Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Biabreakable

Dynasty Kareem Hunt Cleveland Browns

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Where are you getting that? I see him as being 50th percentile on playerprofiler. 

On 3sigmaathlete, the same site you linked to.

I think this pSparq vs. Sparqx debate shows just how iffy the SPARQ argument is.  No one even knows which one to use, and they have wildly different results.

I don't know which is better but I don't think anyone was using Sparqx until this thread.  Remember all offseason the SPARQ talk was about how bad Dalvin Cook's SPARQ was and how the only good RB that comes close to being as bad in SPARQ was Shady McCoy.  But it's pSPARQ, no SPARQx, where Cook/McCoy are rated historically bad.  In SPARQx they weren't nearly as bad.  It seems like the tool might be changing to suit the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

But that site is talking about pSparq, where Hunt rated pretty average.  Not SparqX, where he rated terribly.

I am looking at Hunt now on there and they have him in the 28th percentile for pSparq. pSPARQ is like the SPARQx, it's reverse engineered approximation of what the Nike SPARQ score is. I don't know which is better necessarily- any attempt to use a single number to describe an athlete is going to be flawed. On playerprofiler, I like the breakdown of speed drills, burst drills and agility drills into percentiles. That seems to give a more detailed view of the player. 

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

On 3sigmaathlete, the same site you linked to.

I think this pSparq vs. Sparqx debate shows just how iffy the SPARQ argument is.  No one even knows which one to use, and they have wildly different results.

I don't know which is better but I don't think anyone was using Sparqx until this thread.  Remember all offseason the SPARQ talk was about how bad Dalvin Cook's SPARQ was and how the only good RB that comes close to being as bad in SPARQ was Shady McCoy.  But it's pSPARQ, no SPARQx, where Cook/McCoy are rated historically bad.  In SPARQx they weren't nearly as bad.  It seems like the tool might be changing to suit the argument.

It's not me changing the argument. I have always used the SPARQx score because the site it is on has a nice layout. My issue with Cook wasn't with his SPARQ score at all, it was with how low he scored on the agility drills. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Phenomena said:

Hype train is out of control - was just taken at 3.03 in a $600 league O_O.

Before Dalvin Cook, Mcaffrey, ton of good WR on the board.

Why is that out of the question, on any of them (depending on who the WRs were)?  I can see him beating out McCaffrey (in a non PPR).  Carolina will be a much more split RBBC (not even counting Cam's running) than KC will be.  Minnesota's OL is a pretty big question mark too, isn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Why is that out of the question, on any of them (depending on who the WRs were)?  I can see him beating out McCaffrey (in a non PPR).  Carolina will be a much more split RBBC (not even counting Cam's running) than KC will be.  Minnesota's OL is a pretty big question mark too, isn't it?

I agree, he's the sole rb in an offense that runs through the rb (both running and passing).  Talent or not, outside of injuries he's going to have a very solid year

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

Where are you getting that? I see him as being 50th percentile on playerprofiler. 

Packers draft class could provide a SPARQ


2017 Draft Class SPARQ Rankings (this website isn't working for me, but it's the website the above article references their stats from) Might be able to contact the website owner at the Contact button to see what the deal is... 

 

Edited by Dr. Dan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gandalf said:

Anyone know if Hunt can block?

This is, IMO, more important than an academic discussion on SPARQ scores. Anyone have insight on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Polish Hammer said:

This is, IMO, more important than an academic discussion on SPARQ scores. Anyone have insight on this?

Apparently that's one thing he is not so great at but has been improving on, is my understanding at least... but that is the one thing he needs to work on the most I believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blocking has been covered a few times here. He leveled 2 guys on a 4th down saving Alex Smith. That was a nice play. Also RBs that are good pass catchers don't pass block very often so it's not a huge deal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

Packers draft class could provide a SPARQ


2017 Draft Class SPARQ Rankings (this website isn't working for me, but it's the website the above article references their stats from) Might be able to contact the website owner at the Contact button to see what the deal is... 

