Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About mjr

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New York Jets

Recent Profile Visitors

5,269 profile views
  1. This was written way before the preseason... "Desires to bounce runs wide too often. Not as trusting of blocking from B-gap to B-gap. Held to "stuffs" -- runs resulting in no yards or a loss -- on 19.2 percent of his carries. Feel and instincts as interior runner need improvement. Shows indecisiveness as one-cut runner. Would gear down and stutter-step to line, waiting for crease to show itself rather than adjusting on fly and taking what was available. Play strength through hole was only average. Used speed over strength to create many missed or broken tackles. Benefited from gaping running lanes. Ball security was an issue. Fumbled six times over his final five games, often being stripped while finishing run. Uncomfortable pass-catcher with marginal hands. Either dropped, double caught or smothered many throws. Pass protection needs work. Might have to come off field on third downs." I typically pay head to the pros and cons outlined in scouting reports, but at face value, this assessment reads as if Gordon was a back who should have been drafted on day 3 rather than one chased after in a trade up to take 15th overall. He can't be that bad...
  2. Your break down/analysis was pretty well thought out, but it doesn't really reflect what I saw down the stretch last year. Take Greg Jennings for example. While I'd have to concede Jennings isn't nearly the player he used to be, he would still have to be considered the significantly more accomplished WR when compared directly with Johnson. Furthermore, Jennings, like Wallace, also has experience playing both the flanker and split end roles and should thereby also be considered an interchangeable type player. According to such reasoning, Jennings should have been the more targeted player last year....but he wasn't. Come week 11 when Johnson started to play a more significant role, Bridgewater immediately began targeting him more so than he did Jennings. All that said, Jennings put up 4 TDs during that stretch (vs. Johnson's 2 TDs), I do believe a 2015 Wallace is a certain upgrade over a 2014 Jennings and I do believe Wallace will see more targets than Johnson. However, I don't think it'll be by a significant amount. I can see Wallace/Johnson playing out a 1A/1B type split in the receiving numbers.
  3. This paragraph is what concerns me about Geno: I do think the scheme and added weapons can work in his favor - I hope so at least. I do agree with the positive aspects of his skill set fleshed out in that article as well. That's what makes his poor decisions all the more frustrating. Some of that can be blamed on being young and inexperienced, but frankly even a college QB shouldn't throw the ball up for grabs under extreme pressure and should just eat it or get it out of bounds. I'm hoping he clearly beats out Fitzpatrick in camp and preseason, but if his "football IQ" doesn't translate onto the field and he still makes bonehead mistakes, they need to pull the plug early. The defense is too good to waste on a QB that will constantly put them in bad field position or even worse give the other team points. I watched an interview of Geno before the Jets drafted him and wasn't at all impressed. In the interview he was given a play with 4 options. Its been a few years and I don't remember them exactly, but lets say the primary WR was #1, second WR was the #2, the TE was the 3rd option and running it out of bounds was the last option on the play. After he was showed the play he was asked one or two quick fluff questions about leadership, work ethic, etc. After he gave canned, cliche' responses he was asked to repeat the options of the play he was given. After the #1 option, he responded with running it out of bounds as his 2nd option. In less than 60 seconds he forgot he even had a #2 and #3 option, let alone what those options were. In my opinion, he's not making boneheaded mistakes because he's young and inexperienced. I think he's making these mistakes because he just can't fully absorb a professional play-book; can't remember his reads. Everything I see from Geno now is reflective of what I saw in that interview 2-3 years ago. He might have some talent, but IMO he just doesn't have the cognitive capacity to string it all together, get it to click and succeed at this level. Now you've got a new coach, a new play book.... it's back to square 1 again. Throw in that youth and inexperience on top of it... I have no hope for this guy. Unless they really simplify the plays and/or have him run it if his first option isn't there, I don't see Geno holding off Fitz for very long.
  4. I was offered a mid 2nd round rookie draft pick in exchange for Jordan Matthews AND a 3rd round rookie pick. SO tempting...
  5. What's the benefit to announcing this now? I guess one could argue that it gives Geno confidence, but why not make it an open competition? Maybe this is the whole purpose behind the decision... Geno has everything he needs to succeed at this point: good line, good WRs, full staff support, solid D that can keep games close... absolutely no excuses whatsoever... this creates an all or nothing / sink or swim situation for him.
  6. I can't see a day 2 draft pick, even after a pre-season shredding of 2nd and 3rd string Ds, getting the week 1 start over Oliver given he has the better part of experience & familiarity with the system if nothing else. Beyond that I don't even think the SD staff themselves know where things will go from there. Maybe a rookie takes half the carries week 2 and takes the start going into 3, but right out of the gate I think it's Oliver short of SD taking a RB day 1. I took Oliver as a cheap flier, and my only interest in what SD does with him is in the number of carries he gets with a start. His 2014 stats hint that he's a performer when he gets 15-20+ carries; gets the opportunity to "warm-up", "get into a rhythm" or whatever the heck you want to call it. If they're going to go DeAngelo/Stewart-like with 8 - 12 carries per back, I'd bet the farm it ain't going to work out too well for Oliver or San Diego. Edit: Mistakenly typed "Oakland" instead of "San Diego" in the last line.
