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.
exactly what I'm thinking. Also, Julio wasn't there either....teams can't really stack the box with those two WRs so he should have some room to run. Definitely a screaming injury risk with Jackson and you need to have decent alternatives but seems like he's priced very well right now as a #3/4 RB.
Yup sjax was very solid down the stretch. He might be good again. If he stays healthy a full season he could be a steal at his adp. Could be a very nice rb2bc guy for teams that start receiver heavy.
It was a strength in college. In July the team said he needed work. No clear answer yet beyond that.
He is a great back if you are going with an "upside down-esque" draft. He will likely be the full blown starter come week 1. This hamstring doesn't sound too bad if he is already in agility drills, he certainly didn't tear it. If he only survives 6-8 weeks, that is plenty of time to work the waivers, trades, etc. to find some help at RB or for one your younger late round RBs to pan out and earn a role.
Wouldn't touch him in the first round. Didn't like him before the draft and not buying into the hype now because of pre-preseason hype.Ilov80s said:
Well that's a no brainer...humpback said:
I agree with this. The hype has far transcended his ability IMO. He's going to be drawing each D's CB1 that aligns that way. The Ds that don't will likely have CB2s who are competent starters. I see Benjamin struggling against that kind of coverage ability. He's going to get something just because of his size, but I don't think it's a reach that starting CBs will control his game..
He went 1.07. Damnit.Quez said:
You make an argument against McKinnon, Turbin, and Michael, not an argument on behalf of Freeman. Avoiding a talented guy in a bad situation does not require taking a less talented one in a good situation.
We're kind of discussing two different things here- one is talent, and the other is fantasy implications.
Lynch did not sit behind Jackson in Buffalo- he was the starter and got way more touches/opportunity.
Explain this to me?
Freeman, who I was targeting. I think Benjamin went right before him at 1.06.
I don't know if I can explain it any better than what's bolded....
This is fantasy football forum so we must talk about Freemans possible fantasy points and his talent. Those points are clearly effected which kind opportunity he has and when he gets to show his talent. If he is not talented enough, of course he wont last long, but I don't give a sh#t about players who are talented that wont give me fantasy points. I play dynasty too... Let's say between Hill and Freeman, I think Hill has more talent. I still rather take Freeman as I think Bengals wont put Gio on the bench just because Hill is talented. If you would put Hill in Freeman situation, people would be going crazy here about his possible fantasy impact this year and in the future.We're kind of discussing two different things here- one is talent, and the other is fantasy implications.
I don't think it's hard to look better in training camp when you have a stud in front of you- most "studs" hardly do anything in camp as it is, and when they do it's rarely giving it their all. Gore hasn't stopped Hyde from getting an opportunity to show what he has, Gio hasn't stopped Hill, etc. Now, they may certainly limit the number of chances they get in the regular season and limit their fantasy impact, but again, that isn't going to change how talented those guys may or may not be.
For fantasy, if we're talking about being nearly equal talents, then I agree that I'd take the guy with the greater opportunity. However, that isn't how I interpreted your original post of "I think many times the difference between non-talent and talented guy is the opportunity". I'm certainly not taking someone I think is "non-talented" over a talented one just because he has a better perceived opportunity (which can change very quickly).
IMO, opportunity is a factor in fantasy, but not the overriding one (talking dynasty/long-term here obviously). It doesn't really have anything to do with "talent" though.
Based on your evaluation of talent which is inherently flawed? Or based on his draft selection, which is also inherently flawed? The argument in favor of talent once situation assumes that you have some good way off evaluating talent, but I don't really feel like there's a huge gap between his talent and several of the guys ahead of him, if at all. But I do feel like there's a huge gap in situation.
My evaluation of talent for dynasty purposes starts with draft selection, because no better barometer exists. Call it imperfect if you want, since any talent appraisal system has it's flaws. Since we deal with an imperfect science, errors do occur.