 

Nevermind... I see it's just blocked at work. Works on my phone :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

It's not me changing the argument. I have always used the SPARQx score because the site it is on has a nice layout. My issue with Cook wasn't with his SPARQ score at all, it was with how low he scored on the agility drills. 

I didn't mean you specifically.  What we have here are a bunch of estimates on how to calculate SPARQ score that come up with wildly varying conclusions on certain players from one estimate to the next.  Which one is the most accurate?  I don't know, but pSPARQ is the one that was cited by NFL scouts and NFL journalists this offseason in regards to Cook, and is the only one to provide data as to its importance (via the article you linked).  SPARQx by contrast is developed by a guy with a pretty good reputation, but as far as anything endorsing it specifically all we have is that it has a nice website layout, I guess.

I only mentioned/quoted you specifically because you posted the link to the importance of SPARQ.  But it was actually an article about the importance of pSPARQ.  The linear regression models in the article are based on pSPARQ, not SPARQx.  I know some will say "eh, same thing", but they're really not.  The models are very different and a lot of the players vary by 20, 30, even 40 or more percentile points from one to the other.

In reality there are a whole bunch of estimates for recreating SPARQ that vary wildly.  pSPARQ is the only one that seems to have any real backing to it as it was the one cited by scouts/journalists and its the one that provides evidence as to its usefulness.  In that one, Hunt rates poorly but not crazy poor.  A few spots below the median compared to the top 15 dynasty RBs. 

I think the usefulness of SPARQ was already questionable (again, no studies showing any correlation to actual FF success and SPARQ score).  The fact that we can't even figure out what an actual SPARQ score is just makes it even more of a dubious data point, and given that Hunt is still OK relative to his FF peers in the only one that actually seems to have any backing, it doesn't worry me too much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

It's extremely unlikely that there is a negative correlation but there is a reasonable hypothesis for it.  The same reason that for a long time elite athletes at QB weren't (and really, usually still aren't) great passers.  Because at lower levels their elite athleticism gives them such an advantage they can just run around until they find someone open, so they never learn how to throw from the pocket at an elite level.

Likewise it's possible that elite athletes at RB are so physically dominant at a lower level that they don't have to worry about developing vision to find holes, setting up defenders, reading defenses, etc.

Unlikely, but at least an unlikely possibility.

Just expanding on this some, there is actually a negative correlation between average yards of separation for WRs and FF success of WRs.  That is to say the WRs who generally get more separation when running routes are far LESS likely to be good fantasy players, whereas the players that get the smallest separation when running routes are far MORE likely to be good fantasy players.

At first glance it makes no sense logically, but that's how these things work sometimes.  Once you have that knowledge, you can develop the logic around it (better WRs are more likely to be double teamed and line up against elite CBs, etc), but on the surface you would think that better WRs generally get more separation when in fact they don't.

Edited by FreeBaGeL
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Just expanding on this some, there is actually a negative correlation between average yards of separation for WRs and FF success of WRs.  That is to say the WRs who generally get more separation when running routes are far LESS likely to be good fantasy players, whereas the players that get the smallest separation when running routes are far MORE likely to be good fantasy players.

At first glance it makes no sense logically, but that's how these things work sometimes.  Once you have that knowledge, you can develop the logic around it (better WRs are more likely to be double teamed and line up against elite CBs, etc), but on the cover you would think that better WRs generally get more separation when in fact they don't.

I saw someone cite how open Tyreek Hill was last year and then I looked at all the names around him and felt it only made Hill look even more overpriced. It makes sense when you think about it in terms of another sport- like basketball. The players like Lebron, Durant, Curry don't ever get an inch of space to work because they are the best players and get a lot of defensive attention. When you are the 3rd guy off the bench, it's a little easier to find space on the court.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I didn't mean you specifically.  What we have here are a bunch of estimates on how to calculate SPARQ score that come up with wildly varying conclusions on certain players from one estimate to the next.  Which one is the most accurate?  I don't know, but pSPARQ is the one that was cited by NFL scouts and NFL journalists this offseason in regards to Cook, and is the only one to provide data as to its importance (via the article you linked).  SPARQx by contrast is developed by a guy with a pretty good reputation, but as far as anything endorsing it specifically all we have is that it has a nice website layout, I guess.

