• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About GManiac

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New York Giants
  1. LOL No. Where are all of you getting this upside on Ponder from? He never has been or will be a high upside QB. At best he's a moderate talent. At worst he fails. His arm is not very good. Sure he can run and he's got a decent head on his shoulders. But his upside is far from "monstrous". Sure he'll have good weeks. He's the QB for a really good offense with a lot of weapons. No one is saying he's a terrible QB. Which you would have to be to not put up stats in that offense. Ponders upside is probably like...David Gerard.
  2. If you cant spell your own stud players' 4 letter first name, you may be just as confused.If I was concerning myself with other peoples spelling or double tapping a button on a keyboard I would probably question everything about myself.
  3. The Moore owner in my Dynasty league wants Gregg Jennings for him. Moore has obviously brought mass hysteria and confusion to fantasy owners everywhere and his evil should be smited and his remains dispersed to the four corners of the world.
  4. What are some aspects of that talent? Because I see a talent that quite a few possess but maybe a work ethic that needs to come along with that talent that others don't possess. That is a formula for success by the way but not necessarily upside.
  5. Smith went from being Rob Johnson to Brad Johnson. I think he is the QB they thought they drafted, a nice coach-able QB whose ceiling they thought would become an efficient "game manager" type, rather than Rodgers, who Nolan didn't like because he thought was less coach-able. Because he is Mike Nolan.With how high he was drafted I really have to think SF had higher expectations than simply game manager. They had to have thought his upside was higher. All though not taking away anything from what he has done. I just don't think his ceiling is much higher than this.
  6. This is one of the most peculiar threads ever. I too have never seen such a moderate player being talked about so much. It's not even like his situation or role are up in the air or confusing. He's not a bust, he's not an elite talent, not much was ever expected of him. I don't even think he will have one of the top 5 careers of the WR in this draft class. Thinking AJ, Jones, Hankerson, Little, Torrey Smith will all have superior careers. But Moore is probably in the top ten WR at least from this draft class. Very curious thread indeed. Rather boring player. Probably have to overpay in Dynasty leagues though. His owners seem very attached. One day I think he can be a consistent fantasy WR2 though. That's very nice I suppose. Jerome Simpson indeed.
  7. I certainly don't think Kaepernick is the answer. It took Smith a long while, but I think he really is one of the better starters in the league at this point. He's by no means a top QB, and I don't think his value in fantasy will ever be equivalent to his current value in the actual NFL. But give me him over Sanchez, McCoy or a great number of other starters. He is not the QB SF thought they were drafting, but he is by no means a bust either. Definitely a strange and unusual case.
  8. One of the Qbs from this years draft have to fail/bust. It would be very unlikely they all succeed. Having watched Newton, Ponder, Dalton and Gabbert this season, it would seem likely Locker is the guy to fail. All though I havnt really liked what Ive seen from Gabbert so far either. But to be honest, I was least impressed by Locker in college and on film.
  9. I dont think because a bunch of hypothetical voters on your hypothetical poll decided MJD is the far superior talent that it makes it so. No offense. Even if you put a poll on this site I don't think it could show any insight into how close they are in talent. I truly do wonder though what NFL scouts, coaches, and GMs think, as well as other players. Obviously they thought a lot of Lynch when he was drafted. But things change. You are right though, you cant compare hypotheticals as far as if someone played on another team. Really the only way to win this debate is some form of even test that we will never have. But I think this statement: " Lynch is in no way, shape, or form close to MJD in terms of talent." is not only exaggerated and ridiculous, but it is 100% impossible to prove at the moment aside from opinion and hearsay.Neither can prove it because there is no precise definition of "talent". However, just about all of the evidence points to MJD being ahead of Lynch in most aspects. All you keep doing is giving excuses for why Lynch underperformed, which I refute by showing how an unheralded Fred Jackson has performed better in the same situation. Many of your excuses, like Buffalo being a terrible team (at the time) are just incorrect. I've seen no arguments why Lynch is great, just reasons why he has been held back by Buffalo. What is he so good at? What is he better than MJD at?Lynch is a decent RB. MJD is in another league. The stats and the game tape show that. Every one I know that is knowledgeable about football agrees. I'm pretty sure your just about all out on your own on this one. If you can honestly say that you've watched both play extensively and think they are very close in terms of overall talent, I'd be shocked.Well I never said Lynch was better than MJD. In fact I said MJD is better than Lynch by a small margin. What I'm saying is Lynch has the skills to be on MJD's level, not that he will be. I have shown many statistics that show, if nothing else he CAN produce on par with MJD. I do not by any means think he is as good of an NFL RB as MJD. I'll use the word potential here as I see Lynch's issues being more about brains/personality than physical tools. Just as Lynch was a top draft pick and MJD wasn't, and things changed and MJD became a top RB and Lynch just an above average RB (I'd rather have him than over half the leagues other RB's, which makes him above average not great as I've stated), so can things continue to change (especially since Lynch is just 24), and Lynch could grow up and in to his early potential. I don't think there are many other non elite RBs with his potential and would put him in the same group (disregarding team) as guys like McCoy, Mathews, and Best. I do like him better than a guy like Greene or even Moreno. Mathews obviously gets the edge because of situation, and I think he is closer to elite talent than Lynch ever was, but I dont think they are far apart.
