Ditto.With Gurley in St. Louis and Gordon in San Diego, who do you like better for Fantasy purposes?
Think Gurley is the slightly better prospect but Gordon looks to be the instant bell cow.
I go Gordon first. And you?
You assume that these teams will stay this good each year. Wasn't it just 4 or 5 years ago the West was the worst division in football?Let's not forget -
Gurley will have 6 games per year playing against the Arizona, Seattle, and San Fran run defenses.
Isn't that the average lifespan of a RB in today's NFL?You assume that these teams will stay this good each year. Wasn't it just 4 or 5 years ago the West was the worst division in football?Let's not forget -
Gurley will have 6 games per year playing against the Arizona, Seattle, and San Fran run defenses.
That matters maybe today. But things change fast wouldnt stop anyone from taking him in dynoSkoo said:Let's not forget -
Gurley will have 6 games per year playing against the Arizona, Seattle, and San Fran run defenses.
It might be less, but I am not going to let a more talented player fall to a competitor in fantasy football because of what the rest of their division might look like 2, 3, 4, or 5 years from now.matttyl said:Isn't that the average lifespan of a RB in today's NFL?msudaisy26 said:You assume that these teams will stay this good each year. Wasn't it just 4 or 5 years ago the West was the worst division in football?Skoo said:Let's not forget -
Gurley will have 6 games per year playing against the Arizona, Seattle, and San Fran run defenses.
Even if he starts the season on the PUP, if we're talking dynasty the injury and the missed time is fairly meaningless.Braktastic said:Gordon.
Gurley is a better overall talent, but he's coming off an injury, the Rams can afford to hold him out, and when he does play Fisher has like 182 other backs on the roster.
Gordon has Danny Woodhead and Brandon Oliver to "compete" with.
I posted this in another thread too but SF had half the team retire this year. Their defense against the run shouldn't even come halfway close to the past 4 years.matttyl said:Isn't that the average lifespan of a RB in today's NFL?msudaisy26 said:You assume that these teams will stay this good each year. Wasn't it just 4 or 5 years ago the West was the worst division in football?Skoo said:Let's not forget -
Gurley will have 6 games per year playing against the Arizona, Seattle, and San Fran run defenses.
yeah, because jeff fisher has probably never thought of running the ball until he saw seattle go to the superbowlI like Gurley. With the intense defense in STL and the obvious disregard for a passing game...it's pretty clear they are modeling that team after Seattle. Gurley's value cannot be overstated.
Maybe or maybe not. If he's on PUP isn't that like 8 games (I honestly don't know). Fantasy football regular season games are the ones that matter and the only one's we're guaranteed to be in. If those are ~13 weeks long (and you can only use them for 12 of those 13 due to the bye), and this guy has a 4 year NFL career (maybe more maybe less, but that's the average), then he's missing 8 of 48 games - or 17% of them right off the bat that we know of. Check my math, as I might be way off.Even if he starts the season on the PUP, if we're talking dynasty the injury and the missed time is fairly meaningless.Braktastic said:Gordon.
Gurley is a better overall talent, but he's coming off an injury, the Rams can afford to hold him out, and when he does play Fisher has like 182 other backs on the roster.
Gordon has Danny Woodhead and Brandon Oliver to "compete" with.
it's 8 weeks. 6 weeks on the PUP and then a week to get going. You usually don't see the player play until week 8 if they have an early bye.Maybe or maybe not. If he's on PUP isn't that like 8 games (I honestly don't know). Fantasy football regular season games are the ones that matter and the only one's we're guaranteed to be in. If those are ~13 weeks long (and you can only use them for 12 of those 13 due to the bye), and this guy has a 4 year NFL career (maybe more maybe less, but that's the average), then he's missing 8 of 48 games - or 17% of them right off the bat that we know of. Check my math, as I might be way off.Even if he starts the season on the PUP, if we're talking dynasty the injury and the missed time is fairly meaningless.Braktastic said:Gordon.
Gurley is a better overall talent, but he's coming off an injury, the Rams can afford to hold him out, and when he does play Fisher has like 182 other backs on the roster.
