Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
caustic

Darwin Thompson, Chiefs RB

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Truebluey said:

It's a good lesson about trusting talent isn't it?  Everyone thought so highly of Hollywood as a talent before the Draft, but then the "consensus" was that BAL was a terrible landing spot, and we didn't see him much in the preseason.  He didn't even get drafted in our league, even though we have space for a keeper spot!  Lesson learned.

Lesson learned for me, too. I definitely take your point about consensus. I drafted Hollywood in another draft and held. He's a starter. Now. 

But on the flip side, A.J. Brown has talent and won't see more than five targets in a game. And won't be a viable starter until Tenn. gets rid of Mariota. Which means not this year. So, it does have something to do with situation.

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Lesson learned for me, too. I definitely take your point about consensus. I drafted Hollywood in another draft and held. He's a starter. Now. 

But on the flip side, A.J. Brown has talent and won't see more than five targets in a game. And won't be a viable starter until Tenn. gets rid of Mariota. Which means not this year. So, it does have something to do with situation.

Exactly. I think the lesson here reinforces that situation matters even more. The problem with Hollywood was that most of us misread his situation, not his talent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FGITLOTR said:
3 hours ago, dkp993 said:

I’d be happy with that.  Struggling with him or Burkhead to replace DWill in my 2.   

I’m in the exact same spot! I’m leaning Darwin because my opponent is loaded

Yeah that’s my thought and position too.  My league is a dual matchup and the 2 teams I’m playing happen to be 1&2 in the standings. Need at least a split so am swinging for upside.  Not super comfortable with though.  Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FGITLOTR said:

When you get a chance, go watch Darwin’s film, because you obv haven’t seen him play. 

yes I have and seeing the 214 picked player in the 2019 as the next messiah of this group is stretched . He is available in my league and I rather have Penny and J Jackson over him

Edited by hardcoredx

Share this post


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

Exactly. I think the lesson here reinforces that situation matters even more. The problem with Hollywood was that most of us misread his situation, not his talent.

Indeed.

Share this post


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

Just get everyone you can get in the KC backfield.  We should have all learned from last year... Whoever is this years Damien is going to gain a bunch of value and be a great sell high at the end of the year or offseason. 

Yes. This is perhaps the best example I can think of where opportunity so blatantly outweighs talent. If they play for KC and are getting significant touches they are worth rostering and probably starting.

So many different ways this could still play out on Sunday, though. McCoy could dominate, Darrell could get a bigger slice than we want, and the possibility could also exist that Thompson crushes it out there and people end up wishing they'd grabbed him and/or started him. Who knows? But this offense is matchup proof and any RB getting the work is a potential league winner.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bayhawks said:

McCoy doesn’t have a bad knee. Unless by bad, you just mean old?

Sorry.  Williams had the knee. McCoy has the ankle. 

My point is that Reid will want McCoy for the playoffs.  I think they will share carries (since Shady practiced Friday), but I expect Reid to use those young legs. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Williams being out and Shady with a bad ankle could really open the door for a 10-12+ PPR game for Thompson. With shady’s running style he could be very limited with a bad ankle. If Darwin is as good as Reid thinks he could be in for an increased workload moving forward. The time to add him is now IMO. If he goes for 50-60 rushing yards and 2-3 catches while looking good that’s going to push him to the top is a lot of people’s WW’s next week. 

Any idea how long Williams could miss as well? Ruling him out so early in the week felt like this could be a multiple week injury. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, barackdhouse said:

the possibility could also exist that Thompson crushes it out there and people end up wishing they'd grabbed him and/or started him.

It's so often that we act like teams know exactly how they are going to divvy up snaps and touches.  But, in reality, how the players play is the main determinant.  Darwin probably has the opportunity to carve out a large role if he plays well.  And pass protection will be the most important factor.  If Mahomes gets blowed up one time because Darwin misses a block, he could end up on the bench for the foreseeable future.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

Yes. This is perhaps the best example I can think of where opportunity so blatantly outweighs talent. If they play for KC and are getting significant touches they are worth rostering and probably starting.

While I agree with your statement I’m not sure I put it as “the best example”.  I think there’s an even better example on the team, DWill.  He is pretty clearly an average to below average NFL RB on talent (I think Thompson is just one rung on the latter above) but in this O dominated at the end of the year last year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FGITLOTR said:

When you get a chance, go watch Darwin’s film, because you obv haven’t seen him play. 

Play what? College?

Means nothing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utah State pro day:

225 Bench: 28 Reps

40 Time: 4.5 seconds

Vertical jump: 39 inches

Broad jump: 10'6"

Dude is an athlete guys.  He is 15 pounds lighter than Kareem Hunt, but his metrics beat Kareem in every single category.  They are very good metrics across the board for any back.

Pretty amazing how strong the guy is ... 28 reps at 225 pounds weighing only 198... I mean I weigh 168 and can do it once... 🤣

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, The Dude said:

And this metric....5 foot 8 inches

Not being argumentative...just wondering why height should matter for a RB?