  10. I dont think because a bunch of hypothetical voters on your hypothetical poll decided MJD is the far superior talent that it makes it so. No offense. Even if you put a poll on this site I don't think it could show any insight into how close they are in talent. I truly do wonder though what NFL scouts, coaches, and GMs think, as well as other players. Obviously they thought a lot of Lynch when he was drafted. But things change. You are right though, you cant compare hypotheticals as far as if someone played on another team. Really the only way to win this debate is some form of even test that we will never have. But I think this statement: " Lynch is in no way, shape, or form close to MJD in terms of talent." is not only exaggerated and ridiculous, but it is 100% impossible to prove at the moment aside from opinion and hearsay.
  11. We really don't need to compare MJD and Lynch too much. But I think you are defeating your own point with these statements. The Major differences between MJD and Lynch area) JAX had a better team, running scheme, O lineb) MJD gets more opportunities to score TD's so he has more TDs, the same difference you describe between Lynch and Jackson. Just to compare arguably the 2 players best years.Lynch 08 vs MJD 09.Lynch 08 totaled 250 att, 1036 yds, 4.1 avg 8td When Buffalo was on the opponents 19<1 yardline. Lynch had 36 opportunities, 93 yds 7 Tds.MJD 09 totaled 312 att, 1391 yds, 4.5 avg 15 td JAx on opponents 19<1 yardline. MJD had 64 attempts, 161 yds, 11 tds. Now they are 2 different backs. MJD is better in the open field and beyond the 20, by a bit but I think that also has a lot to do with the team they play for, their blockers, offensive schemes, and the passing game. Within the 20 they seem very comparable to me. In fact if the numbers were extrapolated I believe Lynch would have ran for more yardage per red zone opportunity and a few more TD's. MJD has a bit less than double the chances within the opponents 20 yardline to score a TD. I don't think it is nearly as big of a stretch to compare Lynch and MJD as you are insinuating. To call it insulting is just a farce. The differences in opportunity IMO between Jackson and Lynch are nearly the same as those between Lynch and MJD. Please show me where in their rushing are MJD and Lynch so far apart? (Not in their pass catching ability or opportunity). I am not contesting that MJD is the better pro RB. I am saying their talent level is not far apart. Jackson is a very underrated RB, but he is not the TD scoring back that Lynch or MJD are. I believe if Lynch was on JAX, MJD and Lynch would be far more comparable. The same if MJD was on Buffalo. But that is besides the point. Anyone who can have an average season on a bad Buffalo team is probably an above average runningback. And while Buffalo was better in 07 and 08 than they were in 09, I still would not consider them a good team. They went from at best, average, to terrible within that timespan. I also believe Lynch's age and personality lead him to UNDER performing. The physical tools are all there. The reason I would rather have MJD than Lynch is in their head. If Lynch can mature mentally, I see no reason he can't be just as productive as MJD. Where I think Jackson has peaked on his talent level (and is still underrated).
  12. I was just throwing MJD out there because he is so highly thought of. MJD has only topped 200 carries once in his career though, and only has 1 1000 yd rushing season. His stats, on avg are very similar to Lynch aside from TD's scored and MJD is a better pass catcher yea. But as far as rushing goes, I think he is only slightly better than Lynch. That was my only point as far as that goes.Jackson has only very slightly outperformed Lynch, I do not think the difference is substantial enough to claim much difference at all. Forget where Jackson and Lynch came from, they are very comparable in the stat line. The only thing I'm not sure of is the differences in the situations both rushed in. I am assuming Jackson went up against Defenses in very specific situations, while Lynch was on the field against all defensive formations and in all situations.