Gordon has Danny Woodhead and Brandon Oliver to "compete" with.
It's 6 games and the 4 year average life span is misleading. That counts every NFL RB that has played in the league. There's been 1000s that have played one or two season before washing out with injury or because they were bad. It would be more accurate to look at the average lifespan of RBs taken in the first round. I'd imagine that its much longer than 4 years. Even busts like Trent Richardson will probably see at least 5-6 years in the league. He's already heading into Year 4.Maybe or maybe not. If he's on PUP isn't that like 8 games (I honestly don't know). Fantasy football regular season games are the ones that matter and the only one's we're guaranteed to be in. If those are ~13 weeks long (and you can only use them for 12 of those 13 due to the bye), and this guy has a 4 year NFL career (maybe more maybe less, but that's the average), then he's missing 8 of 48 games - or 17% of them right off the bat that we know of. Check my math, as I might be way off.Even if he starts the season on the PUP, if we're talking dynasty the injury and the missed time is fairly meaningless.Braktastic said:Gordon.
Gurley is a better overall talent, but he's coming off an injury, the Rams can afford to hold him out, and when he does play Fisher has like 182 other backs on the roster.
Gordon has Danny Woodhead and Brandon Oliver to "compete" with.
Eddie Lacy would like to disagree with you on that one after facing the Jets, Lions and Seahawks to start the season last year (all top 5 run defenses), and having his best 4 games against Minn. x2, the Saints and Falcons (all bottom 12 run defense last year).Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.
Just to add to your point about Bell, look at Crowell and West. Both decent talents but probably not on Gurley's level. On the terrible Browns who had no QB, no Wrs and play against a division that is as tough or tougher against the run than the Nfc west. Their numbers weren't earth shattering but combined for very serviceable numbers. I'll take Gurley with 300 carries at 4.1 ypc. Throw in 20-40 catches and 8-12 Tds. I think that's more likely than it is impossible. I can see about the same for Gordon. Maybe less carries and a higher ypc. Both should be servicable low end rb1 at worst.In today's NFL, drafting a RB in the top 20 is akin to drafting a QB in the top 5. You don't do that unless you plan on playing them often and early.
In dynasty, nothing changes on the location. If anything, I like Gurley MORE now. A lot of us maybe haven't let it sink in on us because it wasn't being popularly mocked but when you know Jeff Fisher and what he likes to do, this is ideal. He will run Gurley's legs off and he is setting up the perfect formula for winning in the division. You play outstanding d and you control clock and you make your yards count. You protect your QB and Gurley is very good at that. You take pressure off with someone who can catch out of the backfield and Gurley can do that. It makes so much sense, I can only think the reason it wasn't popularly mocked was because of the influence of what fantasy communities WANT to happen (we want him in Dallas or some clear cut starving team).
The Niners are a shell of their former selves, The Seahawks have lost their Defensive masterminds (which doesn't mean everything but it DOES mean something) and the Cards have lost both players and their defensive heads. Just as we thought the west was a joke a few years ago, it can change again. I'm not going to NOT draft a dynasty Rb based on the division he plays in. Bell plays against the formidable Browns, Bengals, and Ravens Defenses and he does ok.
Gordon's situation IS nice..Very Nice. But I think he's actually more likely to be limited. I think he's a two-down guy early on because the Chargers need protection for Rivers and Woodhead is likely as good or better at catching the ball. That is two areas Gordon has to improve on to be a 3 down guy.
You left out the last game against Detroit, where Lacy carved them up. Also another reason not to worry about your opponent too far into the future, who would have thought the Lions would be a bad match up going into the year.Eddie Lacy would like to disagree with you on that one after facing the Jets, Lions and Seahawks to start the season last year (all top 5 run defenses), and having his best 4 games against Minn. x2, the Saints and Falcons (all bottom 12 run defense last year).Bell's worst game (only single digit effort in my league) last year came at the hands of the Jets and he combined for less than 80 rushing yards in his two games vs Baltimore - the only top 5 run defenses he faced.Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.
Those were the first two "elite" that came to mind for me.
