Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Ack88

Location Determined now- Gurley v. Gordon- what say you?

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been Gurley for me, always will be Gurley for me. If I'm holding the 1.01 it's Gurley.

I'm not sure how Gordon's situation is all that much better. He has Rivers as a threat, sure. But I think Gurley's talent is just well above Gordon's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Ditto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt sneeze at Gurleys situation at all. Foles is a competent QB, their Defense should be really good.

They didnt take him at 10 to sit behind the middling talents they have on the roster already no matter how many of them there are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd probably go Gordon but I don't think Gurley is nearly is good as advertised. I actually think Chubb is a much better back on his own team so please give it a rest with the generational talent. He looks more average than great to me. Rb is so situation dependent, what if Mason plays great next year and carves out a 60/40 rbbc? You know Gordon will get all the touches he can take for the foreseeable future. Gurley is playing with another solid young rb for the next 3 years at a minimum. It's not like I hate Gurley but I don't know if I could take him in the top 2 now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gurley, I always take talent in these spots. This time next year Rivers could be gone, Gates retired.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are going to hugely overrate these landing spots.

Both are the clear cut starters. Both ended up in pretty average landing spots.

I really do not see how these landing spots would change your rankings of these two guys. Cause mason will eat into Gurley's touches? I don't think so. No more than whoever Gordon's backups are will eat into his.

The "Gordon is an instant bellcow" hype is going to be through the roof.

Just my :2cents:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget -

Gurley will have 6 games per year playing against the Arizona, Seattle, and San Fran run defenses.

Edited by Skoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget -

Gurley will have 6 games per year playing against the Arizona, Seattle, and San Fran run defenses.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget -

Gurley will have 6 games per year playing against the Arizona, Seattle, and San Fran run defenses.

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?

Isn't that the average lifespan of a RB in today's NFL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 dyno

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget -

Gurley will have 6 games per year playing against the Arizona, Seattle, and San Fran run defenses.

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?

Isn't that the average lifespan of a RB in today's NFL?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Even if he starts the season on the PUP, if we're talking dynasty the injury and the missed time is fairly meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget -

Gurley will have 6 games per year playing against the Arizona, Seattle, and San Fran run defenses.

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?

Isn't that the average lifespan of a RB in today's NFL?

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.

Seattle's numbers are inflated by playing mostly bottom 10 rushing games. Against Top 10 rushing attacks they allowed 121ypg versus the 83ypg they 'averaged' over the season by playing the liked of the Giants, Redskins, Broncos (when they thought Montee Ball was actually good), Raiders, Cardinals (after the whole offense died), Cardinals again and the Rams twice.

Dallas, KC, Carolina, Carolina in the playoffs and GB in the playoffs ran all over them. What do these teams have in common? Good RB talents, Gurley will be a force in that division and wreck their stats versus RBs for years to come. Just like Lynch did every time SF was #1 in run defense, he'd drop 150 yards and 2 TDs on them liek it was nothing.

Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.

As for the comment about Gurley not being all that good, worse than Chubb and Gordon and not a generational talent. I'm just going to say I assume you have no idea what to evaluate on tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I 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.

yeah, because jeff fisher has probably never thought of running the ball until he saw seattle go to the superbowl

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Even if he starts the season on the PUP, if we're talking dynasty the injury and the missed time is fairly meaningless.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the short term, Gordon clearly has more value, but I think that would have been the case in most situations. This is honestly the best thing that could have happened for Gurley long term though imo. He will not be rushed, and when he comes into the fold, Jeff Fisher will lean on him heavily as the centerpiece of the offense. For dynasty, this is a layup for Gurley over Gordon imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Even if he starts the season on the PUP, if we're talking dynasty the injury and the missed time is fairly meaningless.

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.

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.

I don't think you can do math like that in a situation like this. If you think he is going to be great, you think he could be playing for a long, long time. And NO RB plays a long, long time without missing games for one reason or another. Foster has missed about as many games as Peterson (although it seems vastly different). Yet, I wouldn't go back in time and pass on either. They win fantasy leagues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Even if he starts the season on the PUP, if we're talking dynasty the injury and the missed time is fairly meaningless.

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.

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.

Edited by Dr. Octopus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.

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.

Those were the first two "elite" that came to mind for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.

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.

Those were the first two "elite" that came to mind for me.

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.

Edited by msudaisy26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.

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.

Those were the first two "elite" that came to mind for me.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dynasty? Gurley.

Redraft? Wait until draftday... If Gurley ends up on the PUP, Gordon. If not Gurley all day erryday.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Not productive ones.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.

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.

Those were the first two "elite" that came to mind for me.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.

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.

Those were the first two "elite" that came to mind for me.

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.

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Not productive ones.

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.

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.

Very similar to that RB list with really only one guy (Calvin) that's put up a string of top seasons.

Sometimes you just hit a drought, at any position. It's not necessarily predictive of the future.

Edited by FreeBaGeL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elite RBs aren't matchup dependent.

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.

Those were the first two "elite" that came to mind for me.

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.

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).

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Not productive ones.

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.

I never said that all first round RBs have had stellar careers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon. I am not worried about Woodhead or Oliver.

Are you worried about Mason?

More than Woodhead and Oliver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gordon will destroy the aptly named gurley

MARK IT DOWN !!!!!!!!!

Marked down and seconded!!! I'm on the wagon and taking it down!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'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.

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 consider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It's not just Woodhead vs. Mason. It's also McCoy vs. Fisher.

Jeff Fisher has no aversion to giving his top back 25-30 touches in a game.

Mike McCoy likes to rotate RBs and use multiple players at the position during the course of a game. Even in last night's press conference, just after trading up to get Gordon, he said that Gordon will fit in as part of a group of RBs who will all get snaps.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

For me personally, I don't think Gurley is any more talented than Gordon. Scouts are just as prone to group think as everyone else. I see him running through an awful lot of huge holes and I don't see an elite talent. I guess if you do, obviously you take Gurley and don't worry about it. Seems funny to me that most people don't even question how talented he really is because they've read so many people say that he's great and they believe it without question.

Edited by voiceofunreason
  • Like 1

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.