Share this post


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

Utah State pro day:

225 Bench: 28 Reps

40 Time: 4.5 seconds

Vertical jump: 39 inches

Broad jump: 10'6"

Dude is an athlete guys.  He is 15 pounds lighter than Kareem Hunt, but his metrics beat Kareem in every single category.  They are very good metrics across the board for any back.

Pretty amazing how strong the guy is ... 28 reps at 225 pounds weighing only 198... I mean I weigh 168 and can do it once... 🤣

Sounds like he's quite vascular

Share this post


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

And this metric....5 foot 8 inches

Like MJD and Barry Sanders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SCT said:

Like MJD and Barry Sanders?

Yeah, I cant really come up with a reason why being short matters for a RB.  It matters for pretty much every other position, and could be a detriment if he is ever in a jump ball situation as a receiver, but if anything it should help a runner - harder to see behind the OL, lower center of gravity.

Edited by ChuckLiddell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ChuckLiddell said:

Yeah, I cant really come up with a reason why being short matters for a RB.  It matters for pretty much every other position, and could be a detriment if he is ever in a jump ball situation as a receiver, but if anything it should help a runner - harder to see behind the OL, lower center of gravity.

Darren Sproles is 2 inches shorter than that and he seems to have had a pretty productive career.Darren Sproles is 2 inches shorter than that and he seems to have had a pretty productive career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SCT said:

Darren Sproles is 2 inches shorter than that and he seems to have had a pretty productive career.Darren Sproles is 2 inches shorter than that and he seems to have had a pretty productive career.

Darren Sproles is 2 inches shorter than that and he seems to have had a pretty productive career.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


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

Yeah, I cant really come up with a reason why being short matters for a RB.  It matters for pretty much every other position, and could be a detriment if he is ever in a jump ball situation as a receiver, but if anything it should help a runner - harder to see behind the OL, lower center of gravity.

It matters b/c a lot of elite backs have 15 - 20 pounds on him.  Being shorter gives him a lower center of gravity.  Harder to bring down when you cannot get below his pad level and when the guy has the strength metrics that DT has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, kutta said:

Darren Sproles is 2 inches shorter than that and he seems to have had a pretty productive career.

You can say that again!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, SCT said:

Darren Sproles is 2 inches shorter than that and he seems to have had a pretty productive career.Darren Sproles is 2 inches shorter than that and he seems to have had a pretty productive career.

Darren Sproles has never had 100 carries in a year.  He still had some solid fantasy seasons because of receptions the same way as James White, Tarik Cohen, and Duke Johnson.  But there a plenty of truly elite fantasy backs that have been smallish: Barry Sanders, Jamaal Charles, Emmitt Smith, CMC.  But size does matter.  The fact that there are a handful of amazing running backs who were on the small side does not mean that size is irrelevant.  Just look at the weight of the starting running back of every team in the NFL.  Very few are small.  But clearly, when a small running back does ascend to starting status, he can also ascend to elite status.

Edited by Don Hutson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see a lot of the running game coming into play tomorrow--at least not from the RB position. I can see both QBs getting yards on the ground, but I just don't see RBs doing damage. The over on this game is pretty high, but I am taking the under. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's better to be more taller if you want to be a runningback, but a lot of other things matter way more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cloppbeast said:

It's better to be more taller if you want to be a runningback, but a lot of other things matter way more. 

Why would this be true?  What is the rationale?  We are talking about height, not overall body weight.

Share this post


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

I just don't see a lot of the running game coming into play tomorrow--at least not from the RB position. I can see both QBs getting yards on the ground, but I just don't see RBs doing damage. The over on this game is pretty high, but I am taking the under. 

I agree.  I would not judge D.T. by tomorrow's performance, but by his snap count if McCoy is banged up.

D.T. IMO is more a mid-season candidate.  Could've been tomorrow but I just think the match up (#1 run defense) and game script (probably high scoring and lots of passing) are not in his favor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ChuckLiddell said:

Why would this be true?  What is the rationale?  We are talking about height, not overall body weight.

Well for one thing, height and weight are correlated. I had always thought weight was what counted, and that height just went along for the ride. But just to check it out, I got all the rbs drafted since 2010 in this little spreadsheet. First confirmed both height and weight correlate to fantasy points; then I did height/weight vs fantasy points and found there's positive correlation. Although it's pretty miniscule I must admit. Both height and weight are about equally important, or more accurately, mostly unimportant.

Edited by cloppbeast
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, cloppbeast said:

It's better to be more taller if you want to be a runningback, but a lot of other things matter way more. 

Actually it isn't.

RB who are tall have a harder time getting their pads low enough to win leverage on contact. There haven't been that many highly productive RB over 6'2" I think RB who are taller than this are at a disadvantage compared to a shorter more compact frame.

Derrick Henry for example has length working against him.

There have been some great RB who were tall of course, but looking at the overall population of successful players, the majority of them are 2 inches from the ideal of 5'10" 

I think there have been more successful RB who were shorter than 5'10" than there have been successful RB significantly taller than this.