Totally agree. The major flaw in this argument is that there is absolutely no recognition in the pro-Freeman camp that their evaluation of the situations is just as flawed as any metric of talent available. Situations are not always as they seems and they change quickly in the NFL.
Again, we can and have been talking about both, but they still are separate things. I don't want to rehash the same points again, but sure, people would be higher on Hill's fantasy prospects if he was in Atlanta, but they wouldn't (shouldn't) be higher on his talent.This is fantasy football forum so we must talk about Freemans possible fantasy points and his talent. Those points are clearly effected which kind opportunity he has and when he gets to show his talent. If he is not talented enough, of course he wont last long, but I don't give a sh#t about players who are talented that wont give me fantasy points. I play dynasty too... Let's say between Hill and Freeman, I think Hill has more talent. I still rather take Freeman as I think Bengals wont put Gio on the bench just because Hill is talented. If you would put Hill in Freeman situation, people would be going crazy here about his possible fantasy impact this year and in the future.We're kind of discussing two different things here- one is talent, and the other is fantasy implications.
I don't think it's hard to look better in training camp when you have a stud in front of you- most "studs" hardly do anything in camp as it is, and when they do it's rarely giving it their all. Gore hasn't stopped Hyde from getting an opportunity to show what he has, Gio hasn't stopped Hill, etc. Now, they may certainly limit the number of chances they get in the regular season and limit their fantasy impact, but again, that isn't going to change how talented those guys may or may not be.
For fantasy, if we're talking about being nearly equal talents, then I agree that I'd take the guy with the greater opportunity. However, that isn't how I interpreted your original post of "I think many times the difference between non-talent and talented guy is the opportunity". I'm certainly not taking someone I think is "non-talented" over a talented one just because he has a better perceived opportunity (which can change very quickly).
IMO, opportunity is a factor in fantasy, but not the overriding one (talking dynasty/long-term here obviously). It doesn't really have anything to do with "talent" though.
I hope and think Freeman is more talented than any guy in the Falcons roster and that why I drafted him. If he's not talented enough so be it, but I rather take my chance with 3 down back than a goal-line vulture. And no, I would not draft Freeman if I would think that he does not have talent enough to be an good NFL-caliber back and a one that can give me fantasy points now and in the future.
p.s. Lynch played his first game of the 2009 season against the Miami Dolphins and played the rest of the season. Beginning November 29, he was replaced as the Bills' starting running back by Fred Jackson, who had the first 1,000-yard rushing season of his career. Lynch finished the season with 450 yards on 120 carries with two rushing touchdowns, and did not break 100 rushing yards in a single game.
This is a much better post and I agree with it. I would like hill better in Atlanta, and I agree he has more immediate opportunity in Cincinnati than he would on Atlanta. it also seems like you agree that his situation right now is bad. So again, how much of a talent differential would there have to be for situation to be the your breaker? Like of you think hill is better than sankey, would you take hill ahead of sankey? If you think hill is better than Hyde do you take him ahead of Hyde? Or Hyde ahead of sankey? What about Hyde vs west? Would it change if west won the starting job outright?
I've read your post and this is a recent one. You clearly state you see the talent as marginally different but the situation as vastly different. You claim that flawed talent evaluation processes justify this marginal gap in talent. I don't necessarily disagree with this as I concur that talent evaluation processes are rather flawed. Still, we have to use them as best we can and see through the trees. Draft position is a pretty reliable one in the scheme of things. You disagree in this case. Ok, I'm fine with that and I've never said otherwise. I too have guys I like more than their draft position. I don't think anyone is really battling this point of the conversation to be honest. On the other hand you don't seem willing to acknowledge, in this thread or the Hill thread, that situations are just as unreliable and volatile as talent evaluations. I said this is a pro-Freeman stance because I've seen it repeatedly used, by not just you but also others. It's the situation in Atl that seems to have gotten many people to gravitate towards Freeman. There isn't anything wrong with that but there is something wrong with ignoring that the situation in Atl could change. I'm not sure why this strikes you as some sort of attack. Especially when you yourself are so quick to point out the flaws in the opposing argument.
