but let's just go with it), that's not a bad outcome compared to the full range of rookie pick possibilities. There are a lot of Corey Coleman, Josh Doctson, Laquon Treadwell, and Corey Davis dynasty owners who would snap your hand off in a straight-up-offer for Deebo. For me personally, I don't see anything so special in Lamb/Jeudy/Ruggs/etc that I'm going to pass up a triple for a chance at HR. Similar story for others like AJ Brown and Metcalf. Maybe they will keep growing and maybe not, but I tend to favor them over the rookie WRs since they've already established a certain degree of viability. A lot of players never even clear that first hurdle.