I only mentioned/quoted you specifically because you posted the link to the importance of SPARQ.  But it was actually an article about the importance of pSPARQ.  The linear regression models in the article are based on pSPARQ, not SPARQx.  I know some will say "eh, same thing", but they're really not.  The models are very different and a lot of the players vary by 20, 30, even 40 or more percentile points from one to the other.

In reality there are a whole bunch of estimates for recreating SPARQ that vary wildly.  pSPARQ is the only one that seems to have any real backing to it as it was the one cited by scouts/journalists and its the one that provides evidence as to its usefulness.  In that one, Hunt rates poorly but not crazy poor.  A few spots below the median compared to the top 15 dynasty RBs. 

I think the usefulness of SPARQ was already questionable (again, no studies showing any correlation to actual FF success and SPARQ score).  The fact that we can't even figure out what an actual SPARQ score is just makes it even more of a dubious data point, and given that Hunt is still OK relative to his FF peers in the only one that actually seems to have any backing, it doesn't worry me too much.

I agree. IMO all the measurable stuff has to be used with film and stats to piece together a player. When everything matches up, it becomes easy. DJ for example. You look at David Johnson's college stats and they are incredible but it's low level competition. You see DJ highlights and his size speed combo looks unreal but again it's poor competition. Finally, when DJ tests at the combine and delivers upper level performances in every drill you know that speed and quickness you saw on tape was real and will translate to the NFL. On the other hand you a Terrence West. His college stats were eye popping and his college tape is full of highlights. It was all against very weak competition, so we wonder how real it is. He then tests and comes in as a very unimpressive athlete. Now we start wondering about how valid all those stats and highlight runs really were and how much his game can translate. 

Never should athletic testing be the sole reason to like a player and athletic testing should never be the sole reason not to like a player. However, it is something that should be considered with every player. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

The blocking has been covered a few times here. He leveled 2 guys on a 4th down saving Alex Smith. That was a nice play. Also RBs that are good pass catchers don't pass block very often so it's not a huge deal.

Do you have the link to that twitter post that showed the pass blocking rates in excel? I remember it but I didn't save it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SameSongNDance said:

Do you have the link to that twitter post that showed the pass blocking rates in excel? I remember it but I didn't save it.

I tried to find it the other day but couldn't. I will try again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Just expanding on this some, there is actually a negative correlation between average yards of separation for WRs and FF success of WRs.  That is to say the WRs who generally get more separation when running routes are far LESS likely to be good fantasy players, whereas the players that get the smallest separation when running routes are far MORE likely to be good fantasy players.

At first glance it makes no sense logically, but that's how these things work sometimes.  Once you have that knowledge, you can develop the logic around it (better WRs are more likely to be double teamed and line up against elite CBs, etc), but on the surface you would think that better WRs generally get more separation when in fact they don't.

 

Here's one for you.  The strongest positive correlation I could find to WR success was arm length.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went back a few pages but didn't see any... would anyone care to share their updated 2017 projections for Hunt with Ware out of the picture? I don't know what to make of this backfield personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

On 3sigmaathlete, the same site you linked to.

I think this pSparq vs. Sparqx debate shows just how iffy the SPARQ argument is.  No one even knows which one to use, and they have wildly different results.

I don't know which is better but I don't think anyone was using Sparqx until this thread.  Remember all offseason the SPARQ talk was about how bad Dalvin Cook's SPARQ was and how the only good RB that comes close to being as bad in SPARQ was Shady McCoy.  But it's pSPARQ, no SPARQx, where Cook/McCoy are rated historically bad.  In SPARQx they weren't nearly as bad.  It seems like the tool might be changing to suit the argument.

This begs the question as far as what formula they are using if the results are so different.

Which doesn't make much sense to me since the formulas are using the same metrics as a bass for their calculations.

Its the same metrics. Clearly to have such different results, there is a lot of cooking of the books going on with the calculation of those scores.

Not that I care about this much at all (maybe a bit more than BB) but until those formulas are made clear and some connection is made between those scores and actual player performance, it is pure trivia to me.

