Im a Harvin owner, and im scared. I dont know much about migranes, other than my wife gets them occasionally, but i have to imagine playing football cant be good for them. I dont think people should be cutting him, but moving him down your rankings a bit might not be a bad idea.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Dynasty Rankings (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
Its pretty close. I think Bush is a bit safer pick, but Mcfadden has more upside. So if youre the gambling type, go with Mcfadden, if youre not, take Bush.Call me crazy, but i still think Mcfadden can become a 225 carry, 50 rec, top 15 type RB. I dont think Bush will ever be that, but he should be good for 1000 total yards and 50-60 catches each year for the next 3-4 seasons. This is if you were talking about Reggie Bush. Assuming Michael, i would take Mcfadden for sure. I think they both end up with a similar amount of carries, but Mcfadden should get alot more catches. Not to mention Mcfadden is 4 years younger.
Last edited by a moderator:
HenryMuto
Footballguy
Or sorry I was talking Michael Bush
OnThInIcE911
Footballguy
Randy Moss was drafted 12 years ago. Your telling me the NFL does't learn from its mistakes? Plus Moss's college situation was 1000000x more sketchy than Dez's, and did point to serious character problems while he has been in the NFL. Individual teams make mistakes all the time in the NFL draft, but its not very often that many teams makes the same mistake, which you are saying they did in passing on Dez. I think Dez is a pretty sure bet as a rookie to produce thoughout his career, but I don't think he is ever considered one of the top WR's in the NFL in IRL or Fantasy. His bust potential comes from the fact that he has not played a down in the NFL. Like so many rookies before him that carries risk of never performing.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Real Hipster Doofus
Footballguy
Exactly. Jerry Jones made sure he was not on the wrong side of the coin this time.
johnadams
Footballguy
I'd take Bush even with the age difference. McFadden will never be successful in OAK where the forward lateral is considered innovative. McF needs an OC that can get creative. Plus, he's an injury waiting to happen (which I think most OAK players privately wish for). Bush isn't exactly durable and has spent time in the coaches doghouse, but is a far superior true RB and should have more value for the next 2 years. Considering that I think McF hasn't got much of a chance to be FF relevant any time soon, I'd go with Bush even at a shorter career.
GreatLakesMike
Footballguy
I'd take McFadden over Bush and not think twice. Bush is already 26 years old and his upside is as a committee back. McFadden is only 22 years old and was a consensus 1st round draft choice. McFadden has the pedigree and he has time on his hands.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
On this subject, the NFL has most certainly not learned from its mistakes. We saw the exact same thing the year before when Percy Harvin, a consensus top-10 talent, slipped due to "character concerns." He got into Vikings camp, and -- just as with Bryant -- coaches had nothing but positive things to say about his attitude, maturity, diligence, and NFL learning curve.
SSOG
Moderator
Agreed. To be honest, I have Nicks and Sims-Walker higher because... well, someone has to be higher, right? I can't just rank them all 25th and be done with it. Once you get past Tier 4 in my rankings, almost everyone on the list is more likely than not to leave his owners crying.
Once again, refusing to use a premium pick in startups on rookies because Reggie Bush busted is the very definition of outcome-centric thinking. I mean that quite literally- it's a textbook case of outcome-centric thinking. And outcome-centric thinking is bad. If you don't want to draft rookies in the 3rd in startups, that's fine, but find a better reason for it than "Reggie Bush was a bum".Personally, I'd like to see a list of all once-in-a-generation talents, those rookies who people have seriously considered drafting in the 3rd or 4th of a startup. Off the top of my head, you've got Bush, McFadden, Peterson, Calvin, Fitzgerald, Charles Rodgers, possibly Jonathan Stewart, Bryant, possibly Andre Johnson. I'm sure there have been some more. Now, are there a lot of really, really ugly names on that list? Are there a lot of guys who would have made their owners look like grade A morons on that list? Yes, absolutely. That doesn't mean anything in a vacuum, though- in order to say that list shows it's a bad idea to draft rookies in the 3rd round of startups, you'd have to compare that list to all the non-rookies who have gone in the 3rd round of startups. While the rookies look bad, it's possible the vets have fared even worse. Hell, you know what the latter half of the first round looked like in startup drafts in 2006? Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Steven Jackson, Reggie Bush, Lamont Jordan, and Rudi Johnson. Tell me you wouldn't rather take your chances on Peterson/Bush/McFadden/Stewart than Jackson/Bush/Jordan/Johnson- and this is comparing rookies being considered in the 3rd or 4th rounds vs. veterans who were going in the FIRST ROUND.
