Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Herm23

Members
  • Content Count

    414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Herm23

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Minnesota Vikings
  1. Yup. Figures LSU fans would be prominent on this side of the equation. Your team would suffer without its best player in a generation and of course don't care if his career gets Lattimored beyond the fact that his free services to your favorite team would be interrupted. When you look past the rah rah team b.s., there's no earthly chance a player of his ability in such a vulnerable position to sustain catastrophic injury decides to play next year. He will sit it out, train, and be a 1st round pick in 2017. Or he could play, risk the very small chance of a serious injury, and STILL be a high first round pick even if he sustains it (Todd Gurley?). Given that this JUST played out less than 1 year ago with Gurley, this comment seems to lack perspective. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that the chance of these disasterous injuries happening is still very, very small and recency bias of Gurley getting incredibly unlucky last year is heavily impacting thinking here. Also, the damage done from simply "sitting out a year and training on their own" is significant, likely to impact his draft position, and generally ignored when these silly comments are made. Being able to physically play in games, practice with a team, be in the environemnt has value. Gurley went through just about the worst case scenario for injury last year due to terrible luck and STILL essentially maximized his pre injury draft potential as a top 10 pick. Given this information, there is practically no incentive for any player to simply sit out a year to protect against injury especially since going that path comes with it's own risks and potentials to sabatoge dract stock and NFL production due to inactivity, being a new celebrity suddenly lacking structure and with too much time on their hands, poor training, lack of game pratice, etc... (Maurice Clarrett, Mike Williams) Full disclosure- I am in no way an LSU fan. This comment just struck me as off base.
  2. I was never sold on Sammy being a traditional 1.01 value as a prospect. I did feel he was the top player in this draft, but, largely due to draft position and the NFL investment. Please feel free to search for posts of mine containing his name. That really hasn't changed much for me. Granted, I haven't seen the game yet. Also, I suggested that Benjamin was going to catch up to Evans' dyansty value during the season, prior to week 1. Post is in the Off-Season trade thread. Week 1 was one of a few data points that make me very high on Benjamin's end of season dynasty value. But not the only one, by any means. My stance is that, should Benjamin meet my projections for him--70/1,000/8--he'll be a sexier version of K. Allen, as a dynasty asset, who was pretty universally valued higher than Sammy this off-season. The call does depend on Sammy's value being close to what it was coming into the season. For that to happen, he needed to have a solid season that showed the talent, but didn't ponit to consistent top 15-20 numbers going into season 2, based largely due to situation. Obviously, if his situation allows more than that, I could come to regret any roster moves I make based on the call. But they're on pace for 256 completions, 3,000 yards and 16 TDs. If that holds, I feel confident that week 2 is an outlier for Sammy this season. Lastly, I have no issues with Benjamin's week 2 performance. He got a lot of targets and that will continue. The catch rate will not, however--it will get much better. I haven't changed my projections for him at all, based on yesterday afternoon, and view it only as another buy window. He got 8 targets in both games, which puts him on pace for 128--the number I threw out last week. As for Cooks--he was 2nd on the team in targets and got a couple looks on the ground for 30 yards. He's going to be fine and should be targeted heavily. I didn't mean to single you out in any way. Yours just happened to be the first post I found during that section of discourse in the thread. I think the important distinction is that you didn't beleive Watkins was the 1.01 and had a higher regard for Benjamin than most prior to any training camps or preseason games. There is nothing wrong with that and I would fully expect you to maintain your stance up to this point regardless of what any on field data has shown, as I don't believe anything seen in training camp or preseason is worth altering an opinion over for a rookie. In regards to their potential career arc, their training camp and preseason in their first season mean exactly zero to me (pending some incredible occurse that forces a seizmic shift in opinion, such as a significant injury, which has not happened). My point was that the majority of people did have Watkins as the sure fire 1.01 and the only possible player they were even considering as an alternative was Mike Evans. Now after 1 week, with basically nothing having changed, multiple people were posting they suddenly preferred Benjamin AND Cooks to Watkins (and Evans). It just seems fairly reactionary and way to quick to alter course for my tastes. I felt it worth noting because for those that did have Watkins and/or Evans higher, and that pertains to most, some of the climate expressed in the thread might indicate there is opportunity to purchase Watkins or Evans for less than anticipated. I feel Trent Richardson may, in fact, play a part in this. Lots and lots of people were so badly burned by mortgaging futures to acquire the 1.01 in his rookie season that any sign of a slow start from a highly hyped rookie has them worried. I would not be at all surprised if people were willing to bail on Watkins for Benjamin/Cooks after the preseason/training camp events and subsequent performances in week 1. If someone valued Watkins higher than either of them coming into the draft/season, I believe this to be a significant mistake. It may end up proving to be correct, but that doesn't mean the correct process was being used.