Here is a study that does link combine metrics to actual NFL performance for all positions that I found interesting. I still haven't seen anything like this related to sparq. That is what BB is asking for and I agree with him that until there is some actual connection between these formula and actual performance shown, it doesn't mean anything. Its trivia.

From the above study there were three metrics found to have some predictive ability. Weight, 40 time and the 3 cone drill. Based on personal observations I have been paying attention to the 3 cone drill as an indicator of a RBs ability to change direction quickly over short distances. It is a drill that is actually more important for defensive ends, it fits perfectly what a defensive end has to do on nearly every play, how well to they bend and turn off the edge. The drill likely doesn't track as closely to a what a RB needs to do on plays as defensive end, but the study does show that the drill has some predictive ability for players at the RB position. Metrics such as the bench and short shuttle had zero correlation for the RB position, yet these metrics are components of sparq scores most likely that make the results noisy and not very useful based on the results of the above study.

For all positions the most important metric is the 40 time. No surprise there as the NFL pays a lot of attention to this metric, and it makes sense that they do as it is the most predictive metric there is.

That said we know that there have been many good RB who were not especially fast in terms of their 40 time.

The reason I put emphasis on there being some predictive ability of these metrics is that the correlations of these metrics is usually not very strong.We are talking about less than .4 correlation coefficient from the study above. Thats terrible. Barely even worth paying attention to. You are looking for at least .8 correlation to consider the data to be predictive and combine metrics fall well short of that. If something has a .6 correlation, maybe you could argue that there is some connection or predictive value, even though it isn't strong. So I am likely being generous here is saying there is some connection, because these correlation coefficients are not strong at all. 

Its relative. The weight, 40 time and 3 cone drills are more predictive for the RB position than the other drills are, but none of them are particularly predictive.

eta - there is a graph in the linked study that shows a .8 correlation between draft position and NFL production. Draft position actually IS predictive of NFL performance and generally twice as predictive as any combine metric was. Draft position is the most predictive data point we have.

When you consider that NFL teams use combine data, film study and a lot of other information in their decision making process when drafting players, I think you should just throw the combine metrics out, because that has been baked into the NFL teams decisions on when to draft the players.

Edited by Biabreakable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Just expanding on this some, there is actually a negative correlation between average yards of separation for WRs and FF success of WRs.  That is to say the WRs who generally get more separation when running routes are far LESS likely to be good fantasy players, whereas the players that get the smallest separation when running routes are far MORE likely to be good fantasy players.

At first glance it makes no sense logically, but that's how these things work sometimes.  Once you have that knowledge, you can develop the logic around it (better WRs are more likely to be double teamed and line up against elite CBs, etc), but on the surface you would think that better WRs generally get more separation when in fact they don't.

This is interesting.

Where did you find this study? Any link or something more I could read in regards to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Adso said:

Went back a few pages but didn't see any... would anyone care to share their updated 2017 projections for Hunt with Ware out of the picture? I don't know what to make of this backfield personally.

Some pretty basic projections just assuming that Hunt will perform as an average RB in terms of yards per carry and catch percentage.

Quote

Well if Ware is out all year then projections may look like 245 rushing attempts (15.3 per game) at 4.2 ypc 1029 yards (62.3 per game) 48 targets (3 per game) 35 receptions 245 yards (15 per game) and 4-8 TD.

This would be 1274 combined yards (79.6 per game) and 6 TD which is worth 163.4 points in standard scoring leagues (10.2 points per game) 198.4 points in PPR leagues (12.4 points per game)

Those points in 2016 would be RB 16 in standard (where Ware finished) and RB 18 in PPR

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Saboo said:

With Ware now officially out for the season is Hunt a legit rb 1?

According to many in this thread, apparently, yes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Saboo said:

With Ware now officially out for the season is Hunt a legit rb 1?

I would say he has rb1 upside with a high floor.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ojaays said:

According to many in this thread, apparently, yes...

Can't speak for others, but I've only said Hunt is almost a lock as an RB2 this year and that he has RB1 upside (if healthy).

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

Some pretty basic projections just assuming that Hunt will perform as an average RB in terms of yards per carry and catch percentage.