The forward lateral is considered innovative in Oakland? What? I don't mean to be that guy (the guy who views everything as an opportunity for a history lesson), but Oakland did view the "forward lateral" as innovative... back in the '60s when Al Davis was the coach of the Raiders and the "forward lateral" actually was innovative and the Raiders (along with the rest of the AFL) were on the cutting edge of the innovation.LaMont Jordan had 70 receptions for the Raiders in '05. Charlie Garner had 91 (for 942 yards) back in '02. They're well aware of what this "forward lateral" thing is out in Oakland, and they don't need anyone to inform them that the current rule book allows for targeting them at RBs.
On the long list of reasons why McFadden might fail, I don't buy that "lack of organizational creativity" is one of them.
Last edited by a moderator:
To be perfectly honest, McFadden is one more disappointing year away from being slapped with the bust label if you ask me. Sure he was a beast coming out of college but he hasn't done anything yet to convince me that he's going to fulfill that potential in the NFL and Bush has looked like the far superior RB in Oak. I don't know why so many people are seemingly high on McFadden when he's done virtually nothing but disappoint his owners for 2 years. In 2 years he's only managed to score 5 TDs (FIVE!!!) and 856 yards on 217 carries with only a single 100 yard game to his name, that's not even 4 yards per carry. He's proven nothing thus far and the only thing he has proven is that he can't stay healthy and lacks good vision. This is a make or break year for McFadden and based on his career thus far, I'm not anticipating anything other than the status quo. Bush is the RB to own for the Raiders.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
I agree. There's this notion that he's shown nothing at this level, but his 10.6 yards per reception is phenomenal. He had a promising 4.4 yards per carry as a rookie before falling to a disappointing 3.4 while plagued by a knee injury last year. I wasn't all that high on him coming into the league, but I think he's reached the point where he's well worth a trade flier.
johnadams
Footballguy
You're using the outcome-centric thinking in comparing two totally different things. A rookie draft is substantively different than a dynasty start-up. I'm not saying you should use the experience of people getting burned in the first round of a rookie draft to avoid rookies in a dynasty start up. I'm saying that if you're expecting Dez to substantively outperform other WRs available in the first two rounds and pick him accordingly, it's a mistake. The question seemed to me to be whether you take a guy like Dez in the first or second round. If it's now the third or fourth, that's starts to change things. Those are rounds where it's a lot better to take your shots at guys. But I'm not buying your once-in-a-generation talents, especially since they are all in the last five years, which is hardly a generation. And of the six guys you mention as definite (Bush, McFadden, Rogers, Fitz, Calvin, Peterson), so far you have a 50% success rate (I believe Calvin will finally fully join the elite this year). In rounds 3-4, fine, but in rounds 1-2, it gets to be a matter of preference.As to OAK, you are the first person I've heard who thinks Cable has anything approaching an innovative offense. I'm sorry you either missed my sarcasm or decided that you wanted to give me a "lesson" in Al Davis ancient history (thank you, but I work next door to Raiders HQ and know very well how innovative Davis once was. In fact, I had a great conversation with Amy Trask a couple of months ago about it), but that offense is terrible and will be terrible again. Pointing to Garner in '02 is like saying that TO's '02 numbers should be a guide. Why don't you tell us how great Bo Jackson was and how that's some sort of predictor to how great McFadden is going to be. Seems like everyone thinks Campbell is going to be some sort of savior and make anyone other Miller relevant. Fact is, Campbell led a more talented team to a worse record last year. Sure, WAS struggles had a lot to do with coaching, but that's the point. Bush has some decent value as he's actually a talented RB and if the coaching staff ever could shed the shadow of Davis, they'd install him as the feature back and find a way to use McF in a way it sounds like KC is looking to use McCluster. McF is just not ever going to be an everydown type back, as Garner and Jordan were. But he could be an excellent complementary player and get to the vaunted top 15 if he gets the right offense. But that won't happen in OAK.