I'm not saying he sat all the time behind Jackson, but because Jackson was talented too. It influenced the situation where Lynch was, thus making his fantasy production not as good as it could have been if Lynch was in a different situation. So even if Lynch was talented enough to be elite in NFL, there was another guy who was also good.As for Lynch, he was the starter for more than 2 1/2 years in Buffalo over Jackson, but if you want to consider that "sitting behind Jackson" I won't try to convince you otherwise.
This is really a sidebar but it's strange to me that you keep going back to it. You were saying how sometimes talented guys get stuck behind more talented guys and don't get the opportunity to show how good they are, then used Lynch as an example. Sorry, but that's an awful example- Lynch was the starter from his 1st game in the league until more than 2 1/2 years later when the coaches decided that Fred Jackson gave them a better chance to win.I'm not saying he sat all the time behind Jackson, but because Jackson was talented too. It influenced the situation where Lynch was, thus making his fantasy production not as good as it could have been if Lynch was in a different situation. So even if Lynch was talented enough to be elite in NFL, there was another guy who was also good.As for Lynch, he was the starter for more than 2 1/2 years in Buffalo over Jackson, but if you want to consider that "sitting behind Jackson" I won't try to convince you otherwise.
Touches during 2007-2010
Lynch: 280 + 250 + 120 + 37 = 687
Jackson: 58 + 130 + 237 + 222 = 647
... and I admit that Lynch had problems with life that influenced his touches, but if he would have been in a better situation he would have had more touches.
After he came to Seahawks he has had his best years, not just because he's talent level, but because of the situation.
I'm playing fantasy football and I play to win. I don't claim to see the future or player injuries, but I can see when a talented guy is stuck in a horrible situation so I tend to avoid them.
Freeman is a talented guy, but would I take him if he was the guy behind Peterson? Yes, but the pick would not be as high as it is now. And speaking of Peterson, I rather have his backup now than 4 year ago.
Interesting. I haven't looked at rookie ADPs in awhile, but in one league I got Freeman at 1.10 and Benjamin at 1.16. In two others, where I didn't draft them, Freeman went 1.13 and 1.14 and Benjamin went 1.15 and 2.1.
I'm only trying tell you that Lynch had to share carries and eventually Jackson replaced him. If you cant see the problem there that is relating to fantasy points, who am I to convince you that touches lead to points= more touches =more pointsIn context of this discussion, there's no reason to include 2009 and 2010. For the first two seasons they played together, Lynch was the starter every game he played and had almost 2 and a half times the number of touches, almost 600 total (while missing 4 games). It seems a bit absurd to argue that he had to sit behind Jackson when the opposite actually happened.
But that's not at all what you were saying about Lynch originally- you're completely changing the context again. Here's what you initially wrote about him:I'm only trying tell you that Lynch had to share carries and eventually Jackson replaced him. If you cant see the problem there that is relating to fantasy points, who am I to convince you that touches lead to points= more touches =more pointsIn context of this discussion, there's no reason to include 2009 and 2010. For the first two seasons they played together, Lynch was the starter every game he played and had almost 2 and a half times the number of touches, almost 600 total (while missing 4 games). It seems a bit absurd to argue that he had to sit behind Jackson when the opposite actually happened.
Any time there's a elite guy ahead of you, you might not be as productive as you would , even if you're Lynch.
So all I'm saying is that I think Freeman is talented enough + he's in a good spot. I tend the look at the opportunity a lot when considering players.
And I do admit, that it's not just the opportunity that is important, but if the talent level is good enough it's deal breaker for me.