So Lacy and Bell aren't elite?Eddie Lacy would like to disagree with you on that one after facing the Jets, Lions and Seahawks to start the season last year (all top 5 run defenses), and having his best 4 games against Minn. x2, the Saints and Falcons (all bottom 12 run defense last year).Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.
Bell's worst game (only single digit effort in my league) last year came at the hands of the Jets and he combined for less than 80 rushing yards in his two games vs Baltimore - the only top 5 run defenses he faced.
Those were the first two "elite" that came to mind for me.
Not productive ones.It would be more accurate to look at the average lifespan of RBs taken in the first round. I'd imagine that its much longer than 4 years. Even busts like Trent Richardson will probably see at least 5-6 years in the league. He's already heading into Year 4.
Are you worried about Mason?Gordon. I am not worried about Woodhead or Oliver.
He took 26 carries to do it (a season high) to do it and only hit 100 yards, so just under 4 ypc. 11 of those 26 carries came in the 4rd quarter.You left out the last game against Detroit, where Lacy carved them up. Also another reason not to worry about your opponent too far into the future, who would have thought the Lions would be a bad match up going into the year.Eddie Lacy would like to disagree with you on that one after facing the Jets, Lions and Seahawks to start the season last year (all top 5 run defenses), and having his best 4 games against Minn. x2, the Saints and Falcons (all bottom 12 run defense last year).Bell's worst game (only single digit effort in my league) last year came at the hands of the Jets and he combined for less than 80 rushing yards in his two games vs Baltimore - the only top 5 run defenses he faced.Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.
Those were the first two "elite" that came to mind for me.
No, I'm saying Lacy and Bell are elite - and that they had some of their worst games (if not their absolute worst games) vs top 5 defenses. If we're to believe that Seattle and Arizona (and even the 49ers) are to be top 5 defenses going forward, it may need to be something to consider - especially if we're also to think that Kansas City and Oakland (who Gordon will play twice a year each) will remain below average running teams (they were 22nd and 28th vs the run last year, though KC only gave up 4 rushing TDs all year).So Lacy and Bell aren't elite?Eddie Lacy would like to disagree with you on that one after facing the Jets, Lions and Seahawks to start the season last year (all top 5 run defenses), and having his best 4 games against Minn. x2, the Saints and Falcons (all bottom 12 run defense last year).Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.
Bell's worst game (only single digit effort in my league) last year came at the hands of the Jets and he combined for less than 80 rushing yards in his two games vs Baltimore - the only top 5 run defenses he faced.
Those were the first two "elite" that came to mind for me.
I think the core of the statement about elite RBs being matchup proof is true. I can remember Foster playing against the Ravens and Steelers and Seahawks at times those teams were considered elite and he beat them up. Jamaal Charles only shrinks when Reid makes him shrink. Otherwise, he is fine no matter who. And on and on. I think it's sometimes timing more than just "well if he had a bad game against the Seahawks it means he isn't all that.
And before a two year run that included awesome 1st rounders like Dez, Demaryius, AJ, and Julio, the last 15 1st round WRs were DHB, Crabtree, Maclin, Harvin, Nicks, Britt, Calvin, Ginn, Bowe, Meachem, Craig Davis, Anthony Gonzalez, Santonio Holmes, Braylon Edwards, and Troy Williamson.Not productive ones.It would be more accurate to look at the average lifespan of RBs taken in the first round. I'd imagine that its much longer than 4 years. Even busts like Trent Richardson will probably see at least 5-6 years in the league. He's already heading into Year 4.
Doug Martin has had 1. David Wilson had a few games, not seasons. Ingram has now had 1 good year in his career. Spiller has had 1 decent season and is now a backup, Ryan Mathews had 1 and is now a backup, J Best had one great season if I recall but is now out of the league. Moreono had an ok rookie year, then a resurgent year on another team years later. Donald Brown never had a 650 yard rushing year. Beanie Wells is out of the league. McFadden had one good year, J Stew had one and the second half of last year, Felix Jones never materialized, Mendenhall had 3 decent years and retired, and Chris Johnson had 6 very good/great seasons.