SSOG
Moderator
Fun fact: Darren McFadden has fewer career carries than Knowshon Moreno, and a higher career ypc average, to boot.
Let's use rounds 1-2, then. I was using rounds 3-4 because the only rookie I've ever seen go in the first two rounds was Reggie Bush. Still, you say that the "transcendent talents" have a 50% success rate. What's the success rate of the typical 2nd round pick in a startup draft? Is it better than 50%? Because posting the success rate of the rookies is meaningless without any qualify context. I already mentioned what the consensus last half of the first round looked like in 2006- the rookie "transcendent talents" would have blown that garbage out of the water. I think there's this huge tendency for owners to overrate just how sure of a thing a "sure thing" really is. Are rookies a risky proposition? Absolutely. So are the vets. Pointing out that rookies are a crapshoot is outcome-centric thinking. Actually comparing them to the veterans to determine whether they are more or less risky is process-centric thinking.I would have no problem drafting a rookie in the 2nd round of a dynasty startup, provided I had seen enough of him to be convinced that he was a true and genuine Transcendent Talent. I don't feel comfortable enough with Dez Bryant to go that far, but I don't blame anyone that does.
I misunderstood your criticism. I thought it was a blanket criticism of the entire Raiders franchise (i.e. a "McFadden can't succeed in such a dysfunctional franchise"), when in reality it was a criticism of Tom Cable and his coaching staff (i.e. "McFadden can't succeed under the current coaching staff"). I think the former criticism is baseless, but the latter criticism has a lot of merit. I still haven't completely abandoned the idea that Darren McFadden can excel as a ballcarrier, though, so I wouldn't be ready to go the Full McCluster on him just yet.
Andrew74
Footballguy
Thanks for the response (Go deep, too). I have popped in a time or two but need to bookmark this thread now.Hoot&HoLLer
Footballguy
Maybe I need not refrain from using real players. Laurent Robinson appeared briefly at the start of last season to be on an ascendant path. Then he got hurt. But prior to that he offered glimpses in camp that he might make a leap...one that only the most astute of valuators may have appreciated. Far from a sure thing, he gave an impression that he could become the #1 on a bad offense. Now here he is in 2010, recovered from the leg fracture, perhaps poised to pick back up on his ascendancy, though with a rookie qb or journeyman qb and a challenge from Donnie Avery.. Down in Miami, second year wr Brian Hartline is looking to build off a promising rookie campaign where he showed a good ability to get yac's. He worked his way along the depth chart and even started a game or two late in the year. In the off seaon, Parcells brings in Marshall the stud who has 3 100 + catch seasons under his belt - the kind of talent addition that immediately upgrades the entire quality of the offensive unit. All the while Hartline works on bettering himself and the front office clears the way by trading Ginn. Training camp starts and Hartline is getting praise from HC Spags and looks to be the apparent starter opposite Marshall with Bess and/or Camarillo in the slot. QB Henne hoping he can enjoy the use of his upgraded wr corps.With an open roster spot and a need to cultivate a wr of the future, which of Laurent Robinson or Brian Hartline is the better ppr dynasty prospect?
GreatLakesMike
Footballguy
You can also search MFL for start-ups.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
In my opinion it's Robinson by a wide margin.
shader
Footballguy
Ehh....I just don't buy it. I really like Maclin. I can't put my finger on it exactly. Between film, articles I've read, the offense he's in, and the potential I see...I just think he's on a path to being a PPR beast.I can't and won't try and "prove" why I think he'll be different than Brown and Clayton, or any other young WR's who busted. I also can't really explain why I've developed this feeling towards Maclin.But based on all my research on Maclin, I've got a feeling that he is going to be a stud WR.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
Yeah, that comparison is easy because Hartline's upside is so limited. It's harder when you're looking at greener prospects and hazier talent differences. For example, Massaquoi or Brandon Tate? Mass has a chance to be the #1 in Cleveland. Tate could start as a 3rd WR this year. He could have a larger role next year if Moss is let go. He might still be the 3rd or 4th option behind the TE. Tate has some upside, but his likelihood of reaching that is pretty low. Massaquoi can be a #1 WR but their are flaws in his game which might prevent him from being valuable long term.Brandon Tate is kind of like James Jones-redux just without the awesome preseason highlights of him scoring TDs with his helmet off.
gianmarco
Footballguy
uh oh
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I have to say Aaron Hernandez looked electric last night on that stop move.