You said it's hard to look way better in training camp when there's a stud in front of you (ironically listing Lynch as one of those studs), then said that when you don't have elite guys in front of you you can show that you're reliable and earn your spot, then said that even Lynch had to sit behind Jackson. Lynch may be the worst possible example you could have given there since he was a high draft pick, didn't have one of your listed studs in front of him and was in fact one of them himself, and was given the vast majority of the touches over his first 2 and a half season to "make an impression" and "earn his spot". Are you trying to say that the entire paragraph was about RBs getting the opportunity to show how talented they are up until the very last sentence, when you decided to switch to the fantasy implications of RBBC?
In this league rookie RBs tend to be heavily drafted in the first round. I actually thought Benjamin would drop to the early second. Instead of Freeman I had to settle for JHill. On the positive side, I was able to get Lattimer at 2.09.
Not twisting words. Not saying Jackson isn't a stud. I'm saying there's a lot of players that are really good, so even if you are really good, it may not matter if you have really good competition.But that's not at all what you were saying about Lynch originally- you're completely changing the context again. Here's what you initially wrote about him:I'm only trying tell you that Lynch had to share carries and eventually Jackson replaced him. If you cant see the problem there that is relating to fantasy points, who am I to convince you that touches lead to points= more touches =more pointsIn context of this discussion, there's no reason to include 2009 and 2010. For the first two seasons they played together, Lynch was the starter every game he played and had almost 2 and a half times the number of touches, almost 600 total (while missing 4 games). It seems a bit absurd to argue that he had to sit behind Jackson when the opposite actually happened.
Any time there's a elite guy ahead of you, you might not be as productive as you would , even if you're Lynch.
So all I'm saying is that I think Freeman is talented enough + he's in a good spot. I tend the look at the opportunity a lot when considering players.
And I do admit, that it's not just the opportunity that is important, but if the talent level is good enough it's deal breaker for me.
You said it's hard to look way better in training camp when there's a stud in front of you (ironically listing Lynch as one of those studs), then said that when you don't have elite guys in front of you you can show that you're reliable and earn your spot, then said that even Lynch had to sit behind Jackson. Lynch may be the worst possible example you could have given there since he was a high draft pick, didn't have one of your listed studs in front of him and was in fact one of them himself, and was given the vast majority of the touches over his first 2 and a half season to "make an impression" and "earn his spot". Are you trying to say that the entire paragraph was about RBs getting the opportunity to show how talented they are up until the very last sentence, when you decided to switch to the fantasy implications of RBBC?
Let's move on...
Hope you're right. What is his progress as a pass protector? That is where the rubber meets the road and I think Rogers is a pretty decent 3rd down back. Seems like his best path is for StJax to be terrible or hurt.
Hey man if I'm wrong I'm wrong...that's fantasy football. No one has a crystal ball. No one knows which rookies are really going to make it big in the nfl and which will flop Look at Trent Richardson. The most can't-miss Rb since ap. He missed. Look at zac Stacy. Late round pick that became a star last year. Over Christine michael who is very likely the better back. But you know what? Stacy helped people win championships last year. And he's a featured back again this year. Where is Christine michael?
Stalk much? How many of your 21 posts have been in response to mine?I don't get you humpback. Mans drinking habits are none of your concern and your way of thinking has come out loud and clear, you can stop now.
If you don't think the situation has nothing to do with success, be happy with you opinion and rule the fantasy world with your superior knowledge
Why don't you ladies take this private and stop littering the thread with this nonsense.Stalk much? How many of your 21 posts have been in response to mine?I don't get you humpback. Mans drinking habits are none of your concern and your way of thinking has come out loud and clear, you can stop now.
If you don't think the situation has nothing to do with success, be happy with you opinion and rule the fantasy world with your superior knowledge
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, I didn't say anything about the situation, so once again you're wrong with your assumptions. He said he just drafted him in his rookie draft, it was pretty late at night, and the post is a bit sloppy, so I'm guessing there's a decent chance that he had a few and I was jealous. There's also the fact that he called the team with the fewest rushing yards in the NFL a "good" rushing team, lol.
No one is forcing you to read (especially incorrectly read into) my posts- ignore them if you don't "get me".