  7. I'm really interested in seeing what Oliver could do with a more featured role, but I can't realistically imagine any NFL franchise rolling with a strategy that would have them going into week 1 with an unchallenged, UDFA atop the depth chart. I'll be very surprised and very high on Oliver if this is still the actual situation come August.
  8. To my knowledge other than this incident he has a very clean history and seems to be well respected by all that have been around him during high school, college and in the NFL... A friend of mine worked as a bouncer near Rutgers and would occasionally see Rice come around from time to time. He said Rice always came off as a d-bag who demanded respect and special treatment from everyone he met because he was so high on who he was even back then. I doubt the fame and million dollar paydays that came to follow since then have aided him in learning any lessons of humility leading up to the TKO of his wife. Then again, these days he may not be so proudly walking around proclaiming, "Do you know who I am?" to every unsuspecting, average Joe who is just doing his job....
  9. I understand that an unknown player will have a distinct "surprise advantage" when nobody expects the kind of production Hurns turned in last week. But then again, I have to question those who say this is the only reason Hurns put up decent stats (pointing to his unproductive 2nd half as proof). Blackmon and Sanders are suspended, Shorts was ruled out for the game. Marcedes isn't exactly a big time threat... who were the Eagles so worried about defending to the point that they left Hurns to roam free as a forgotten man? It really should have been no secret to me, you or the Eagles themselves that if Jacksonville really wanted to have any chance to win the game that receivers like Lee and Hurns were going to have to step up and make some plays for the team. I also don't think Hurns will benefit greatly with Shorts and Lee out, at least now that he has proven capable of making big plays. In fact, I think a guy like Hurns needs those guys back in the lineup. I think he can produce much better with at least some attention diverted the other way. But it looks to me like the kid can actually play. I was watching one of his TDs on replay, and it's hard for me not to come away at least a little impressed. Hurns caught the ball while twisting in mid air, and in one swift motion he immediately began running towards the end zone while attempting to regain his balance between planting feet on the 9 yard line and the 5 yard line. During those 4 yards of regaining balance he had 3 defenders closing in on him, each coming from a different direction. Yet this kid seemed to know exactly where he was every step of the way. Two of those defenders slammed into each other (as would have the 3rd had he not stopped running full speed) and all they managed to get on him was his ankle. Hurns then stretched out from the 2 to break the goal line for the score with just one of those defenders clinging to his foot. I'm not saying Hurns is the next Colston, Boldin or AJ Green. Hell, for all I know maybe he really is the Ogletree 2.0 and I'm the fool. But it wouldn't surprise me either if Hurns puts up a few more great performances this year. I can see him being productive, yet sporadic. I'm just hoping he pops off mid season when I can use him as my bye week filler....
  10. One thing a lot of people complaining about the speed of updates are overlooking: confirmation. If I see a one-line blurb on twitter about a trade of this magnitude, I'd want to make damn sure it's true before I start e-mailing thousands of subscribers. Imagine the b*tching on a thread like this if FBG sent out a knee-jerk mass e-mail that was based on bad info. Just go back to the first page or two of this thread. More than half of the people didn't believe it / thought it was fake even when they did get the news.
  11. One fantasy league website that will remain unmentioned ranked him as an even RB match to L. McCoy week 1.
  12. I had no idea he was the Gatorade player of the year. That changes everything. HAAAAA!
  13. Tate looked very good in the Broncos game, but what is a 'breakout season' for him in this offense - 60/900/6? I certainly wouldn't mind that kind of production from my WR3 or WR4 slot.
  14. Yeah its like we just obsessed and obsessed about slavery. And eventually people just relented. Then there was the whole "women want to vote thing." Even though they didn't know a thing about voting. Eventually people just relented, reasoning be damned. And then those slaves complained about Jim Crow laws. So OCD. And then then people got so OCD when a few white folks wanted to exclude the blacks from their privately owned diners. Ok so I guess that just not politically correct, but whatever, the PC obsession after a while it just wasn't worth it and people had to relent. And then the gays wanted to have the ability to marry and have intestacy rights and adoption rights. Practically obsessive compulsive about it. We couldn't stand it so we just relented. Reason and debate be damned. Best post in the thread. Well played! Normally I would rail against a post like that for equating the name of a football team to something like slavery, and in many circumstances I often believe too many people have thin skin these days and/or have ulterior motives (such as scoring some loot in a lawsuit)...Normally. But considering the origin of the term "red skin", I can't help but side with those who think this term should be eradicated from one of America's greatest pastimes. The term was actually coined due to women being offended by the term "scalp" back when trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with their animal skins to sell to traders. To accommodate, trappers began to refer to Indian scalps as "red skins", along with their deer skins and bear skins. Considering that "redskin" was a term coined in an effort to appease an offended group of people, why should it not be rid of for the same exact reason? It's not as if we need to continue using the term to appease offended women when we men bring bloodied scalps into a trading post these days....Besides, the Devil Rays did it a few years ago. World is still turning...
  15. They're not getting awful. They're already there.