Ketamine Dreams
Footballguy
I wonder how many targets he will see this year, and how many Gronkowski will see...
doowain
Footballguy
Oh no. Sell Spiller now while you can....uh oh
wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
i mean jahvid best is clearly the guy to get for rookies this year(not spiller)... guy is gonna have a monster year.
wouldnt suprise me if he was top 10 with 1500 total yards.
wouldnt suprise me if he was top 10 with 1500 total yards.
Last edited by a moderator:
2nd thoughts about drafting Best over Spiller?
Tau837
Footballguy
In a non-PPR, TE required startup draft this coming weekend, I am considering targeting Finley pretty early. He is considerably younger than the rest of the elite TEs, and he is in a great situation. I definitely rank him higher than VJax in a TE-required league, holdout or no holdout.humpback said:
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
His other 9 carries: 2.6 yards per. Just puttin' it out there . . .gianmarco said:uh ohkremenull said:Spiller did look good, though.
Hoot&HoLLer
Footballguy
Thx guys. For some reason I saw it different and went with Hartline. What specifically are you seeing that makes Robinson's upside so much more than Hartline's?thriftyrocker said:
Hoot&HoLLer
Footballguy
Thx guys. For some reason I saw it different and went with Hartline. What specifically are you seeing that makes Robinson's upside so much more than Hartline's?thriftyrocker said:
Hoot&HoLLer
Footballguy
Thx guys. For some reason I saw it different and went with Hartline. What specifically are you seeing that makes Robinson's upside so much more than Hartline's?thriftyrocker said:
What would his YPC be if you take away the - 6 yard run he had when he was tackled after getting the handoff?His other 9 carries: 2.6 yards per. Just puttin' it out there . . .gianmarco said:
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
Haha, knew that was coming. It's too early to be right or wrong on anyone. But damn that run was awesome.His other 9 carries: 2.6 yards per. Just puttin' it out there . . .gianmarco said:
gianmarco
Footballguy
We can do that for just about any RB on any good game. Surely you're not one of the "but if you take out his longest run" guys, right? Also, that's how his game is. He's going to be that homerun-type guy that is going to churn out some very big gains mixed in with modest ypc. That's ok.His other 9 carries: 2.6 yards per. Just puttin' it out there . . .gianmarco said:
Last edited by a moderator:
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
He was the #2 WR at OSU to Robiskie, and Robiskie isn't that great. His combine numbers aren't that exciting - 4.58 40, low vertical. Good shuttle times, though, which is probably what got him drafted where he was. He's more of a dependable #3 than a #2 for an NFL team. He's only the #2 at Miami because they don't have anyone else.Laurent is tall, fast, and explosive. Sub 4.4 40, great vertical. His main concerns are injury. (My side concern is can he be a red zone guy - he hasn't really shown that at the NFL level.) He could be MSW if things break (no pun intended) the right way.
Abrantes
Footballguy
Ha, I did the math, too. Just hard to apply that kind of analysis to a player whose game is predicated on his ability to bust out that kind of play. I thought he looked the part, at the very least.His other 9 carries: 2.6 yards per. Just puttin' it out there . . .gianmarco said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
If you take Best's longest run from last weekend away, he was just 5-14 (2.8 YPC). Just saying.....His other 9 carries: 2.6 yards per. Just puttin' it out there . . .gianmarco said:uh ohkremenull said:Spiller did look good, though.