  3. Same as I had a week ago... Watkins, Evans, Cooks, Benjamin. Me too, way to early to move guys around. I'm still not sold on Benjamin in the long term. A lot of guys put up numbers when they are the only viable wr. Look at Harry Douglas last year, or any of the endless raider or jaguar flame outs. You have to be right on your calls if and when presented--or it won't matter whether you were early or late. The moment you like Eddie Lacy more than Trent Richardson--your rankings and potential roster moves should reflect that. That will be different for all of us, as we all have access to different data points and interprit and weigh them differently as well. Rules of thumb can be as damning as they are helpful. If Harry Douglas has anything to do with your stance on Kelvin Benjamin--I have to question how helpful the rule is. Kelvin Benjamin is dominating NFL cornerbacks, to my eyes. If your eyes see something different, of course, ignore my stance. But that is a HUGE data point and needs to be taken into account right away, once identified. I intended to comment on this at the time, but got busy and forgot. However, this past weekend's games present a good opportunity to revisit this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sammy Watkins was pretty universally regarded as an ELITE level prospect, and while I dislike the term "can't miss" (see Richardson, Trent), Watkins was about as highly regarded a prospect as we have had in several years. What could possibly have happened over the course of a training camp, preaseason, and 1 NFL game that had several in here dropping him down to 3rd in his own class?? I am not pointing out Concept Coop only and have no idea how he viewed Watkins pre-draft, but am commenting on the fact that several people seemed immediately ready to discount Watkins. I get it if someone viewed Benjamin or Cooks ahead of him before/immeditely after the draft, but if you didn't and changed your mind after what is essentially meaningless training camp/preseason action and the first real NFL games in these players careers, why? If anything, this screams to me that Watkins is holding a neon flashing sign that says "buy me" in fantasy leagues. His performance this week likely killed whatever very small window may have been opened, but I can't fathom how he went from elite level prospect to being viewed behind Benjamin and Cooks before things even really began. If I owned Benjamin or Cooks in any leagues, I would be sprinting to my trade window to offer either up for Watkins, hoping the Watkins owner was also waffling on him. Is this Trent Richardson fatigue and people being overly weery of the very highly regarded talent falling flat on his face? Were people that spooked with a disappointing training camp/preseason that included injuries affecting his play and E.J. Manuel being E.J. Manuel? I suppose I can't figure it out and was caught off guard how quickly several in here seemed to discount him. This doesn't even touch on Mike Evans, who appears to simmarly being shuffled down the pecking order by some.
  4. For teams that might not be worried about the next 2-3 weeks, but rather are looking for the player who might be the guy to emerge that starts 8+ games to finish the year, what's the play here? Looking for some possible inisght from homers or people who have followed this backfield much more closely than me. - Justin Forsett looked good after Pierce was benched in week 1, but has physical limitations and the Kubiak running system is capable of making mediocre players look sharp. - Lorenzo Taliaferro was drafted by the Ravens, but I have seen very little of him and other than his pedestrian 3.7 preseason YPC average, don't know much - Bernard Pierce struggled mightily in 2013 and proceeded to get benched in week 1 after only six carries due to his first career fumble . He looked very good during his rookie season in 2012, but was a train wreck last season, although he would be far from the first player to have a season sabatoged by a team in dissaray that plays far below expectations, which I believe happened to the Ravens in 2013. Is Justin Forsett a short term stopgap for a few weeks or is he capable of taking the job and running with it? IS Taliaferro capable of working his way into the lineup and then running with the job, Zac Stacy style, or is he a "JAG"? Which is the real Pierce, the 2012 version or the 2013 version and why would Harbaugh/Kubiak bench him so swiftly afer his first career fumble in what is now his 3rd season? Heck, is the Ravens 2015 running back even on their roster? Which of these guys should be the play from a waiver wire perspective, looking more for week 4 to the end of the season and beyond? Are any of them worth more of a waiver wire bid than the other likely hot week 2 waiver wire options (Crowell, Hester, Quick, etc...)? Very hard to get a feel for this situation, as to me, it FEELS like Pierce is the most talented but doesn't have the coaching staff's faith (which is a huge deal in a Kubiak offense), Forsett looks decent but has had many years in the league to prove he really isn't a lead back for more than a short timeframe, and Taliaferro is an unknown who had a mediocre preseason but the team traded up to acquire him in the draft. Does all this add up to RBBC hell for the duration of the season and the answer is to use your waiver priorities elswhere this week or do people with more insight feel strongly one of these 3 will emerge as the season progresses?
