Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Jercules

Members
  • Posts

    568
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jercules

  1. 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.
  2. Some brilliant FF minds in this thread. Great reading. Cheers
  3. That certainly is the greatest opinion piece ever written in sports journalism. Thank you for the link.
  4. 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?
  5. Sony Michel is working with the starters, but he's fumbled twice in two days.
  6. 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.
  7. 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).
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Ryan Mathews is the definition of an RB you can't trust, in real life or in fantasy.
  14. 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...)
  15. Preseason doesn't mean s***. Nobody knows anything about what Foster can do against a prepared, first-string defense.
  16. It's gonna be a big deal for the "Shanahan" offenses: Atlanta and Denver. I don't know, at this point I'm like "wake me up for the AFCCG" as far as cheering for this team goes. We can bicker over whether or not they need X or Y right now, but by far the bigger question is can they stay healthy this year, which is not something we can answer. They've gone to SBs with far less personnel-wise than they have right now. That being said, I hope they find a replacement for what Ridley brought to the offense: a two-down, 20+ carry back who can take pressure off of Brady. Blount is more of a match-up play. Lewis and White are 3rd-down backs. Brown? Maybe, SD's GM was pretty glowing about him. I hope for Foster, although somebody that could conceivably still be healthy come January would be even better.
  17. There's so many considerations that conceivably can go into whether or not to draft a player, it surprises me how often layman fans sit there and criticize with such confidence. Gronkowski, Collins, Hightower, Chandler Jones, McCourty, Solder, Vollmer... I ask, in all sincerity, who has drafted better than the Patriots in recent years? If you can name a few teams, fine, but remember that in a league of 32 teams, you'd need to have about half the league on your list before you can credibly characterize Belichick as being "bad". Especially since NE, being a perennial playoff team, is a tough environment for rookies. Not only is there more intensity, there are less spots available (especially since the Patriots, unlike a lot of teams, aren't about to just stuff the special teams units with cheap rookies). They're also not about to take a rookie and make him the centerpiece of the offense/defense (e.g. Gurley in St. Louis), so when he compiles all those stats and sells all that merchandise, the GM looks even more like a genius. The Patriots are also not willing to play guys based upon who the GM wants to see on the field (e.g. Indianapolis, particularly with Trent Richardson--wasn't a rookie, but still). The best guys play, and sometimes the rookies that everyone thinks are busts (e.g. Vereen for a while) are actually helping the team immensely in practice. Honestly, I'm a Pats fan, but the truth is this: They are good because they actually do what people think every team in the league is doing; putting the best product they can on the field, without letting egos, apathy, or fan pressures get in the way.
  18. They seem to be going heavy with the reclamation projects this year.
  19. And you expect them to predict injuries? You expect them to be perfectly, bulletproof deep at EVERY position? I'll bet anything that the offense, with nothing but the usual names, will be as awesome as always this season, and the defense will see serious injuries... or not, who knows!
  20. How do you prepare in March for a playoff game? Because they'll be in the playoffs, certainly. They've done it emphatically with far less talent than what they have now. It all boils down to whether they have what it takes to beat the latest "flavour-of-the-month" team that sucked before, and will suck again, but rules for the time being (e.g. Denver, Baltimore, etc.)
  21. I dunno, I think they do everything they can. To get as close as they did with so many injuries is a huge accomplishment. As usual, while all these other teams face major off-season issues, there is zero reason to doubt the Patriots as at least another AFC finalist. They get a lot of mileage out of superior scouting and game planning, and I suspect that advantage shrinks tremendously when the playoffs roll around. Suddenly every opposing coach and player starts putting in the extra effort too. But all this realism is no fun: I think we need to replace Ridley (yes, Ridley); get a guy who can carry it 20 times a game and give us another dimension on offense. Blount can't carry the load, plus I think given the athletes we have on the O-line (no real maulers), I think a slasher style works better (everyone in Pats Nation is obsessed about getting Forte... how about Arian Foster?)
  22. I'll go one step further and say they should have kicked a FG with 4th and 1 at the 16. Making that puts them down 5 with 6 minutes left. All they need then is a stop, which they got, and a TD (or two FG's). They wouldn't have even needed the Gronk TD at the end and could have milked the clock down to zero and kicked the game-winning FG with no time left. BB was way too aggressive in a game where Peyton wasn't moving the ball well. The common fallacy that you guys are falling victim to is that everything would have played out exactly the same way if they had kicked the FG (either time). Of course these decisions are going to be scrutinized (which is the reason most coaches generally aren't aggressive enough IMO), but I think you can make a pretty good argument either way. Of course the game wouldn't have been the same. But I'd rather be down five kicking off with 2:25 to go and 3 timeouts, than down eight going for it on fourth and 6 with 2:25 to go. That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that those aren't the only two possibilities, nor does it change the fact that we can't say for sure which of those options gives them the better chance to win the game. It was a pretty simple decision; kick the FG or go for it. Assuming a 33-yard FG is more or less an extra point, let's call it 94%. I'll leave out the scenario where you miss the FG and still win the game, so assume you lose 6% of the time for missing the FG. Now you're kicking off with 2:25 left down 5 with 3 TOs. Do you think you have less than a 10% chance of winning in that scenario? You need to keep the other team from getting two first downs, and then score a TD. Seems not too hard. 15, 20%? But you only need one yard, and you haven't gotten so far all game. They convert and tie the game with minutes to spare, or get within two with enough time to force a stop and maybe go for the win, or, at worst, lose a little more time and kick the fg (ending up with the scenario you describe). I happen to agree with you: Take the points, give your D some credit (I wonder if it had been even only 4th and 2, if that's what would have happened). But it's certainly not as cut-and-dried as you describe. (EDIT: Obviously I'm talking about the first 4th down call. I think 4th and 6 had to happen. Even with all the timeouts, at 2:25, one first down and you're screwed). I think Bill Belichick deserves to be second-guessed; I'm not sure anybody on this message board is qualified to do it. Congrats to the Broncos fans. Manning's got a chance to go out just like Elway did.
  23. That first article is just so stupid... the guy begins by immediately saying he's in no position to question Bill Belichick about anything football related, then, of course, he does just that. Does he have any statistics? Any compelling evidence to back up his arguments? The guy is being paid to write articles like this, he can't be bothered to get a quick stat on OT win percentages when kicking vs. receiving since the OT rules were changed? No, he just gives a few short declarative sentences that read nice enough, and repeats the phrase "you have Tom Brady" over and over as if Tom had been lighting it up out there today. Then he takes two "controversial" BB decisions, says one was stupid even though it worked (kicking in OT v. Denver), then says the other was stupid BECAUSE it didn't work (4th and 2 vs. Indy). What an awful excuse to bump this thread, I'm sorry. (And not only was this not some colossal blunder by Belichick, it was actually a correct decision! Were it not for a fluky 40 yard gain where two defenders ran into each other, things might have been fine.)
  24. Yeah, including PFM -- you gots Brady vs QB starting 2nd game ever--suck it up!How about them Ravens.. Hey DBC, you know I love ya and all, so yeah, just think of the Ravens when you sulk about the Pats bad luck this year...(@10-0)This is a fair point. Us Pats fans are so unbelievably spoiled.
  25. Blount is game plan dependent. The interesting thing is this: If you're arrogant enough to think you can predict when he'll be used heavily, he could be outstanding for your team.
×
  • Create New...