Lott's Fingertip
Footballguy
Spiller's game log:2-4-IND35 (12:45) C.Spiller left end pushed ob at IND 31 for 4 yards (J.Lacey). 1-10-IND31 (12:20) C.Spiller up the middle for 31 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Cut back to left side after crossing line of scrimmage. Key block: L.Evans 1-10-BUF9 (9:12) C.Spiller right tackle to BUF 9 for no gain (G.Brackett). 1-10-BUF21 (4:43) C.Spiller up the middle to BUF 15 for -6 yards (D.Townsend, R.Mathis). 3-14-BUF17 (3:26) (Shotgun) C.Spiller left tackle to BUF 18 for 1 yard (B.Sanders, J.Lacey). 1-10-BUF27 (1:28) C.Spiller up the middle to BUF 30 for 3 yards (R.Mathis). 1-10-BUF16 (11:49) C.Spiller up the middle to BUF 21 for 5 yards (P.Wheeler). 2-5-BUF21 (11:15) C.Spiller left guard to BUF 33 for 12 yards (B.Sanders, K.Conner). 1-5-BUF38 (10:18) C.Spiller left end to BUF 44 for 6 yards (R.Humber, J.Lacey). 1-10-IND45 (8:25) C.Spiller up the middle to IND 47 for -2 yards (G.Brackett). 3-12-IND47 (7:42) T.Edwards pass short right to C.Spiller to IND 45 for 2 yards (K.Hayden) [A.Bethea]. Dump pass off pressure, caught at IND 47.So...-6, -2, 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 31(TD)5 out of 10 runs were 4+ yards.... just like most good RBs. It is just preseason, but I cannot see taking this as anything except a positive.His other 9 carries: 2.6 yards per. Just puttin' it out there . . .
doowain
Footballguy
Did anyone else catch the stat that the announcers threw out there? Last year Buffalo led the NFL with percentage of runs that went for 4 or more yards with 48%. And I thought they weren't a good running team SP....Get Spiller while you can....Spiller's game log:2-4-IND35 (12:45) C.Spiller left end pushed ob at IND 31 for 4 yards (J.Lacey). 1-10-IND31 (12:20) C.Spiller up the middle for 31 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Cut back to left side after crossing line of scrimmage. Key block: L.Evans 1-10-BUF9 (9:12) C.Spiller right tackle to BUF 9 for no gain (G.Brackett). 1-10-BUF21 (4:43) C.Spiller up the middle to BUF 15 for -6 yards (D.Townsend, R.Mathis). 3-14-BUF17 (3:26) (Shotgun) C.Spiller left tackle to BUF 18 for 1 yard (B.Sanders, J.Lacey). 1-10-BUF27 (1:28) C.Spiller up the middle to BUF 30 for 3 yards (R.Mathis). 1-10-BUF16 (11:49) C.Spiller up the middle to BUF 21 for 5 yards (P.Wheeler). 2-5-BUF21 (11:15) C.Spiller left guard to BUF 33 for 12 yards (B.Sanders, K.Conner). 1-5-BUF38 (10:18) C.Spiller left end to BUF 44 for 6 yards (R.Humber, J.Lacey). 1-10-IND45 (8:25) C.Spiller up the middle to IND 47 for -2 yards (G.Brackett). 3-12-IND47 (7:42) T.Edwards pass short right to C.Spiller to IND 45 for 2 yards (K.Hayden) [A.Bethea]. Dump pass off pressure, caught at IND 47.So...-6, -2, 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 31(TD)5 out of 10 runs were 4+ yards.... just like most good RBs. It is just preseason, but I cannot see taking this as anything except a positive.His other 9 carries: 2.6 yards per. Just puttin' it out there . . .
Lott's Fingertip
Footballguy
Just for giggles:
189 of Chris Johnson's 358 carries went for 3 or fewer yards, not including short TDs. Just about 53% went for under 4 yards.
Just sayin'.
189 of Chris Johnson's 358 carries went for 3 or fewer yards, not including short TDs. Just about 53% went for under 4 yards.
Just sayin'.
with the Spiller thing. Looks like it worked.Rotoworld mentioned the same thing. I notice neither subtracted Bests longest run when giving his YPC after his first preseason game, coincidence?Pretty sure F&L is just
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
Not at all. But certainly you would acknowledge that many boom-or-bust runners (i.e. Tatum Bell) can't sustain a rushing attack game-in and game-out for 17 weeks even with a high yards per carry number. I'm not saying Spiller is that guy. I like him. I just have questions about how he'll be used at this level.
shader
Footballguy
Nothing Spiller did last night changed my opinion on him at all.
He's an explosive, play-making back. However, I have yet to see film that makes me think he'll be able to be an every-down running back, be successful in short yardage situations, etc.
He's like Reggie Bush with more speed and less moves.
He's an explosive, play-making back. However, I have yet to see film that makes me think he'll be able to be an every-down running back, be successful in short yardage situations, etc.
He's like Reggie Bush with more speed and less moves.
It appears that every fast RB around the 200 lb mark gets compared to Bush by people who do not like the player and CJ by those who do.