  5. Regarding Luck, Newton and RG3, let me be the first to say this: Is nobody worried that RG3 looks a little...ummm...bad this year? Not just "he's coming off a torn ACL and isn't quite himself running the ball yet" bad, but rather "is this guy really good enough throwing the football to be an elite NFL and fantasy QB" bad? Setting the injury concerns aside for a moment (which are real and also negatively impact his value), RG3 simply looks like he is in a lower class as a quarterback right now. He has appeared absolutely average passing the ball and if not for an awful lot of garbage time statistics against prevent/"let's just make sure we stay healthy defenses" after games were already decided because RG3 could do nothing offensively for the entire first half, his stats would begin to look pretty miserable. From what I have seen when watching, he misses receivers constantly, struggles to progress through his reads, and generally seems to have regressed significantly as a passer since his rookie season. A lot of this can be attributed to him running the read option less and not being able to keep defenses on their toes, but if the NFL has proven anything, it's that these new fangled offensive approaches are generally able to catch defenses off guard and produce great short term results, but generally are mitigated and don't produce the same benefit over the long haul. That's not to say that the read option isn't here to stay and won't have a lasting impact on the NFL, just that it's impact probably won't be as great as it was all of last season for multiple quarterbacks. If this is the case (and really we have 50+ years of evidence with defenses catching up to offenses) and we need to mitigate some of the expected stats via the read option, then isn't it fair to worry that many of the glaring problems RG3 has shown with his pure passing ability are an absolute concern and a signifcant detractor to his fantasy value? While I hardly think this makes RG3 worthless, I think it absolutely takes him out of the discussion when comparing him to some of the elite quarterbacks in the league. Luck and Cam have, in my opinion, already established that they are elite passers and are able to win games purely with their arm (Luck moreso than Cam at this point). I have absolutely no worry about either of these players and expect them to headline the quarterback class for the next decade (along with Rodgers, who I assume will fall off towards the end of that decade). While I think RG3 has the talent to join them, in my opinion he needs significantly more improvement than the other 2 to make it to that level. Thus, I would rank them: Cam Newton Andrew Luck RG3 Insert whatever hyperbole you want in the distance between Cam/Luck and RG3, my point is to emphasize that I believe he is a clear step down, regardless of the benefit of the rushing stats. Passing is still king in the league and RG3 has a large gap to make up to become the passer either Cam or Luck are. Lastly, RG3 seems clueless on how to avoid taking punishment. He is getting absolutely KILLED on a game by game basis and would seem to be a far greater injury risk due to it. I'm going to discount the ACL injury, as that is a total fluke and can happen to anyone, but at his current pace, he seems a far greater risk to sustain concussions, seperated shoulders, etc... that happen from taking repeated big hits.
  6. Been awhile since I have posted in this thread, but wanted to gauge the opinions on a few players that I haven't seen talk about recently (or if there was, I totally missed it and/or it hasn't been revisisted in the last few games which have brough siginificant new developments). Zac Stacy Andre Ellington Lamar Miller Each of these players poses a unique challenge in trying to assess where they belong in the running back pecking order. I usually have a pretty good grasp on running back talent and have generally done a good job in my leagues of identifying the real deals from the frauds and capatilizing on sell high/buy low situations because of it, but admit to being fairly clueless and not at all sure about any of these 3 players. Broken down individually, here are my current feelings; Zac Stacy- One of the players with the biggest discrepency between my "eye test" and current on field production that I have come across in a long time. I own him in 2 different dynasty leagues, and thus have closely watched each game he has played, and have walked away from every game thinking that I have watched an incredibly ordinary running back that doesn't have the physical tools or ability to be anything more than average. The problem is he appears to be taking a chokehold of one of the very few 3 down + goal line running back roles left in the league. How long will that opportunity be there for him if he is average though? I would hate to trade away a player that is locked into one of the true workhorse roles that also gets goal line carries, but would also hate not to capitilze on his sudden surge in value considering my eyes tell me he is so very average. I can't help but instantly think of Anthony Thomas (A-Train) when I watch him play (great 2nd half of his rookie season that many assumed would continue into his 2nd year despite many red flags and warnings signs indicating a very average, replaceable talent). Andre Ellington- Talent, talent, talent. That's the first thing that comes to mind when I watch Ellington touch the ball. Ellington has produced a "wow" moment in just about every game this season for me. There is an awful lot of hype regarding Gio Bernard right now (and rightfully so), but in my opinion, the "eye test' tells me Ellington isn't that far behind in terms of electric on field ability. The discrepency is that while the Bengals are already giving Bernard goal line looks and he seems a no brainer to assume a much larger role in the offense as soon as next season, Ellington has no such assurances and his coach seems to be terrified of giving him too many touches or any goal line work. Is Ellington's slight size (he is roughly 10 pounds lighter than Bernard despite being the same height) something that will hold him back and should he be sold before the reality of a contnued minimal offensive role in 2014 hits or is he in for a large uptick in usage as 2014 roles around? Lamar Miller- After a somewhat dissapointing first 1/3 of the season, Miller seems to be gaining some traction as his usage increases and he appears to have finally achieved the "lead dog" status in Miami's backfield. The worry is that despite the fact that Daniel Thomas has proven himself to be thoroughly average and/or below average thus far in his NFL career, Miller is BARELY outpacing him in usage in their backfield split. With a few good games in a row and a rise in touches, Miller's value is back on the rise among the more volatile dynasty players (those that shift their opinions on a more game to game basis...every league generally has them). Is it time to start targeting those owners and trying to sell Miller or is he due to continue to take hold of the starting job and does 2014 provide greater promise? What are people's thoughts on them and where would they slot them in their rankings and tiers?