  13. Because they're Buffalo. The same Buffalo that didn't think they needed an O-lineman or D-lineman in the draft. The same Buffalo that thought Trent Edwards was "their guy" that "had spark". See the trend? They are not running things well there and its getting bad.I wouldn't say they gave him away for peanuts. randy moss fetched a third; Lynch a fourth. Not bad. It seems like you really don't see trades for High draft picks In -season...that seems to be an off-season trend. Lynch is good. The Bills are not. You can put any RB in the NFL on that team and give him 5-9 carries and he is not going to catch your FF eye. He just got a major upgrade in FF IMO.The Bills were not bad in 2007 and 2008 when Lynch only put up mediocre numbers (and Fred Jackson put up better per carry and per catch numbers). The guy isn't as talented as a lot of people think he is. He's just about an average NFL RB overall.Ok let's see. The Bills were not bad in 2007 and 2008 but, they wernt good either right? Let's say they were mediocre to average. Lynch - 07-08 - 208 att, 1115 yds, 4.0 avg, 7 td. (His rookie campaign with a mediocre team)Fred Jackson 07-08 - 58 att, 300 yds, 5.2 avg, 0 td. (Ok a better avg, but in 1/4 the amount of carries. You think he would of avg 5.2 whole season?)Lynch 08-09 - 250 att, 1036 yds, 4.1 avg, 8td (Oh another 1k season with a mediocre team hmm)Jackson 08-09 -130 att, 571 yds, 4.4 avg, 3td. (Avg obviously couldnt stay at 5.2 with more carries, 4.4 seems reasonable)Lynch obviously had the advantage of getting more carries. Jackson did well with Buffalo, cant take that away from him. From these numbers, given the team they played for, I would say both players are above average. Jackson was more mature, physically, mentally, and had more experience than Lynch at this point. Jackson was in his PRIME. Lynch was what? 22? If anything I think these numbers show that it's not that Lynch is an average RB, it is that both Jackson and Lynch are ABOVE Average RBs. Jackson is very underrated. But as far as this thread is concerned Lynch seems equally underrated by some. Lynch is not AP or CJ no. But how you can say he is average I don't understand. His decline in Buffalo had nothing to do with talent or on the field issues. It was clearly maturity/off the field problem that caused his decline in Buffalo. Lynch's numbers are not far from a guy like MJD if you look at them. Sure maybe Lynch is a notch behind, but I think MJD was playing with better pieces in JAX. Im not even going to bother with Forsett. He is undefinable playing in Seattle. Obviously they thought he wasn't enough or they wouldnt have gone out to get Lynch. Maybe in the perfect situation Forsett could become a Tiki Barber or something. But the point is, in any situation Lynch is at worst average. Average is his FLOOR. His ceiling I think would be much higher in the proper situation. As would Fred Jacksons. All though, Lynch is just entering his PRIME right now.
  14. Not a forgone conclusion, but I would bet if Lynch shows any improvement over Forsett, they wouldn't hesitate to give him the lion's share. The o-line still isn't settled in Seattle, and has had a hard time run blocking. Forsett has averaged over 4 YPC behind a bad line, and has actually made something out of nothing a lot of times. I am not so sure that this is an indication that Forsett isn't cutting it, as it is just trying to improve the team at every turn. Julius Jones was inactive last week, and Washington has been pretty much a non-factor in the running game. I think this winds up being a split between Lynch and Forsett.This is really funny. They split carries at cal and now they will split carries in seattle. Lynch is NOT the better talent. They are relatively even as we saw when forsett was stealing carries from Lynch at Cal. Obviously, neither of them is the other Cal RB, Jahvid Best, so in 12 team leagues i think the best course of action is to just cut both and make room on your roster. I picked up Torain last week, just think if i would have passed because there was no room on my roster. With Forsett getting the majority of the carries for the last 2 weeks i've been getting about 8-9 fantasy points. Ok for my flex, but nothing to write home about. Now with Lynch? He will be bad, just like Lynch won't put up anything significant.People like this really exist? I thought they were like unicorns. I don't even think it is close. 2 years ago there were very few RB's anyone would have rather had in a dynasty league than Lynch. Some bad decisions and a terrible team later, all of a sudden Forsett is a better talent? Psh. Lynch just turned 24! He didn't lose anything in Buffalo but perhaps some brain cells. Sure he's on a bad team, and his OL sucks, but I would much rather have him long term than the majority of other RB's on bad teams. I think I would rather have him than Jahvid Best to be honest. Lynch has all the physical tools to be a top RB, given the chance to have even a decent OLine. If his head is in the game and not bumping in to trouble, I am pretty sure he will succeed. Forsett is a nice RB. Nothing more.
  15. I think that depends on what kind of league you are in and how your team is fairing. Nance might do somthing, but he couldnt make it in Atlanta and seems to be slow picking up the GB playbook. My guess is Nance isn't the brightest bulb. He has some talent, but who really knows. Starks is the overall better talent and for the 2nd half of the season, or in dynasty/keepers, next year, Starks I would think is the most likely to get playing time in GB based on a few things. He's talented, GB is high on him, and none of their other RBs are doing much of anything. Also Grant could very well be gone next year.All though this could all be derailed by injury or something else. So yea, Nance has better short term value, but I believe Starks has the better long term value. I don't think I'm the only one either.