Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
zed2283

Devonta Freeman, RB (ATL)

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I think draft status can lead to opportunity, talent can lead to opportunity, or injury can lead to opportunity. I would also distinguish talent (sjax is plenty talented) from underperformance (he wasn't that great at the start of the season).

So there are several paths to starting carries for Freeman. Obviously, SJax could get injures (he's already hurt after all). Freeman doesn't have to be all world to get an increased workload if sjax struggles early. He may be the "heir apparent" drafted as the lead back of the future. And of course he may actually be really good.

I do agree that there's a very real bust risk where he might never start an nfl game. That's an enormous risk. And there's also a chance he starts intermittently but they draft someone else next year. But the upside is that he gets the job and keeps it. I believe that's a very valuable job to have, and I think he's got first crack at it.

As for his talent, I don't think he's elite, but I think he's good and I love his work ethic. I think this draft was deep with mid tier rb options and he is capable of doing all the good things that earn fantasy points. I think people have mischaracterized my stance as though I think he's a sure thing or that I'm not at all concerned by his fourth round selection. I recognize the risk but have laid out the reasons I'm comfortable with it. He's a swing for the fences in dynasty, but the upside is high enough that I think he's worth a late first.

Jackson played real well after he healed up from the hamstring injury. He and Roddy got healthy about the same time late in the year and both were really good fantasy options. From week 12 on, here were his standard scoring points in each game: 14, 20, 8, 16, 11, 9. That is 13 ppg which if he could stay healthy nets him a spot as a top 12 RB. His yards per carry weren't very good, but he was scoring a lot of TDs which is why he could easily be like Turner was in 2012. Turner was terrible in 2012, but he scored 11 TDs and finished as RB17.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are Freeman's skills coming along in pass protection? That is one of the key factors to how much playing time any young RB will have. No coach wants to see their starting QB go down to injury because the rookie RB whiffed on a blocking assignment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson played real well after he healed up from the hamstring injury. He and Roddy got healthy about the same time late in the year and both were really good fantasy options. From week 12 on, here were his standard scoring points in each game: 14, 20, 8, 16, 11, 9. That is 13 ppg which if he could stay healthy nets him a spot as a top 12 RB. His yards per carry weren't very good, but he was scoring a lot of TDs which is why he could easily be like Turner was in 2012. Turner was terrible in 2012, but he scored 11 TDs and finished as RB17.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are Freeman's skills coming along in pass protection? That is one of the key factors to how much playing time any young RB will have. No coach wants to see their starting QB go down to injury because the rookie RB whiffed on a blocking assignment.

It was a strength in college. In July the team said he needed work. No clear answer yet beyond that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson played real well after he healed up from the hamstring injury. He and Roddy got healthy about the same time late in the year and both were really good fantasy options. From week 12 on, here were his standard scoring points in each game: 14, 20, 8, 16, 11, 9. That is 13 ppg which if he could stay healthy nets him a spot as a top 12 RB. His yards per carry weren't very good, but he was scoring a lot of TDs which is why he could easily be like Turner was in 2012. Turner was terrible in 2012, but he scored 11 TDs and finished as RB17.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a rookie draft tonight. If he's there at 1.09 I'm snagging him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a rookie draft tonight. If he's there at 1.09 I'm snagging him.

1 of the 2 Seminoles should still be there. Can't go wrong with either one IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a rookie draft tonight. If he's there at 1.09 I'm snagging him.

1 of the 2 Seminoles should still be there. Can't go wrong with either one IMO.

Benjamin still has to be considered the safer play here though, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a rookie draft tonight. If he's there at 1.09 I'm snagging him.

1 of the 2 Seminoles should still be there. Can't go wrong with either one IMO.

Benjamin still has to be considered the safer play here though, right?

Absolutely. Don't see him being there in most drafts at 1.09 though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 guys going before Benjamin? I'm surprised. He seems top 4 to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 guys going before Benjamin? I'm surprised. He seems top 4 to me.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 guys going before Benjamin? I'm surprised. He seems top 4 to me.