So of the last 15 1st round RBs, only 1 has had more than 3 good years and aside from Ingram I don't see any increasing that number to 2. Yes, I understand that the two just before this group were Peterson and Lynch. But more recently it's been a much more replaced and replaceable position.
That is the point no one thinks that those teams will just be as good defensively year in and out. Too many injuries, and turn over on rosters.No, I'm saying Lacy and Bell are elite - and that they had some of their worst games (if not their absolute worst games) vs top 5 defenses. If we're to believe that Seattle and Arizona (and even the 49ers) are to be top 5 defenses going forward, it may need to be something to consider - especially if we're also to think that Kansas City and Oakland (who Gordon will play twice a year each) will remain below average running teams (they were 22nd and 28th vs the run last year, though KC only gave up 4 rushing TDs all year).So Lacy and Bell aren't elite? I think the core of the statement about elite RBs being matchup proof is true. I can remember Foster playing against the Ravens and Steelers and Seahawks at times those teams were considered elite and he beat them up. Jamaal Charles only shrinks when Reid makes him shrink. Otherwise, he is fine no matter who. And on and on. I think it's sometimes timing more than just "well if he had a bad game against the Seahawks it means he isn't all that.Eddie Lacy would like to disagree with you on that one after facing the Jets, Lions and Seahawks to start the season last year (all top 5 run defenses), and having his best 4 games against Minn. x2, the Saints and Falcons (all bottom 12 run defense last year).Bell's worst game (only single digit effort in my league) last year came at the hands of the Jets and he combined for less than 80 rushing yards in his two games vs Baltimore - the only top 5 run defenses he faced.Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.
Those were the first two "elite" that came to mind for me.
That's not relevant to what we were discussing. If you think Gurley will be a bust that's an entirely different discussion than what missing some early season games will mean to his career or about his longevity.Not productive ones.It would be more accurate to look at the average lifespan of RBs taken in the first round. I'd imagine that its much longer than 4 years. Even busts like Trent Richardson will probably see at least 5-6 years in the league. He's already heading into Year 4.
More than Woodhead and Oliver.Are you worried about Mason?Gordon. I am not worried about Woodhead or Oliver.
Marked down and seconded!!! I'm on the wagon and taking it down!!!gordon will destroy the aptly named gurley
MARK IT DOWN !!!!!!!!!
Yeah, those are the ones I'm most worried about. You swap those 4 games out each year with 4 against Kansas City and Oakland, I think it's at least something to considerI'm surprised with just how many people are worried about Gurley facing SF x 2. Losing Borland, Willis and maybe Justin Smith is going to hurt. We'll see if Bowman can return to form from his injuries. I don't think they're the elite unit people make them out to be anymore. Sure the Hawks are going to be a nightmare and Arizona can be very stout as well but I wouldn't be overly concerned.
I like both a lot. Tough to know but the landing spots are fine especially considering where these teams drafted these guys. You don't spend a first round pick on a RB unless he is the future of your running game. [/quote
Unless you are the Browns or Colts.
It's not just Woodhead vs. Mason. It's also McCoy vs. Fisher.Coeur de Lion said:Woodhead is a much bigger threat to Gordon's FF value than Mason is to Gurley's, once Gurley is 100% anyway. Sure, Gordon will get a ton of 1st and 2nd down carries right away, but beating out Woodhead for the passing down work isn't going to be easy. Gurley is vastly superior to Mason in every facet once he's healthy.
Well when Snead and Fisher are fired a year or 2 from now, I'm not sure how much their opinion matters. But I imagine if you asked them last year they thought Mason was the long-term answer.Everybody has to decide for themselves if Gurley is a Peterson-type talent or not (I think he is in the conversation).
Regardless of that, Fisher and Snead made it clear he is the RB of the future and they do view him as a generational talent. They won't rush him back for redraft purposes. But in dynasty, and health permitting, of course, hard to see Mason being an obstacle to Gurley being the the long term bell cow (15-20 carries).
I like Mason. But to me, Gurley is so far superior to him as a prospect at comparable stages of their career, they aren't even remotely in the same class. Anybody who doesn't already see that and agree, though, it is unlikely minds could be changed by anything you could possibly write about it.