  7. Nothing at all in my opinion. The increased risk for an injury such as this due to his style of play should already have been accounted for in his current value. It should have been understood that all quarterbacks have the chance to suffer a major knee injury (see Tom Brady 2008), but RG3 had an increased chance due to the frequency with which he carries the ball as a runner. However, with what we have seen from recoveries of ACL injuries in recent years, particularly this year, it doesn't cause me any more pause than to wonder how much of a short term hit it will have (he will likely miss some of this upcoming season). His long term prognosis is the exact same as it was 2 days ago before this injury, at least for me.Sure, you account for an increase, but you don't discount him as though it is fact. And lets not pretend this was anything but a freak accident. RG3 was 33rd in the NFL in carries. 32 players ahead of him didn't tear a knee ligament. There were about 13,000 carries by NFL players this season. RG3 accounted for less than 1% of them, yet accounts for a great deal of the knee ligaments torn on said runs.RG3 needed to change his running style and was going to get hurt if he didn't. But he would have been hurt from the hits, like Michael Vick has been. Again, this is a freak accident.You misunderstood me. I had him ranked very, very highly already while accounting for the fact that he frequently touches the ball as a runner instead of just a passer, thus increasing the number of hits he will take and increasing the likelihood for injury, freak or not. The more you touch the ball in a position to be hit, the more likely you are to take a freak hit that will cause a freak injury. That's simple logic at work. However, I'm not trying to use it as any kind of negative whatsoever. I think it is a very small point and really not worth even considering when factoring rankings (at least for me. I don't base my rankings on potential for freak accidents/injuries). However, for those that do, this type of possibility should already have been accounted for otherwise they were doing themselves a disservice in their rankings.I don't think this injury changes his ranking one bit. He should still be ranked in the exact same place- very, very highly with little to no movement. I find it unlikely this is going to be any kind of career threatening or career altering injury, given the way modern medicine seems to be trivializing these kind of injuries more and more on a yearly basis. I expect him to retain the exact same speed and athleticism that makes him so dangerous as a runner and to continue to improve his pocket presence and throwing maturity, making him even more dangerous as a passer.
  8. I'm in a bit of a pickle. Went hard to the hole for RG3 in a number of leagues last year and actually own him, Wilson and Rodgers together in one. Was looking at moving Rodgers in that league but will be holding off for now.That out of the way, while the short term hit would obviously suck and a lot of RG3s value this year has come from rushing, I don't think long term he would rely on running to be a productive NFL and fantasy QB. One of the things that was frequently pointed out was that he's not a run first QB and is a strong pure passer. I don't see any reason why he can't have a great career even if he only has the mobility of a guy like Brady. I agree with all of this, but am not of the belief that RG3 suddenly will need to stop running or will have the mobility of a guy like Brady. It's a torn ACL- that doesn't strike near the fear in my mind that it did 10 years ago. I fully expect RG3 to be physically and athletically the same player he was this year after a year or so of recovery.Whether he retains the same usage as a runner following the injury is another discussion, but I find it hard to believe he will be kept out of the running game given how good of a weapon he is in it.
  9. Nothing at all in my opinion. The increased risk for an injury such as this due to his style of play should already have been accounted for in his current value. It should have been understood that all quarterbacks have the chance to suffer a major knee injury (see Tom Brady 2008), but RG3 had an increased chance due to the frequency with which he carries the ball as a runner. However, with what we have seen from recoveries of ACL injuries in recent years, particularly this year, it doesn't cause me any more pause than to wonder how much of a short term hit it will have (he will likely miss some of this upcoming season). His long term prognosis is the exact same as it was 2 days ago before this injury, at least for me.
  10. I think a lot of what you say has merit. I believe it is a truth that the big play, explosive players tend to get a talent upgrade over the more consistent churners in a lot of people's minds, even if the overall stats put up by both types of players are relatively equal.I also am totally in agreement with your stance on not trading Richardson for either Spiller or Charles. I have seen "it" from Richardson and despite his incredibly disappointing finish to the season (at least from an efficiency metrics standpoint), have no problem projecting him as a great player once the situation improves around him. There are a lot of times that I saw Richardson run and came away impressed, thinking he simply looked better/bigger/stronger/tougher/more aggressive than everyone playing against him. However, I am just not as sold on Doug Martin yet as I probably should be (and I am an owner in 2 leagues). I think he is a good player, but not a great one. I fully believe Spiller and Charles are great players. I don't say this because Spiller and Charles are freak speed/athleticism guys who can take any touch to the house. I say it because when I watch them play, I come away impressed that they simply look better than the guys around them in many areas. Spiller is a small guy who is blindingly quick, yet he is deceptively difficult to bring down. There was one play in week 16 against Miami where he got a goal line carry and, despite the fact that he didn't score, I remember coming away incredibly impressed with how hard he ran and how difficult it was for Miami to bring him down. It started up the middle/slanted to the right, he got shut down, fought off a tackle, bounced it outside to the left, fought off another tackle, bounced it further outside to the left before meeting another defender and eventually being forced out of bounds just short of the goal line. Several defenders met him and had a chance at him, but couldn't bring him down. This is a typical thing for him (or at least more typical than it should be for a player of his size and build). Charles, on the other hand, seems to ALWAYS be able to find the hole when it is there and maximize it. I have rarely seen a player so capable of always finding the right place to go. I feel that Spiller and Charles are much safer than Doug Martin because their talents translate to ANY system or situation and can impact any team. Hell, the Bills and Chiefs are 2 of the more dismal teams in the NFL and there is very little offensive talent surrounding them, yet both running backs still managed to put up great seasons. Spiller had to deal with being the backup and then the lesser half of a timeshare for a lot of the year and still thrived. I currently feel like Doug Martin is more dependent on volume and situation to put up great seasons. We are probably splitting hairs and I am even possibly biased and being too hard on Martin as an owner (because I don't want to get stuck holding the bag on a rookie season where he performed over his head), but I feel much more comfortable projecting Spiller and Charles for 1500+ yards and 10+ touchdowns for the next bunch of years than I do Doug Martin. Maybe I am just misreading Martin, but he doesn't "wow" me as a player that simply looks better than everyone he is playing against yet. He looks good, but not THAT good.