He doesn't belong in my top 4, but mid to late 1st round is reasonable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're also way overstating "opportunity" IMO. Talent will create opportunity most times, and if you aren't very talented your opportunity isn't going to last long. This doesn't mean that Freeman isn't talented and/or he won't pan out, but it won't be simply because he has a "clear path" to playing time.

I think many times the difference between non-talent and talented guy is the opportunity. If you got the opportunity at least you can show you're talented.

There's many guys waiting to shine and it all depends on situation. Sproles comes to mind... waited in San Diego, was good during his last season there

and then got to show his stuff with Saints. You can't say Arian Foster was that good after the first season and Houston drafted Tate knowing how "good"

Foster was. It was not Fosters talent that made him what he was, it was the opportunity.

What comes to Freeman, I think he's talented enough with good opportunity and that's why I drafted him. This was long before this hype train left the station,

but because I got in the train when it was "free", I'm just gonna enjoy the free ride...

I disagree. A RB's talent really has nothing to do with his opportunity. People seem to forget that these guys practice a lot, sometimes twice per day- they have plenty of opportunities to show just how talented they are. Sure, once in a while you're going to get a very talented RB who gets stuck behind an even more talented guy, but that's pretty rare and doesn't usually last that long- there aren't many back up RBs in the NFL who are better than the starters on a lot of the other teams. The bottom line is that if a player isn't very good, his opportunity won't last very long- they'll try and replace him with someone who is.

I have no problem with your last paragraph- I've said several times that I'm not saying that Freeman isn't talented, just that if it turns out that he isn't, his opportunity won't matter because it'll disappear pretty quickly.

Well that's a no brainer...

I'm not trying to say that I could be the running back for the Falcons if I only had the opportunity, I'm saying that all of those running backs in any NFL-team are professional athletes. It's hard to look way better in training camp when there's Peterson/Lynch/Charles/McCoy/Forte/Murray/Lacy/Gore/Bernard/Bell ahead of you. That's just 10 guys that are really hard to beat, if you're not crazy talented and taken with the first ten picks of the draft. When you don't have elite guys in front of you, you can make impression and show that you are reliable and do your work, you can actually earn your spot. Even Lynch had to sit behind Jackson in Buffalo, would you consider Lynch not being talented enough?

In fantasy football you must make a decision if I take this guy or that guy and if there's not that much difference in talent, I will always take the guy that has opportunity, not the guy with little bit more talent.

I don't want to wait 4 years with Toby Gerhart, if I can take a guy who can show what he's made of right away. But I totally understand if you think guy is worth waiting for, then you wait, but in most cases I choose opportunity.

Edited by Fireinside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 guys going before Benjamin? I'm surprised. He seems top 4 to me.

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.

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.

.

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a rookie draft tonight. If he's there at 1.09 I'm snagging him.

1 of the 2 Seminoles should still be there. Can't go wrong with either one IMO.

He went 1.07. Damnit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a rookie draft tonight. If he's there at 1.09 I'm snagging him.

1 of the 2 Seminoles should still be there. Can't go wrong with either one IMO.

He went 1.07. Damnit.

Freeman or Benjamin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to grab Cooks, Freeman, and Benjamin in a rookie draft in May. My team sucks so I had the #3 & a late 1st I had acquired during the season. I dropped back from 3 to 5 and got Cooks. It went Sammy, Evans, Sanky, Hyde, Cooks, Matthews, Beckam, Ebron. I traded away Wilson and my 2nd to move back into the 1st so I had 9&10 and went Freeman & Benjamin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to grab Cooks, Freeman, and Benjamin in a rookie draft in May. My team sucks so I had the #3 & a late 1st I had acquired during the season. I dropped back from 3 to 5 and got Cooks. It went Sammy, Evans, Sanky, Hyde, Cooks, Matthews, Beckam, Ebron. I traded away Wilson and my 2nd to move back into the 1st so I had 9&10 and went Freeman & Benjamin.

wow...looking like a homerun right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fantasy football you must make a decision if I take this guy or that guy and if there's not that much difference in talent, I will always take the guy that has opportunity, not the guy with little bit more talent.