@ZWK did a study on this several years ago and he found correlation between weight and RB success but not height. Other metric studies I have looked at identify the same thing.

Share this post


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

Actually it isn't.

RB who are tall have a harder time getting their pads low enough to win leverage on contact. There haven't been that many highly productive RB over 6'2" I think RB who are taller than this are at a disadvantage compared to a shorter more compact frame.

Derrick Henry for example has length working against him.

There have been some great RB who were tall of course, but looking at the overall population of successful players, the majority of them are 2 inches from the ideal of 5'10" 

I think there have been more successful RB who were shorter than 5'10" than there have been successful RB significantly taller than this.

@ZWK did a study on this several years ago and he found correlation between weight and RB success but not height. Other metric studies I have looked at identify the same thing.

Id love to show my work, but this is not the thread to squabble over Rb height vs weight. Maybe next time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cloppbeast said:

Id love to show my work, but this is not the thread to squabble over Rb height vs weight. Maybe next time. 

That is worth its own thread I think if you or someone wanted to start one.

It is a topic that comes up a lot.

Share this post


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

It's better to be more taller if you want to be a runningback, but a lot of other things matter way more. 

I wish I was a little bit taller
I wish I was a baller
I wish I had a girl who looked good, I would call her
I wish I had a rabbit in a hat with a bat
And a six four Impala

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, cloppbeast said:

Id love to show my work, but this is not the thread to squabble over Rb height vs weight. Maybe next time. 

Any time you show evidence, the skeptics will show exceptions.  And there are plenty of exceptions.  Some Hall-of-Famers are exceptions.  Generally, size is a very good for a running back.  That is why 80%- 90% of starting running backs are 220+ pounds.  But a smaller guy can weigh less if he is solid.  Maurice Jones Drew was short but solid.  No part of him was not thick.  And some dudes are made of leather and their size does not impede them.  Barry Sanders was never hurt despite a heavy load and being on the small side.  Like when Ivan Drago said "he's not human, he is a piece of iron".  But size is good.  And speed is good.  And some dudes excel despite not having any natural benefits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ministry of Pain said:

Agreed and he also looks 5 foot 5, smurf. 

Yeah. He looks extra tiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Bigboy10182000 said:

That damn hurdle jump stuff has to go though. a) there was no need, he actually jumped INTO a defender, and b) that's the way you get some serious injuries - knee, ankle, groin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ministry of Pain said:

Agreed and he also looks 5 foot 5, smurf. 

Reminded me of a stronger looking Brian Westbrook 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Truebluey said:

That damn hurdle jump stuff has to go though. a) there was no need, he actually jumped INTO a defender, and b) that's the way you get some serious injuries - knee, ankle, groin.

saw that and thought the same. he actually anticipated an defender, who got blocked right as he was jumping, so he ended up jumping into a different defender.

where DT is lined up next to mahomes, he looks like the guy on the DirecTV commercial.

Share this post


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

That damn hurdle jump stuff has to go though. a) there was no need, he actually jumped INTO a defender, and b) that's the way you get some serious injuries - knee, ankle, groin.

Very true, the backup from the bengals was standing there like wtf is he doing, when he could have destroyed him. the dude has got a vert though, he got up there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Don Hutson said:

If Mahomes gets blowed up one time because Darwin misses a block, he could end up on the bench for the foreseeable future.

That’s the narrative people are spinning anyway. A bit hyperbolic if you ask me. 

In reality, veteran RBs miss blocks. Rookie RBs miss blocks. One missed block isn’t going to get him benched if Shady out there on one leg & DWill our there wearing jeans & a t-shirt on the sidelines. 

There'll be more rope than that for Thompson.  I’m excited to see what he can do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stops in to topic to see how it’s going....

 

 

 

:deadhorse:

 

Puts down the internet, backs away from topic slowly. Sloooooowly...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, IheartGuinness said:

All this back and forth... how many are actually starting this guy?

Same as it ever was...wait & see. 

Share this post


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

All this back and forth... how many are actually starting this guy?

I doubt anyone is benching quality starters for him.  In some leagues, he may be an owner's best option.  He will be on my bench for sure, but am sure glad to have him.  I didn't think he would already be in the "startable" discussion by week 3.

Share this post


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

I doubt anyone is benching quality starters for him.  In some leagues, he may be an owner's best option.  He will be on my bench for sure, but am sure glad to have him.  I didn't think he would already be in the "startable" discussion by week 3.

Right. Thanks to injuries, I'm in the unenviable position of having to choose between him and several low-tier guys like Gore and Chris Thompson (PPR). Yeah, I know...shirt, point, etc.  

Anyway, I'm just trying to gauge people's expectations for him. Seems like most are being cautiously optimistic, and benching him in the hopes that he develops into a worthwhile starter down the road.

Share this post


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

All this back and forth... how many are actually starting this guy?

🙋‍♂️

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.