  11. Assuming non-PPR, I think it is close. You have to make a call on Foster's gas tank; what did his big dip in per touch production mean?I'd take McCoy, Peterson, Richardson, and Martin over Morris in standard formats. After that, it's a tough call. Charles, Foster, Rice, Spiller, and Morris are all in that mix.Perhaps I am seeing this through rose colored glasses because I am a big Spiller fan, but I have a hard time not putting Spiller in the former group instead of the latter. For instance, I don't see all that much distinction between McCoy and Spiller. Both are electric talents, with Spiller much more capable of the home run play and McCoy a little bit better of a touchdown threat...albeit his system is now due for a massive overhaul and whether he remains the goal line back of choice with Brown as a backup is an absolute question mark. Spiller showed this year that if he is healthy, he is essentially situation proof- it doesn't get much worse than literally playing as the backup or lesser share of a timeshare for a player of his talent and he STILL put up a fantastic fantasy season. Even if he is never a workhorse back, the upside is obvious if he becomes the greater share of a timeshare, right?I think Spiller currently is a fantastic bargain, as I think the general consensus is to value him behind most, if not all of the players you mentioned. The only player I would definitely not currently trade him for is Trent Richardson. I would also have to think long and hard about trading him for Peterson or McCoy or Rice or Charles. After that, I think it is a no brainer. For instance, I feel like I would be getting a steal if I were able to get Spiller straight up for Doug Martin or Foster and ABSOLUTELY would be fleecing an owner that traded him for Alfred Morris as I believe Spiller is worth Doug Martin (or Foster or Morris) plus another player (this gives you an idea of what I feel the difference in talent level actually is and how much situation is altering their respective values currently). I am a big advocate of valuing situation for running backs much more than many people do, but not when I think there is a massive talent disparity (and I believe there is a very significant difference in talent between Spiller and the likes of Alfred Morris).You can probably repeat this exact same argument for Jamaal Charles, as I think he is essentially the clone of Spiller (perhaps a bit more talented, but with a bit more age). Jamaal Charles also feels criminally underrated and I can't imagine concretely valuing anyone but Richardson ahead of him (this goes more to the ranking a few posts ago that had Charles as low as RB10).On a different topic, I also believe David Wilson is essentially the premier buy low target for the "name" running back market during the off season. I think he showed all you needed to see over the last handful of games on the season. Sure his price has risen from early in the year and he is far from cheap at the moment, but his cost has not yet risen to the point where it equals his actual value. I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that David Wilson doesn't begin next year as the greater part of a timeshare at worst, with the possible upshot of being the bell cow if things break exactly right. Everyone always knew he had the talent and he began to show signs of putting it together last year. I can't imagine having him as low as some people do given these factors. For instance, MJD, Forte, and Ridley have no business being ranked ahead of him, in my opinion. After that, you can interchange Murray, Chris Johnson, Morris, and Lynch with him and I would not argue someone who preferred David Wilson to any of these players.I also think you can essentially repeat somewhat the same argument for Ryan Mathews who I see as another fantastic buy low (and if it isn't David Wilson, then Mathews is the best target for the "name" running back market). People are going to put WAY too much credence into last seasons abortion of a season despite the fact that the entire Chargers offense regressed to disgusting levels (meaning it was hardly just Mathews. QB, offensive line, receivers, tight end, and coaching staff all performed WAY below expectation, likely dragging each other down along the way). Just 1 season ago, he was putting up some of the best per touch metrics in the league, looked like a very talented player, and appeared on his way to joining the elite level of fantasy football running backs. Given how cheap he has suddenly become, I think it would be silly to base valuations on just last season when there are plenty of reasons to suggest it may have been more of an anomaly than the norm.