I don't want to wait 4 years with Toby Gerhart, if I can take a guy who can show what he's made of right away. But I totally understand if you think guy is worth waiting for, then you wait, but in most cases I choose opportunity.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're also way overstating "opportunity" IMO. Talent will create opportunity most times, and if you aren't very talented your opportunity isn't going to last long. This doesn't mean that Freeman isn't talented and/or he won't pan out, but it won't be simply because he has a "clear path" to playing time.

I think many times the difference between non-talent and talented guy is the opportunity. If you got the opportunity at least you can show you're talented.

There's many guys waiting to shine and it all depends on situation. Sproles comes to mind... waited in San Diego, was good during his last season there

and then got to show his stuff with Saints. You can't say Arian Foster was that good after the first season and Houston drafted Tate knowing how "good"

Foster was. It was not Fosters talent that made him what he was, it was the opportunity.

What comes to Freeman, I think he's talented enough with good opportunity and that's why I drafted him. This was long before this hype train left the station,

but because I got in the train when it was "free", I'm just gonna enjoy the free ride...

I disagree. A RB's talent really has nothing to do with his opportunity. People seem to forget that these guys practice a lot, sometimes twice per day- they have plenty of opportunities to show just how talented they are. Sure, once in a while you're going to get a very talented RB who gets stuck behind an even more talented guy, but that's pretty rare and doesn't usually last that long- there aren't many back up RBs in the NFL who are better than the starters on a lot of the other teams. The bottom line is that if a player isn't very good, his opportunity won't last very long- they'll try and replace him with someone who is.

I have no problem with your last paragraph- I've said several times that I'm not saying that Freeman isn't talented, just that if it turns out that he isn't, his opportunity won't matter because it'll disappear pretty quickly.

Well that's a no brainer...

I'm not trying to say that I could be the running back for the Falcons if I only had the opportunity, I'm saying that all of those running backs in any NFL-team are professional athletes. It's hard to look way better in training camp when there's Peterson/Lynch/Charles/McCoy/Forte/Murray/Lacy/Gore/Bernard/Bell ahead of you. That's just 10 guys that are really hard to beat, if you're not crazy talented and taken with the first ten picks of the draft. When you don't have elite guys in front of you, you can make impression and show that you are reliable and do your work, you can actually earn your spot. Even Lynch had to sit behind Jackson in Buffalo, would you consider Lynch not being talented enough?

In fantasy football you must make a decision if I take this guy or that guy and if there's not that much difference in talent, I will always take the guy that has opportunity, not the guy with little bit more talent.

I don't want to wait 4 years with Toby Gerhart, if I can take a guy who can show what he's made of right away. But I totally understand if you think guy is worth waiting for, then you wait, but in most cases I choose opportunity.

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.

:confused: Lynch did not sit behind Jackson in Buffalo- he was the starter and got way more touches/opportunity.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to grab Cooks, Freeman, and Benjamin in a rookie draft in May. My team sucks so I had the #3 & a late 1st I had acquired during the season. I dropped back from 3 to 5 and got Cooks. It went Sammy, Evans, Sanky, Hyde, Cooks, Matthews, Beckam, Ebron. I traded away Wilson and my 2nd to move back into the 1st so I had 9&10 and went Freeman & Benjamin.

Great draft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fantasy football you must make a decision if I take this guy or that guy and if there's not that much difference in talent, I will always take the guy that has opportunity, not the guy with little bit more talent.

I don't want to wait 4 years with Toby Gerhart, if I can take a guy who can show what he's made of right away. But I totally understand if you think guy is worth waiting for, then you wait, but in most cases I choose opportunity.

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.

Explain this to me?

If you're not taking the most talented guy, then you're taking a guy who is in a better situation or a guy who you think is as good but in a better situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a rookie draft tonight. If he's there at 1.09 I'm snagging him.

1 of the 2 Seminoles should still be there. Can't go wrong with either one IMO.

He went 1.07. Damnit.

Freeman or Benjamin?
Freeman, who I was targeting. I think Benjamin went right before him at 1.06.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fantasy football you must make a decision if I take this guy or that guy and if there's not that much difference in talent, I will always take the guy that has opportunity, not the guy with little bit more talent.

I don't want to wait 4 years with Toby Gerhart, if I can take a guy who can show what he's made of right away. But I totally understand if you think guy is worth waiting for, then you wait, but in most cases I choose opportunity.

