Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

barackdhouse

Members
  • Content Count

    3,383
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,239 Excellent

About barackdhouse

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Chicago Bears

Recent Profile Visitors

2,586 profile views
  1. Before the draft I had CEH between 3 and 5 at RB, with Vaughn and Moss my 6 and 7 in a much lower tier. I figured CEH would stay at 5 in ADP rankings and that I'd have to spend a late 1st to get him, unless he went to a good landing spot and then I could see bumping him all the way. Vaughn, who I had basically one notch below him, also ended up landing in a great spot. So, why am I bumping CEH to 1.01 and not Vaughn much higher? Or why not Taylor or Dobbins at 1.01 who also landed in what I think are good spots and who I had ranked higher initially? Because it's a dance between where I have someone ranked, how I see their landing spot and opportunity, and what I think the market will require of me to pay to get them. In this case, I think the landing spot simply doesn't get any better than for CEH, and I had him in the same top RB tier to begin with. But the market basically requires me to pay 1.01 or 1.02, whether I would bump him there or not. For me I'd pay it, and have. Guys like Swift and Akers landed in terrible spots, IMO, so I am not willing to pay what the market is asking. Does that mean I *rank* Vaughn higher? Sort of. I wouldn't pay Swift/Akers prices for Vaughn but I also wouldn't draft those first two. It's a dance. Anyway it's not crazy for some of us to bump CEH even though we weren't necessarily banging the drum for him before. This is the most special offense we've maybe ever seen and it's young.
  2. Is this the Ingram thread? Worthy topic but it goes back to 2013. I'm going to assume Ingram. Yeah give me Dobbins.
  3. All fair. I typically manage my teams (predominantly FFPC) in a WR heavy strategy where I tend to churn through some RB2s. I usually have one good top stud RB and then a hot mess of glorified flex plays. But I'm usually elite at WR, TE and QB. I even try hard to do so at defense and kicker. But I find that RB2 is my sort of last puzzle piece that makes my rosters dominant. So when it comes to what I see as a borderline WR that I may not even start, even if he *does* blow up, vs just something, anything, in my RB2 spot, I usually pull the trigger on the RB. I'd love for that RB to hit big but I'm probably happy with a pulse if he gets touches. Note, I don't really like Akers or Swift and drafted zero shares of them. I don't own Deebo either so I've never stared down the barrel of this hypothetical. The thing is I actually really *do* like Samuel's game a lot. For me this would be closer to home if we were talking about Vaughn who is even cheaper. Though he hasn't been making it out of the first either.
  4. Alright well I took him at 2.06 in an FFPC Superflex startup after taking Murray at 1.07. Here's to a productive pairing for years to come. I've never had him in dynasty anywhere.
  5. All day. Agree with 2nd round vs 3rd round comment above.
  6. Yeah I mean he survived my FFPC cuts to 16, and he will likely make it to my regular season cuts to 20, but will I ever start him? Guess we'll find out. I went into my rookie drafts assuming he will bust but I simply have to let it ride this season. He will get a pass catching role that is desperation flex worthy, and if he outcompetes Akers then who knows. But I've more or less made other plans and he is simply bench depth at this point.
  7. Of course not, but a starting RB with a pulse is typically worth more to me than a borderline WR. I know you were responding to a specific point about them being top backs or not, but those are guys some people had at 1.01 before the draft. Samuel really could take another big step, but if I need a RB I don't think I would hesitate much to move him for one. The run heavy Niners attack along with drafting Aiyuk scares me a bit. Plus Kittle is the alpha there. I loved what I saw last year but I think I'd almost rather swing and miss on a RB than potentially clog my roster with him. I don't own him anywhere.
  8. I almost exclusively prefer to be near the turns regardless of format. For a startup absolutely give me top 3 over bottom 3. I feel there is more ability to leverage a strategy when you're near the turn whereas the middle of the round is more like just picking BPA when it gets back to you. Unless you can swing some good trades and then that all largely fades away. I drew the 7 in an FFPC Superflex startup this week. Went Murray, Nuk, Henry, Juju and Aaron Jones so far. I traded up twice, for Henry and Juju. But Nuk went on schedule at 2.06 and Jones at 4.06. I don't care much for the 7 spot here but I like the way it's going.
  9. Except he said if you *had to bet* on who the most valuable (single) rookie WR is. The field isn't really a choice the way he phrased that. I also will take Jefferson if I *had to bet one* but otherwise of course the field is a safer bet.
  10. Yeah the passing game things they were trying to do weren't working, and we were calling out their running plays before the snap when we were watching. Nagy ran out of ideas and with the playclock rolling, sometimes that same crappy run play that didn't work last time gets called again. I've said it before, but I'm a strong believer that if it isn't working, you have to try something else. They *never* called simple high % passing plays on 1st and 2nd down, it seemed to my biased eyes. It's great to be able to set up the pass with the run, but there is nothing wrong with doing it the other way around. Nagy didn't seem to get that notion of a counterpunch last year, but so much is a result of Trubisky laying an egg, and as an Oregon homer I can tell you that Helfrich was the same way, not being able to make ingame adjustments very well.
  11. I agree that volume held him up and probably still would, but this predictable vanilla running game on 1st and 2nd down was exactly the crap I've been harping against this whole time with respect to the Bears offense being terrible. I'm not trying to make excuses for him, because I simply don't know yet, but their playcalling was bush league at best last year. A lot was tied into lack of confidence in Trubisky, but those 1st and 2nd down carries were called bad, blocked bad, and yes arguably ran bad by Montgomery himself. I don't think so. What I saw were some of the most impressive 2 and 3 yard runs I've seen in a long time. The playcalling and execution were broken last year, and I want to see what he can do with a competent offense around him (competent as in average, not elite). But as a Bears fan I am not holding my breath. I've already moved the couple shares I had last year and I'm not looking to buy per se, but I'm still interested.
  12. Dude. It's not your take. It's the fact that you have to repeat it every three posts. Like seriously your opinion is valid but noted AF.
  13. I have no idea why this thread sucks so bad, but it really does.
  14. Yeah I'm worried about McCarthy as well. I don't know how much is because of him or Rodgers that they didn't target TEs as much. Or perhaps blind bad luck in terms of some TEs that underwhelmed for their own reasons. But I think Jarwin will be a big enough part of their offense to be a top 10 TE with weekly TD upside. Which is basically all I'm looking for from a TE in his price range. And if he falls short it's just another cheapish TE that I'm not gonna lose sleep over. I do think his TD upside could be higher than guys like Herndon, Fant, Jonnu Smith, or Ebron who are all nibbling at that top 10. I suppose if people are right about the Cowboys moving on from Cooper then that adds a little longterm value, but I wouldn't bank on that too much. *almost exclusively talking about TE premium here