  12. Example #1,302 that showcases why I believe most people wildly UNDERRATE situation in dynasty leagues: Mark Ingram -vs- Trent Richardson Mark Ingram lands on a team that does not have an offense or game plan built around feeding a running back (to be more accurate, he lands on a team with the exact opposite mindset, actually), while Richardson lands on a team with the mind set to force feed their running back under nearly any circumstance and any game situation. Trent Richardson's talent and ability plays into this some, but we have seen the Browns' mentality on this with other players (Hillis). This leads Mark Ingram's value to plummet after his rookie season, in which he posted admittedly disappointing results while dealing with injuries. Trent Richardson, however, looks EQUALLY mediocre and has equally mediocre results while dealing with injuries...outside of the fact that he is getting force fed the ball and doesn't have the Saints ultra pass happy offense to take away scoring opportunities, allowing him to accumulate numbers despite disappointing metrics. The result? Richardson is widely regarded as the #1 RB for most people. There is some talent disparity at play, but let's not kid ourselves here- situation has drastically changed what people view these players as. Put Ingram on the Browns and, while I believe he would have disappointing metrics, I also believe he would have the total accumulation of stats and youth to warrant people putting them in their top 10 RB's (I believe Richardson would be most peoples #1 regardless of where he was, but feel he would have better metrics and worse overall total accumulation of stats on the Saints). Instead, Ingram is a mere afterthought for most people as he is buried in the most unfriendly fantasy running back situation in the NFL. I suppose my point is that talent and age trumps situation, but I tend to see a lot of of people essentially writing situation off altogether. The bulk of player's careers can and will be dominated by the situation they find themselves in (ask an Arian Foster owner, a Darren McFadden owner, a Jonathan Stewart owner, a Larry Fitzgerald owner, or a DeAngelo Williams owner to name just a select few from very recent and/or current history). I suppose the question to ask is how much does situation play into the overall value of a player and how do you account for it when you are deciding between players?
  13. Martin showed flashes from the very beginning. The idea that he was this horrible scrub in the first few weeks has been blown out of proportion. He basically had one bad game and one mediocre game. Certainly not enough evidence to justify the amount of flack he got on these boards. Obviously situation plays a huge role in determining FF performance and value. But it also provides a really convenient excuse for anyone looking to defend a player because it's impossible to refute. You can't prove that Peyton Manning wouldn't have the rushing stats of RGIII if he were on the Redskins. Of course we know that it's a ridiculous claim, but it's also impossible to refute. Saying that Ingram could duplicate Martin's numbers on the Bucs is not as crazy, but that doesn't mean it's accurate either. Nothing about Ingram's NFL performance thus far indicates that he has the same caliber of playmaking skills as Martin. Just like how nothing in Peyton's history suggests he would suddenly become a runner if he were on the Redskins. The objective factors aren't that kind to Ingram. He was a high pick and a great college player, but he did terribly in workouts and has shown very little big play ability at the NFL level. So while you can still say "he looks good to me" and fall back on his college career to defend him, the simple fact is that his play doesn't warrant much excitement up to this point. Maybe that will change in time. Maybe it won't. Again, I don't really need to strain myself to defend Martin. It's all there in the stats. Great YPC. Lots of big plays. Great value in the passing game. He's doing about as well as you could reasonably expect anyone to do in the same situation. And if it matters, he was also a first round pick and (unlike Ingram) didn't flunk all the drills at the combine. His workout numbers are about on par with Lynch, which makes sense. I see Lynch as a realistic floor for him with Rice probably representing something close to his ceiling. He's probably a top 10 overall back in the NFL and he doesn't have any real warts, which is why he might be the #1 dynasty RB right now. The only backs who are clearly better than him are also older with a lot more mileage. Let's move away from Ingram for a second and focus in on Martin.If this conversation is telling me anything, it is that I ABSOLUTELY need to be looking to trade Doug Martin right now and cash in on what seems like an extreme over-inflation of his value. #1 overall dynasty RB?! What?! I have watched literally every snap of his season so far this year (remember, owner in my 2 biggest and most competitive leagues so I have a very vested interest) and I have come away thinking he is a solid, above average player but nothing CLOSE to anything that would resemble the #1 overall running back. I am of the belief that his current performance is outpacing his actual skill level and don't value him close to that high. His situation really is pretty damn good- good quarterback, great wide outs to draw attention, run oriented coach who is unwilling to abandon it in most situations, good line (despite the injuries), nobody to challenge his workload or goal line touches (which he has had underwhelming success with so far this year) at all currently, and beautiful schedule that has allowed him to feast on some pretty poor run defenses. For a reference of what I think it would be worth moving him for, if I could get C.J. Spiller +, I would do it in an nanosecond, as Spiller has looked to be the better player to me and is currently putting up stats under his actual talent level due to situation. I'm betting that changes at some point. Also, I would think about Adrian Peterson +, as I believe we have several years of Peterson's top level production to go and don't feel safe enough about Martin on a year to year basis. Also, if he really is the #1 RB, I'm trading him every day and nine times on Sunday for Trent Richardson straight up and/or am willing to give Martin + to get Richardson if the gap has narrowed between the two that much. Other things I would consider but wouldn't be slam dunks would be Rice + (some age concern and he isn't the once in a lifetime talent Peterson is), McCoy + (Bryce Brown gives me a tiny bit of worry about future workloads and/or goal line touches), Jamaal Charles + (I believe Charles is a better player), and maybe even Steven Ridley ++ (I'm not so entirely sold that Doug Martin is a vastly better player than Steven Ridley). I'm not sure Doug Martin belongs ahead of any of these players, to be frank (with the possible exception of Ridley, who I am including because I don't think Martin is as far ahead of him as is currently believed), and if I could get any of them PLUS other value in return? I suppose I was unaware his value had reached that point, I guess. In summation, if we have reached a point where it is capable to get what I believe is a more talented player, such as Spiller or Peterson, and more on top of it in return for Martin, I can't see a scenario where it isn't beneficial to move him since I believe his value will fall from that high level as soon as next season. Additionally, if we have reached a point where it is capable to trade Martin and more, within reason, to get Trent Richardson (which was not the case earlier this year- it would have taken Martin and a king's ransom to land Richardson) then I can't see how that shouldn't be done as well. What am I missing in regards to Martin? I admit that I am possibly just not high enough on him, but I just haven't been blown away nearly enough after watching extensively to value him at these levels. I always have felt he is lucky to have a competent offense around him, a coach willing to feed him, and that he doesn't have anyone looming that suddenly could hurt his value (like McCoy potentially now has to worry about in Bryce Brown). I see someone like Spiller and believe he could be doing exactly what Martin is doing now if he were on the Bucs, at least from an overall performance standpoint, but absolutely do not believe Martin could be replicating what Spiller is doing on the Bills. I personally like the players that I value as elite at their position to be much more irreplaceable than this.