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.

Explain this to me?

If you're not taking the most talented guy, then you're taking a guy who is in a better situation or a guy who you think is as good but in a better situation.

I don't know if I can explain it any better than what's bolded....

Generally, talent supersedes. Situations can cause you to scratch a talented guy, but not to bump a not-so-talented guy. If the most talented rookie get buried behind Marshawn Lynch, you move to the next most talented rookie, and so on. You'd have to scratch a lot of guys before you got to Freeman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're also way overstating "opportunity" IMO. Talent will create opportunity most times, and if you aren't very talented your opportunity isn't going to last long. This doesn't mean that Freeman isn't talented and/or he won't pan out, but it won't be simply because he has a "clear path" to playing time.

I think many times the difference between non-talent and talented guy is the opportunity. If you got the opportunity at least you can show you're talented.

There's many guys waiting to shine and it all depends on situation. Sproles comes to mind... waited in San Diego, was good during his last season there

and then got to show his stuff with Saints. You can't say Arian Foster was that good after the first season and Houston drafted Tate knowing how "good"

Foster was. It was not Fosters talent that made him what he was, it was the opportunity.

What comes to Freeman, I think he's talented enough with good opportunity and that's why I drafted him. This was long before this hype train left the station,

but because I got in the train when it was "free", I'm just gonna enjoy the free ride...

I disagree. A RB's talent really has nothing to do with his opportunity. People seem to forget that these guys practice a lot, sometimes twice per day- they have plenty of opportunities to show just how talented they are. Sure, once in a while you're going to get a very talented RB who gets stuck behind an even more talented guy, but that's pretty rare and doesn't usually last that long- there aren't many back up RBs in the NFL who are better than the starters on a lot of the other teams. The bottom line is that if a player isn't very good, his opportunity won't last very long- they'll try and replace him with someone who is.

I have no problem with your last paragraph- I've said several times that I'm not saying that Freeman isn't talented, just that if it turns out that he isn't, his opportunity won't matter because it'll disappear pretty quickly.

Well that's a no brainer...

I'm not trying to say that I could be the running back for the Falcons if I only had the opportunity, I'm saying that all of those running backs in any NFL-team are professional athletes. It's hard to look way better in training camp when there's Peterson/Lynch/Charles/McCoy/Forte/Murray/Lacy/Gore/Bernard/Bell ahead of you. That's just 10 guys that are really hard to beat, if you're not crazy talented and taken with the first ten picks of the draft. When you don't have elite guys in front of you, you can make impression and show that you are reliable and do your work, you can actually earn your spot. Even Lynch had to sit behind Jackson in Buffalo, would you consider Lynch not being talented enough?

In fantasy football you must make a decision if I take this guy or that guy and if there's not that much difference in talent, I will always take the guy that has opportunity, not the guy with little bit more talent.

I don't want to wait 4 years with Toby Gerhart, if I can take a guy who can show what he's made of right away. But I totally understand if you think guy is worth waiting for, then you wait, but in most cases I choose opportunity.

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.

:confused: Lynch did not sit behind Jackson in Buffalo- he was the starter and got way more touches/opportunity.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fantasy football you must make a decision if I take this guy or that guy and if there's not that much difference in talent, I will always take the guy that has opportunity, not the guy with little bit more talent.

I don't want to wait 4 years with Toby Gerhart, if I can take a guy who can show what he's made of right away. But I totally understand if you think guy is worth waiting for, then you wait, but in most cases I choose opportunity.

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.

Explain this to me?

If you're not taking the most talented guy, then you're taking a guy who is in a better situation or a guy who you think is as good but in a better situation.

I don't know if I can explain it any better than what's bolded....

Generally, talent supersedes. Situations can cause you to scratch a talented guy, but not to bump a not-so-talented guy. If the most talented rookie get buried behind Marshawn Lynch, you move to the next most talented rookie, and so on. You'd have to scratch a lot of guys before you got to Freeman.

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.

