Jercules

If he's effective, he'll fill the Michel role. He'll be the lead guy in a heavy running offense, you could certainly do worse. I'm sure there's someone around here who knows better than me, but it seems to me running QBs are good for running backs. The whole offense is built off of that option handoff.

Some brilliant FF minds in this thread. Great reading. Cheers

That certainly is the greatest opinion piece ever written in sports journalism. Thank you for the link.

For this week, is anyone else thinking they give Carson a rest after 26 carries Sunday afternoon and roll with Penny versus a defense he has had success against? Do heavily used backs continue to be heavily used on the extremely short week?

Sony Michel is working with the starters, but he's fumbled twice in two days.

Agreed. Is Atlanta really any better than Pittsburgh (I mean the amazing, red hot, pre-Sunday Pittsburgh, not the useless loser post-Sunday Pittsburgh that obviously never had a chance in hell)? The Falcons thrive on those chunk plays, and NE doesn't give up chunk plays. On defence, the only chance Atlanta has is if that pass rush can get to Brady, Bronco-style. Otherwise, they can be run on and passed on. Tough teams--mentally tough teams in particular--give the Pats problems. I don't know if Atlanta has that mettle, to keep coming if things aren't going right.

The point is he was worth a 2nd rounder when he was drafted, and he's clearly gained value since then. Everyone wants to point to only six quarters... fine, but that's six quarters more than Goff or Wentz and each of those guys costed an arm and a leg. Has Bradford, even once in his career, had a half as impressive as JG's against Miami? Has JG ever looked like crap? Every "insider account" story on this (where they get anonymous NFL executive opinions--not just yahoo fans like all of us ) says JG goes for a first bare minimum, perhaps even multiple firsts. The only way this doesn't happen is if Belichick decides to keep him (and that has everything to do with how he feels about Brissett, a point that does not get mentioned enough).

Funny thing is, as a Patriots fan, it's become typical to be disappointed in the returns Belichick gets in these trades. The biggest homers alive were still amazed that Collins went only for a conditional third. I remember basically this same debate when it was time to move Cassel: JG has physical gifts that everybody knew Cassel didn't, but still, a 2nd rounder for a starting QB AND a core defensive player (Vrabel)? Maybe Belichick can't make trades anymore unless he doesn't ask for anything. So many GMs fear for their jobs, they can't risk getting blatantly ripped off by the Emperor himself. For those reasons alone I bet JG goes for a 2nd rounder even though there's no question he's the top QB prospect/addition for the 2017 offseason and should easily command a 1st rounder and change.

Last six games of 2014 (including their playoff loss to the Colts): 120/201 (60%), 1380 yards, 6 TDs, 6 INTs, 1 fumble lost. He fell off a cliff.

Jarod Goff cost the Rams the #15, #43, #45, and #76 picks in the 2016 draft and their 1st and 3rd picks in the 2017 draft. Bradford went for a #1 and #4. I don't care to research what the Eagles paid for Wentz (or what the Redskins paid for RG3), but it was plenty more than that. JG (there's your abbreviation, btw), a 2nd round talent QB who spent a couple seasons being groomed by the best organization in football, is still young and is still cheap, and no other good options are available, isn't worth at least a 1st? Crazy.

McDaniels got canned for the same reason any other coach gets canned, because he was losing. Denver cheated the salary cap for their late 90's SB's under Bowlen: they don't give a crap if someone bends the rules a little. Peyton Manning showed 0 signs of slipping in his second-to-last year? You obviously didn't have him in fantasy.

If you're a believer in the NE offense, the one thing with Blount is he will be the redzone back, and they will give him a chance to punch it in before messing around with the pass. He's basically a hedge on the NE offense: if you have Brady and anyone else, having Blount allows you to monopolize their redzone production. Pittsburgh went mostly nickel and dime with their defenses today as an answer to Gronk/Bennett: not everyone will do this, but many will,and when they do blount will feast.

Ryan Mathews is the definition of an RB you can't trust, in real life or in fantasy.

The trouble is, Belichick can "stand on the shoulders of giants" in a way that Brady can't. Belichick is great largely because he's taken all the stuff that Marchibroda, and Bill Walsh,and Jimmy Johnson, etc. innovated and incorporated it into his performance, and has found ways to add to it here and there. Is Brady great because he benefits from QBing techniques developed by guys like Montana? Maybe, but I think the effect is far less for him. Brady versus Montana is a more legit comparison, in other words, than Belichick vs. Walsh, which is essentially like comparing Windows XP to Windows '97. (That being said.... the Patriots have succeeded without Brady, whereas Belichick disciple that's gone elsewhere has either floundered or been mediocre (much of the current Houston coaching staff is former Patriot guys). So there's that...)

Preseason doesn't mean s***. Nobody knows anything about what Foster can do against a prepared, first-string defense.