  14. Martin is a much better overall back than Blount. Blount can be deadly when he has a big crease to work with, but otherwise he's pretty useless. He's bad in space and has very limited elusiveness. When he has to create something in a tight space, he fails. He did have a strong rookie year, but there's a reason he went undrafted and was cut by the Titans in camp. He's not that great. Even if you want to believe that Blount has equal rushing talent to Martin, that's only one piece of the equation. Part of the reason why guys like Forte, Lynch, Rice, and Foster are gold in the NFL and FF is because of their pass catching ability. Blount had 5 catches his entire rookie year. Martin has 35 through 13 games. So no, Blount didn't do what Martin is doing. And I have no reason to believe that he could if given the opportunity. He's simply not a weapon in that facet of the game. Ingram hasn't shown any ability in the passing game either. I think he has more upside in that regard than Blount, but his yards per catch has been downright pathetic thus far in his NFL career and he doesn't have a single 20+ yard play in the passing game. Meanwhile Martin is averaging over 10 yards per catch. I don't really need to bend over backwards explaining why Martin has been great. He's almost beyond reproach at this point. There aren't a lot of 220+ pound backs in the NFL who can make dynamic plays in the running game with power and speed, and also catch 50+ passes in a season. They're a pretty rare breed. When you get those guys in FF, you need to hold onto them. I feel you are considerably overrating the ability of one Doug Martin. Let's not forget how mediocre, disappointing, and non-explosive he looked over the first 1/4 to 1/2 of the season. I am a Martin owner in 2 different dynasty leagues (my most important and most competitive leagues), so I am an absolute fan, but I think you are guilty of extreme hyping here. Read that again- I am a fan, was a buyer from the very beginning, believed in his ability since watching him at Boise St., and STILL believe you are completely overrating him at this point in time.Do you know the biggest difference between Doug Martin and Mark Ingram? It's not talent (I believe they are roughly comparable on a talent scale as their draft positions say as much, and actually so does the eyeball test over the last 1/2 of the season. Martin is better, but I don't believe it is by nearly the same margin as you seem to be implying), it's not pass catching ability (Mark Ingram showed plenty of that at Alabama and it was actually a positive of his heading into the draft, not a negative), and it's not athleticism (I concede that Mark Ingram is not the most athletic player to ever hit the NFL, but there have been all kinds of star running backs who were far from from freak athletes. It's one of the few positions on the football field that actual playing skill trumps athletic ability more times than not. Also, Doug Martin is not what I would call an athletic freak either, so let's not go overboard). The difference between the 2 is mostly situation. Martin was given the opportunity, via sheer volume, to excel over the last 1/2 to 2/3 of the season after starting out slowly and, frankly, looking mediocre to bad at the beginning of the year. Had he been in New Orleans, he never would have had that opportunity. All the pass catching stats you want to spit out would be utterly and completely useless and mute because Sproles would be dominating all of those play calls and opportunities, leaving Martin only the ability to try and excel on a handful of 1st or 2nd down plays per game and/or the short yardage opportunities. What are the odds that his stats would mirror Ingram's fairly closely on some level? I would be willing to wager that they would look pretty eerily similar, as I don't feel anyone but the truly great running backs in the NFL (of which I do not believe Doug Martin is yet) could excel on the amount of touches and the situations Mark Ingram has had to work with. The true answer to this riddle, at least to me, is that Doug Martin is a better player than Mark Ingram, but not nearly so much as is being implied or is currently believed. The difference in situation has a lot more to do with the difference in performance so far in their careers, in my opinion, than the talent difference between the two. If Ingram were on Tampa Bay, I believe he would be viewed as a high end RB2 or a low end RB1, while Doug Martin on New Orleans would be a low end RB2 or a high end RB3. In essence, I believe that the talent difference between the two is high end, elite RB1 (Martin) -vs- low end RB1/high end RB2 (Ingram) if they were in similar, beneficial situations. As I have said a few times, for the price of a late 1st round pick (which feels to me like the current market for Ingram, although I haven't actually seen a trade completed for him in any of my leagues so I am not entirely sure where I get that feeling), Mark Ingram is a steal given that I believe he has that upside and is merely situation dependent to reach it. I don't dispute that Ingram is more lottery ticket than bankable asset and this discussion is somewhat silly since Martin is already a bankable asset (nor am I absurd enough to believe Ingram is in the same stratosphere as Martin in terms of value). I just think the Ingram lottery ticket has a very high chance to be able to be cashed in and all it will take is a change of scenery or a change in coaching and/or philosophy.