So if there's a small talent gap and a big situation gap, is there ever a point where you'd use situation as the tiebreaker? Or do you just trust your own talent evaluation (or draft status, which favors Dri archer) regardless of situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

So if there's a small talent gap and a big situation gap, is there ever a point where you'd use situation as the tiebreaker? Or do you just trust your own talent evaluation (or draft status, which favors Dri archer) regardless of 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.

Is an assessment of a player's situation any more accurate, especially long term? I really don't think so. Ask folks who drafted Roy Helu or Ben Tate. I hope you don't really think your evaluation of this situation isn't flawed in it's own right, nor do you think Freeman's talent level has no implication on this situation.

Edited by cloppbeast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

So if there's a small talent gap and a big situation gap, is there ever a point where you'd use situation as the tiebreaker? Or do you just trust your own talent evaluation (or draft status, which favors Dri archer) regardless of 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.

Is an assessment of a player's situation any more accurate, especially long term? I really don't think so. Ask folks who drafted Roy Helu or Ben Tate. I hope you don't really think your evaluation of this situation isn't flawed in it's own right, nor do you think Freeman's talent level has no implication on this situation.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're also way overstating "opportunity" IMO. Talent will create opportunity most times, and if you aren't very talented your opportunity isn't going to last long. This doesn't mean that Freeman isn't talented and/or he won't pan out, but it won't be simply because he has a "clear path" to playing time.

I think many times the difference between non-talent and talented guy is the opportunity. If you got the opportunity at least you can show you're talented.

There's many guys waiting to shine and it all depends on situation. Sproles comes to mind... waited in San Diego, was good during his last season there

and then got to show his stuff with Saints. You can't say Arian Foster was that good after the first season and Houston drafted Tate knowing how "good"

Foster was. It was not Fosters talent that made him what he was, it was the opportunity.

What comes to Freeman, I think he's talented enough with good opportunity and that's why I drafted him. This was long before this hype train left the station,

but because I got in the train when it was "free", I'm just gonna enjoy the free ride...

I disagree. A RB's talent really has nothing to do with his opportunity. People seem to forget that these guys practice a lot, sometimes twice per day- they have plenty of opportunities to show just how talented they are. Sure, once in a while you're going to get a very talented RB who gets stuck behind an even more talented guy, but that's pretty rare and doesn't usually last that long- there aren't many back up RBs in the NFL who are better than the starters on a lot of the other teams. The bottom line is that if a player isn't very good, his opportunity won't last very long- they'll try and replace him with someone who is.

I have no problem with your last paragraph- I've said several times that I'm not saying that Freeman isn't talented, just that if it turns out that he isn't, his opportunity won't matter because it'll disappear pretty quickly.

Well that's a no brainer...

I'm not trying to say that I could be the running back for the Falcons if I only had the opportunity, I'm saying that all of those running backs in any NFL-team are professional athletes. It's hard to look way better in training camp when there's Peterson/Lynch/Charles/McCoy/Forte/Murray/Lacy/Gore/Bernard/Bell ahead of you. That's just 10 guys that are really hard to beat, if you're not crazy talented and taken with the first ten picks of the draft. When you don't have elite guys in front of you, you can make impression and show that you are reliable and do your work, you can actually earn your spot. Even Lynch had to sit behind Jackson in Buffalo, would you consider Lynch not being talented enough?

In fantasy football you must make a decision if I take this guy or that guy and if there's not that much difference in talent, I will always take the guy that has opportunity, not the guy with little bit more talent.

I don't want to wait 4 years with Toby Gerhart, if I can take a guy who can show what he's made of right away. But I totally understand if you think guy is worth waiting for, then you wait, but in most cases I choose opportunity.

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.

