Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

rschroeder1

Members
  • Content Count

    221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

87 Excellent

About rschroeder1

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Chicago Bears

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If the rumors are true that New England plays the Sunday night game in Week 1 (with Bears/Packers the Thursday opener), the gods will have saved us from yet another Dallas-NY Giants blah fest on Sunday night. Ye gods!
  2. There's a lot of language being tossed around about contracts to justify arguments. I thought it might be helpful to offer some clarifications in this regard, as I feel like a few of the arguments offered are a little slanted. In the interest of transparency, I have Carlos Hyde and Darrel Williams on my end-of-season roster from 2018 for keeper considerations for 2019. Williams became an RFA in '16 after 3 years of a UDFA contract with the Dolphins; he then signed a one year deal with them. As a UFA in '17 after his fourth season, he signed a one-year contract with the Chiefs. While his new contract is for up to two years, his dead cap hit for '20 is $500k - in other words, depending on situation, he could be a cut candidate after '19. So essentially it's a one-year deal with a team option for the second. Hyde signed a three-year deal with Cleveland after the expiration of his 4-year rookie contract with SF; however, the contract had no dead cap money after year 1, making it essentially a one-year contract with two years of team options. I bring this up to object to the argument against Hyde in that he's on his fourth team in two years. Both Hyde and Williams were not resigned by their inaugural teams after their first four years were up. Both were signed to essentially one-year contracts in their fifth year. The only major difference here is situation - the Browns had Chubb in the first year of a 4-year deal worth $7.3 million in total. They owed Hyde $9.7 for '19-'20, if he was not cut. The Jags needed an RB to finish up the season with Fournette hurt and could get a player with no cap responsibility for the future. There is no logic to using this trade as evidence of Hyde's lack of talent. He may actually be bad, but the trade is simple football economics. Had Williams been on the Browns with a similar contract, would the Browns and Jags not have done the exact same thing? Likewise, holding the Jags' not resigning Hyde against him (four teams in two years) doesn't make sense. They traded for him specifically because of an injury to Fournette last year, not this year. Mission accomplished. In their sixth year, both players are now on essentially one year deals; Williams with a $1.7 million cap hit, Hyde $2.7 million. In summary, I find their contract histories and status to be fairly similar, besides Williams being an undrafted rookie versus Hyde's drafted status. I don't think their previous contracts or participation in trades tells us all that much.
  3. Thought I would rev up this thread with his resigning with the Rams. With Gurley's uncertainty, I'm curious to know what people think of Malcolm (I do have him as a dart-throw keeper candidate for 2019). I've always read fantasy experts (Waldman comes to mind) who are high on his talent, but as a career back-up, it's all just talk at this point. What do you think about his chances to actually play if Gurley can't go?
  4. I think this is a good way to look at it. Full disclosure, I own Hyde and Darrel in a keeper league, hoping something works out for '19 but who knows. I'm a bit of a combine skeptic, but Darrel's 4.72 doesn't scare me - he doesn't look slow in the limited game time he's had. For the record, Kareem Hunt's combine 40 was 4.62, but he certainly plays with faster game speed. One other thing I would add - since joining the Chiefs in 2013, Andy Reid, or the Chiefs front office, have done a pretty good job of identifying RBs who weren't the "pick of the litter," so to speak. Hunt as a 3rd-round pick, Ware as a cut from the Seahawks, Charcandrick West as an undrafted FA. We know so little about Darrel, who knows what they may think. Hopefully I don't sound like a cheerleader - presume Damien's job til he loses it.
  5. I believe Hub Arkush said on the radio this week the Bears are very high on Javon Wims at this point. Not sure if that means they expect him to be a significant contributor this year, but wouldn't be surprised if they let WR go in favor of one more pass rusher, or depth at OLB.
  6. This feels like it could be the steal of free agency. Seems like the Bears might have the flexibility to make one more substantial move.
  7. Isn't this likely because the Steelers already have Brown on the outside? Doesn't seem like a huge concern to me.
  8. I feel like much of what is being expressed here is frustration with the replay system itself and/or length of games as opposed to the feasibility of penalty reviews. I hate when politicians call for "common sense" solutions, but I believe there are some common sense solutions! - Keep replay reviews to 1:30 or 2:00. I understand the games yesterday were of greater magnitude than a regular season game, but there's no reason a review should drag on for 5-7 minutes. Two minutes of video, and that's it. - The two minutes of video rule should make sense because the point of replay is not to determine what happened but to apply the "clear and convincing" standard. If you can't see something clearly in two minutes, it's over. - This part will never happen with spendthrift owners, but have another official on the sideline who is the "clock" official. This eliminates the need for the NY review center to buzz in to have the clock reset because the officials were busy adjudicating too many other things. Should save