  15. They graded out very closely in the scouting process, they were drafted closely together, too. I have little doubt that Ingram would be producing close to Martin in an equally beneficial situation.You'd be wrong then. Ingram is incapable of having the kind of game that Martin had against Oakland. Martin is a lot more explosive. He probably had more 40+ yard plays in that one game than Ingram has in his entire career. The NFL version of Mark Ingram has no real big play ability, and that's one of his major weaknesses. Again, very similar to a Benson/Greene type. A guy who can probably handle high volume and grind out yards, but not a guy who gives you a lot of "+" plays. The "they graded out very closely" stuff becomes increasingly less relevant the deeper you get into a player's career. I'm sure Moreno graded out very closely to Chris Johnson for some teams. Doesn't matter now. Martin smokes Ingram based on the eyeball test and based on virtually every objective measure of NFL performance. Higher YPC. More catches. More yards. More TDs. More big plays. A higher ratio of big plays. You name it and he's better.There's both truth and hyperbole in this statement. I agree that Ingram lacks the home run hitting ability that some of the more dynamic running backs possess. However, I also don't watch Doug Martin and get the impression that he is a bona fide home run hitter either. You reference the Oakland game and what I saw was a player who was good enough and fast enough to take it to the house when he has WIDE OPEN running lanes. I did not see a player that possessed difference making speed. Let's not overrate what Martin can and can't do in this department. He's a great player who I think will be a well above average fantasy asset for awhile for owners, but I don't necessarily chalk "top end speed" up as one of his big strengths.Also, you keep referencing Benson and Greene as the most like comparisons for Ingram, but you just as easily could be using Marshawn Lynch, Shaun Alexander, Rashard Mendenhall, Curtis Martin, hell even Emmitt Smith (to throw a truly outlandish comparison out there). These are all much more skilled versions, to varying degrees, of the players Benson or Greene are (and yes I realize this is a random list, just trying to come up with players that felt like they fit this mold when I watched them play off the top of my head). None of these guys strike me as big play threats or players that provided tons of "+" plays, but all of them are consistently capable of beating defenses, churning out yards, are able to hit the big play when it was provided (but weren't really relied on to make the big play out of nothing, like Barry Sanders or Spiller or Charles) and providing great value to their team as their carry total increases (again to varying degrees. I'm well aware that Emmitt Smith and Rashard Mendenhall do not belong in the same conversation).The point you are trying to make is that Ingram is a volume runner and requires said volume to be capable of producing at a satisfactory level of performance. I don't disagree with that, but I think it is unfair to automatically assume that Ingram would perform as essentially the worst version of a volume runner if he is ever given the chance. I happen to think he is fairly skilled and there is a lot there to like yet and could easily see him carving out very nice value.I realize I just included a lot of hyperbole and outlandish comparisons in my post (speaking of Ingram and Curtis Martin or Emmitt Smith in the same sentence), but did so to point out that I think it is equally unfair to automatically call Ingram the next Shonn Greene. We simply don't know yet- Ingram literally has an incomplete at this point of his career. Not a fail because he hasn't consistently been able to see 20+ carries like Greene and not a pass for the very same reason. We literally do not know what he is capable of other than the eye test (which he is beginning to pass with increasing regularity over the 2nd half of this season) and his pedigree. If/when he does get 20+ carries, he could "face plant" and become Shonn Greene, but I also don't put it out of the realm of possibility that he could thrive and become something like Shaun Alexander-lite. Given Ingram's current price (late 1st?), it seems like a easy gamble to take. It just must be done with a great deal of patience, as things are unlikely to change a great deal next year (but I wouldn't rule out 2014, since A LOT can and does change in the NFL over a 2 year period).ETA: I don't want to make it sound like I am hopelessly in love with Ingram. I recognize his potential bust factor. I just think that at his current price, for a player that will likely settle in somewhere between Shonn Greene and something much better than Shonn Greene, it makes too much sense not to buy. I feel his current price is more a reflection of the general disappointment over his rookie season (even though expectations for his rookie season were WAY too high to begin with) than his actual skill level. These type of players make the absolute best buys in dynasty because you are getting a discount based on perception and not actual skill or performance.