:confused: Lynch did not sit behind Jackson in Buffalo- he was the starter and got way more touches/opportunity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hill were in Atl instead of Cinci I'd be higher on him in up dynasty but lower in redraft. He has more immediate opportunity in Cinci this year than he would in Atl. He has more long term comp for touches in Cinci though with Gio being so hound and talented himself. Either way, I'd take Hill over Freeman in both formats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jurb the major flaw in your argument style is that you seem incapable of discussing this with any respect whatsoever for the person you disagree with. If you read my post, I asked a general strategy question. this could be a productive conversation for both of us.instead, you turn it into a Freeman camp opinion, whatever that means, you ascribe some inability to us, because we supposedly have absolutely no recognition of things that are obvious to you, and you use loaded language like the major flaw instead of talking reasonably. That's been your tack again and again in this conversation across multiple threads. You might be right.I don't know. But focus on the conversation instead of diminishing the people you're arguing with.this isn't a fight, and you don't win points for being extra right. I don't know what happened to you but you used to be better than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hill were in Atl instead of Cinci I'd be higher on him in up dynasty but lower in redraft. He has more immediate opportunity in Cinci this year than he would in Atl. He has more long term comp for touches in Cinci though with Gio being so hound and talented himself. Either way, I'd take Hill over Freeman in both formats.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

So if there's a small talent gap and a big situation gap, is there ever a point where you'd use situation as the tiebreaker? Or do you just trust your own talent evaluation (or draft status, which favors Dri archer) regardless of situation?

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 sure what your point is about turning this into "Freeman camp opinion?" Umm, this is the Freeman thread. Isn't that what we are supposed to be discussing? I'm not referring to general strategy here, I'm referring to Freeman because that's what I thought we were here to discuss. I didn't attack you or anyone else. I simply pointed out a counter argument about how situational interpretation can also be flawed. That would seem to be more in line with your overall strategy discussion, actually. It was an unintentional byproduct though. You seem to take the conversation on Freeman rather personally and I'm not sure why. Believe me, I'm not trying to win points (I'm not even sure how one does that on here). I'm trying to make the best decision I can on players.

Like I've said before, I like Freeman I like him a good deal as a matter of fact. I had him as my #3 ranked RB early on and moved him down to #5 close to the draft. I thought he'd be a higher pick than 4th round however so I've since altered my ranking again. I firmly believe that if a player isn't drafted rather close to my evaluation/expectation of him I need to take a second look. Such is the case with Freeman and so I've moved him down some more. That doesn't mean you or anyone else needs to. Objectively though, I think I was too high on him early on. I like his landing spot in Atl because I do think he will get an opportunity to earn a role there. I'm just not sold he is good enough to capitalize on that to a level of becoming a bellcow RB. I think it's more likely he becomes a RBBC guy, be it this year or next. His situation does not supersede his talent IMO. It hardly ever does in the NFL. Talented guys will rise to the top at some point and lesser talent will eventually be replaced. This is pretty much the same stance I had on Stacy last year. He had a chance to take the lead role based on underwhelming talent in St. L even though he was a 5th round pick. I always felt he was better than 5th round personally but not that much better non the end his talent won him the job over higher drafted guys. The NFL and most everyone missed this one, clearly. The issue is,that opportunity will likely be fleeting for a guy like Stacy IMO. He's good enough but just not special. I sold him lays year, not quite at the peak but good enough, because eventually I don't see him holding onto the gig. Fast forward to now and St. L has spent an early pick on Mason. This doesn't seal Stacy's fate but it does raise red flags. I envision a similar path for Freeman if he were to ever get the RB1 position.

Edited by jurb26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :shrug:

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.

Touches during 2007-2010 :o

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :shrug:

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.

Touches during 2007-2010 :o

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.

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.

In 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. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a rookie draft tonight. If he's there at 1.09 I'm snagging him.

1 of the 2 Seminoles should still be there. Can't go wrong with either one IMO.

He went 1.07. Damnit.

Freeman or Benjamin?
Freeman, who I was targeting. I think Benjamin went right before him at 1.06.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 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. :shrug:

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 points :shrug::shrug::shrug:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 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. :shrug:

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 points :shrug::shrug::shrug:

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.

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 not trying to say that I could be the running back for the Falcons if I only had the opportunity, I'm saying that all of those running backs in any NFL-team are professional athletes. It's hard to look way better in training camp when there's Peterson/Lynch/Charles/McCoy/Forte/Murray/Lacy/Gore/Bernard/Bell ahead of you. That's just 10 guys that are really hard to beat, if you're not crazy talented and taken with the first ten picks of the draft. When you don't have elite guys in front of you, you can make impression and show that you are reliable and do your work, you can actually earn your spot. Even Lynch had to sit behind Jackson in Buffalo, would you consider Lynch not being talented enough?