 

I'll take the over on 6 TDs.   If not, the Chiefs are in BIG trouble. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zoonation said:

I'll take the over on 6 TDs.   If not, the Chiefs are in BIG trouble. 

Yeah I don't spend much time into projecting TD.

Spencer Ware scored 5 TD in 14 games for the Chiefs last season. Two of those were off of receptions.

West scored 3 TD in 15 games last year. Two of those were off of receptions.

Alex Smith had 5 rushing TD. More than Ware and West combined.

Jamal Charles had one rushing TD last year bu clearly was not himself.

In 2015 Ware scored 6 rushing TD on only 72 rushing attempts. West had 5 TD one of them off of a reception. Jamal Charles had 5 TD (one receiving) in five games that year.

So the TDs for RB were not very high and that was the basis of me projecting 6 TD as a median expectation for him. Based on the last two years performance, I think that is being generous.

Jamal Charles in 2014 had 9 rushing TD and 5 receiving TD in 15 games. Knile Davis had 6 rushing TD and one receiving TD. Travis Kelce was still being worked into the offense and had 5 TD that year. Their best WR was Dwayne Bowe who had zero TD. TE Anthony Fasano had 4 TD that year likely in the 5 games that Kelce didn't start.

I don't think Kareem Hunt is as good as Jamal Charles so I did not think using his TD numbers would be a good way to project TD for Hunt. I still think the 6 TD guess is an appropriate one based on what Ware, West and Davis have scored in Reids offense with KC.

Reid does have a long history of using the TE and RB more than a lot of other coaches. If Ware had scored more TD the last two years than he did, then I would have more reason to be optimistic about Hunt in that area. I tend to think Ware is a bit more powerful RB than Hunt is, although I do think Hunt has good power. Ware having 6 TD on so few rushing attempts shows that I think although I have looked specifically at the red zone opportunities. The projection for Hunt is largely based on him getting similar opportunities are Spencer Ware has in the offense recently. The average for Ware was 5.5 TD the last two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the well written and thoughtful post.  I must say, if anything you've made the argument why the over is a safe bet.  With the exception of last year (where the QB ran for 5 TDs), the KC backfield appears to score a lot of TDs.  

If Hunt gets the workload which, at this stage, it is safe to assume he will, then 6 TDs would be disappointing.  8 would be, really.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Thanks for the well written and thoughtful post.  I must say, if anything you've made the argument why the over is a safe bet.  With the exception of last year (where the QB ran for 5 TDs), the KC backfield appears to score a lot of TDs.  

If Hunt gets the workload which, at this stage, it is safe to assume he will, then 6 TDs would be disappointing.  8 would be, really.   

hmm I guess where you and I may be seeing this differently is that I do not think Kareem Hunt is going to score TD similar to Jamal Charles. Jamal Charles a MUCH more explosive player than Hunt and a better receiving option than Hunt as well. Not to say that Hunt can't make big plays or catch the ball. I think he can do these things, but as frequently as Jamal Charles?

No way.

In an attempt to quantify this, lets look at TD per opportunity for the Chiefs main RB with Reid over the last 3 seasons.

Jamal Charles 380 opportunties 20 TD .053 TD/opportunity

Spencer Ware 334 opportunities 11 TD.033 TD/opportunity

Charcandrick West 317 opportunities 8 TD .025 TD/opportunity

Knile Davis 190 opportunities 8 TD .042 TD/opportunity

As you see Jamal Charles almost twice as likely to score a TD than West or Ware have been. Knle Davis was mostly used as a goal line RB and 7 of his 8 TD occurred when Jamal Charles was playing well and creating those opportunities for the offense.

With Hunt projected for 293 opportunities, if he scores as frequently as Spencer Ware would be 9.7 TD. If he scored as frequently as Jamal Charles would be 15.5 TD

Perhaps my median range projection of 6 TD on 293 opportunities is too low. As I said I hadn't given that part much thought. Maybe a TD range of 6-8-10 would be more appropriate. I err towards conservative numbers when it comes to TD.

 

Edited by Biabreakable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if scores 10, he is a top end RB2, which is all I'm saying.  