some time. - Re-emphasize that replay is meant to overturn the call on the field only when there is clear and convincing evidence. I feel like the NFL has really departed from this standard; maybe it's just me, but it feels like they are going into reviews looking to make the call, not review the call. - The length of games issue shouldn't be too much of a problem because replays are already used for TV timeouts. To further help, replays right before the two minute warning, when all of the TV breaks but one have been used, should use the two-minute warning TV break, and have there be only an announcement of the two minute warning. - Replays after the two minute warning, just grin and bear it! - As for reviewing penalties itself, I think we'd have to accept you can't review everything. No holding reviews, for the love of whatever deity you worship. It would have to be factual-based reviews. Like in this case - did the defender initiate contact to the receiver while the pass was in the air without turning his head back to the ball? Yes. OK, we move on.
  9. Thanks for the info. I read on Twitter (uh-oh) he was a healthy scratch in Week 17 and I assumed - wrongly - he was for the divisional round. Ignore my so-called point!
  10. Thanks for the analysis. I didn't see a lot of Mack on TV this year, but what I did see, he seemed like a more decisive runner than his rookie year. I'm not really sure how good he is in a vacuum as an RB, but I'm pretty confident in him as a solid RB2 from a fantasy perspective with Luck and that offensive line.
  11. Has it occurred to you that even among extremely athletic people, not all people are expecting to be kicked or punched or otherwise assaulted at all times? Out of curiosity, how many people do you know who walk around in defensive poses all day? Not sure why I'm engaging with trolling beyond the fact that assault of any kind, gender un-related, shouldn't be defended like this. Please stop. I'm out.
  12. It's somehow a different case to assault someone if they are athletic? C'mon, can't we agree that physical violence against other people is just wrong, period?
  13. I think your post illustrates the point I was trying to make, albeit I can't quite spit it out in a non-roundabout fashion...we're relying on a lot of assumptions in regard to Damien's dynasty/keeper future. It's an assumption that Ware was ahead of Williams on the depth chart post-Hunt because of his familiarity with Reid's system. Certainly there is logic to that, but we don't actually know if the Chiefs viewed Ware as a superior player at the juncture in time of Hunt's dismissal. Again, it's very possible the Chiefs didn't know what they had in Damien. As an example, Ware has been a healthy scratch since Week 17 (I believe), with Darrel Williams getting the main backup reps. In this case, it doesn't look like the Chiefs are valuing familiarity with the system.
  14. A couple other points on the Damien Williams discussion: - I think the fantasy community freaks out too much about teams adding multiple players at one position. We get too attached to our assets and assume the latest person signed/drafted is the presumptive starter. The Colts situation comes to mind this year - not that Marlon Mack was any sort of guarantee in real life or fantasy, but with two RB drafted, it seemed fantasy folks were very down on his possibilities, even though in real life, no team would go into a season with one functional RB on their roster! Which is what the Colts had, with Turbin suspended. The Chiefs are not going into next year with one running back - they carried four RB on the active roster this year. Looking at the Damien Williams signing from a real life, not a fantasy, perspective, doesn't necessarily tell us anything either way, besides the fact he's playing well in the right here and now. They were going to sign someone to play RB! - At some point, I think we have to take into account that Damien was third on the depth chart. Presuming the KC coaching staff knows what it's doing (sometimes a dangerous proposition), there was a reason he was behind Ware. I'll admit, to my eye he looks like a more dynamic running back, but I'm not a scout. What did KC see in Ware that we as fantasy players may have missed - or did KC just miss on this one? Some of the narratives are getting a little confusing - Reid's offense is great for RBs, Reid is great at unearthing RBs in the late rounds of drafts, etc. Yet he didn't play Damien until he had to. Maybe Reid got it wrong, but I think the sequence of events is worth considering.
  15. Another possible factor is that Williams wanted to say in KC for family purposes: https://www.kansascity.com/sports/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/article223682195.html The details are up on Spotrac, and in my opinion it's a very favorable contract for the Chiefs: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/damien-williams-15723/ Only $1.6 million guaranteed, which is really the only number that matters, and he's a cut candidate whenever, basically. I don't say that to act like he's not of any worth, just that it's a team-friendly contract. It sounds like both sides got what they wanted - Williams got a nice check, stays close to his family, the Chiefs get a player who is very valuable to them, and might be more valuable to them than other teams. Don't forget that Damien was a solid special teams guy on the #1 ranked unit in the league as well. I don't think the contract indicates faith in Damien as the future RB, and I don't think it disqualifies him, either. It could be the contract steal of the decade for all we know, but it does make me wonder whether those of us looking at fantasy numbers might be missing something in real-life football that the better trained eye can see. I really don't know.