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a rookie draft tonight. If he's there at 1.09 I'm snagging him.

1 of the 2 Seminoles should still be there. Can't go wrong with either one IMO.

He went 1.07. Damnit.

Freeman or Benjamin?
Freeman, who I was targeting. I think Benjamin went right before him at 1.06.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 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. :shrug:

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 points :shrug::shrug::shrug:

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.

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 not trying to say that I could be the running back for the Falcons if I only had the opportunity, I'm saying that all of those running backs in any NFL-team are professional athletes. It's hard to look way better in training camp when there's Peterson/Lynch/Charles/McCoy/Forte/Murray/Lacy/Gore/Bernard/Bell ahead of you. That's just 10 guys that are really hard to beat, if you're not crazy talented and taken with the first ten picks of the draft. When you don't have elite guys in front of you, you can make impression and show that you are reliable and do your work, you can actually earn your spot. Even Lynch had to sit behind Jackson in Buffalo, would you consider Lynch not being talented enough?

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...

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.

If you cant understand that...

Let's totally move on...

:hifive:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In our May rookie draft I took Freeman at 2.04, Tre Mason and Jeremy Hill went at 2.01 and 2.02, Freeman was the 5th RB taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In our May rookie draft I took Freeman at 2.04, Tre Mason and Jeremy Hill went at 2.01 and 2.02, Freeman was the 5th RB taken.

Not a bad spot for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rotoworld:

Devonta Freeman - RB - Falcons

Devonta Freeman had six carries for 29 yards in the Falcons' second preseason game Saturday night.

He added one catch for 11 yards. Freeman was the No. 3 running back though Atlanta's rotation with Steven Jackson sidelined. He saw time with the first-team offense in the second quarter, and had a better game than Jacquizz Rodgers and Antone Smith. Freeman has now put together two impressive performances after going off for 107 total yards in Atlanta's preseason opener. It's only a matter of time before he moves ahead of both Rodgers and Smith on the depth chart.

Aug 16 - 11:22 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just took freeman at 1.8 in my rookie draft. Was going to grab KB but taken rt before my pick. Jeremy hill and Terrance west were still out there but I chose freeman based on situation. Very clear path to being a starting 3 down Rb on a good running team and a 70 year old Rb in front of him who can't stay healthy anymore.

Hill might be more talented but he will be a split time back with Gio for ears to come. West is behind Tate and contends with Crowell. Both are better than him IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just took freeman at 1.8 in my rookie draft. Was going to grab KB but taken rt before my pick. Jeremy hill and Terrance west were still out there but I chose freeman based on situation. Very clear path to being a starting 3 down Rb on a good running team and a 70 year old Rb in front of him who can't stay healthy anymore.

Hill might be more talented but he will be a split time back with Gio for ears to come. West is behind Tate and contends with Crowell. Both are better than him IMO

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.

Edited by Doctor Detroit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just took freeman at 1.8 in my rookie draft. Was going to grab KB but taken rt before my pick. Jeremy hill and Terrance west were still out there but I chose freeman based on situation. Very clear path to being a starting 3 down Rb on a good running team and a 70 year old Rb in front of him who can't stay healthy anymore.

Hill might be more talented but he will be a split time back with Gio for ears to come. West is behind Tate and contends with Crowell. Both are better than him IMO

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?

Talent trumps opportunity...except when it doesn't.

Edited by rickyg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just took freeman at 1.8 in my rookie draft. Was going to grab KB but taken rt before my pick. Jeremy hill and Terrance west were still out there but I chose freeman based on situation. Very clear path to being a starting 3 down Rb on a good running team and a 70 year old Rb in front of him who can't stay healthy anymore.

Hill might be more talented but he will be a split time back with Gio for ears to come. West is behind Tate and contends with Crowell. Both are better than him IMO

How drunk are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :sarcasm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :sarcasm:

Stalk much? How many of your 21 posts have been in response to mine?

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :sarcasm:

Stalk much? How many of your 21 posts have been in response to mine?

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".

Why don't you ladies take this private and stop littering the thread with this nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.