See very little downside here in the fourth (he is probably more expensive than that now though).      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, zoonation said:

But if scores 10, he is a top end RB2, which is all I'm saying.  

See very little downside here in the fourth (he is probably more expensive than that now though).      

Yeah just updating the projected points with the 8 TD number instead of 6 is 175.4 points in standard scoring leagues (10.9 points per game) and 210.4 points in PPR leagues (13.5 points per game) which in 2016 would have finished RB 14 in standard and RB 12 in PPR leagues.

This assuming that Hunt does get similar number of opportunities as Ware was in the offense last season and scored TD at the same pace, with average ypc and catch percentage for a RB. Also assuming no injuries and Hunt maintains this workload over the entire season (something Ware did not do).

I do think Hunt as far as his talent level is closer to Spencer Ware or Charcandrick West than it is to Jamal Charles who I consider to be a special player. Only Charles and Peterson were averaging 5 yards per carry for most f their careers, a feat that few if any RB in history have been able to do for such an extended period of time.

Edited by Biabreakable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles and Hunt are obviously two different style players.  Hunt doesn't show the top end speed that Charles had but Hunt is far more physical even at his size.  He gets that arm out there and just throws linebackers to the ground.  I am very excited about Hunt this year.  

Edited by Tyrion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my 12 team Super-flex, PPR redraft yesterday Hunt was drafted 5.5 as the #17 RB. McCaffrey went the pick before Hunt (D.Cook went at 3.9 as RB9 to a uuuuge Vikings homer).

L.Miller, C.Hyde & J.Mixon were drafted after Hunt and I prefer Hunt to all of them.  Seems like an appropriate value for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tyrion said:

Charles and Hunt are obviously two different style players.  Hunt doesn't show the top end speed that Charles had but Hunt is far more physical even at his size.  He gets that arm out there and just throws linebackers to the ground.  I am very excited about Hunt this year.  

 

I wouldn't use Charles as a comparable player or for developing expectations for Hunt.  I think Brian Westbrook is a much better comp, though I think Hunt runs with more power and his downfield game is more physical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

If I spent an early round pick on Hunt and did not have West I would be slightly concerned.

 

I did, I don't, and I'm not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, for Pete's sake.  Here's the quote from Nagy (KC OC)

 

“These guys are all prepared. They’re all prepared to play. They all know they’re a big part of this game plan. That’s the exciting part. We have a team of guys that we’re not just loaded with one guy at one position. We have a group of guys that can all play well and we trust them at all positions.’’

 

So Teicher at ESPN gets out his Jump To Conclusions mat and assigns the meaning of that to the RBs, that because West is the only guy of the 3 RBs that was there last year that he'll get a strong share of the RB pie, and then somehow turns the quote into questioning Hunt's pass protection.

 

Now look at the quote.  Nagy is pretty clearly talking about the O (or team) as a whole "group of guys that we trust at all positions" (where does that become exclusively about RB?). The sentence about not being one guy at one position also shows he was talking about a group of positions, not just RBs.  And where is Nagy questioning Hunt's pass pro anywhere in that quote? (guessing Teicher has been reading Waldmann's dramatic misconstruing of that situation)

 

Just more fake news from a less than credible source creating their own facts for their own gratification to fabricate a story that is not there. 

 

.

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

@Bronco Billy at least we only have to wait until Thursday to find out. Only difference is hunt is a third round pick and west is a free grab. 

 

That's the only difference between the guys?  Their draft position? Why is that difference there, do you think?

 

ETA - Thank goodness the regular season is almost here.  It will be the end of a lot of crap pieces like Teicher's.  He may be right and I may be 100% wrong (and I'll be here to admit it if so ) but that quote doesn't support any of his speculation about the RBs.

Edited by Bronco Billy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone thought West wasn't going to see the field, of course he has a role. As someone who followed Ware very closely last year, I do think that role is going to be slightly larger than what some Hunt owners are expecting but it's not going to be large enough to give West any stand alone value.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to really freak out about. They cut spiller and then signed him back. 

 

Weet will get some run but it's clear they value Hunt tremendously 

  • 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.