JamesTheScot

I was one of the skeptics who wasn’t touching him at a first round price. I’m a believer now. His dominance in touches was impressive. I expected more touches to be distributed among the stable of RB’s early in the season. 25 carries and 2 targets? Count me in. I suspect that pass blocking is still going to limit his receiving opportunities more than people realize, but I’ll gladly trade 1 target for 2 carries in an offense where you simply can’t stack the box against him. What last night showed is that Reid, like BB, is going to take the air out of the ball if the matchup or game flow dictates. In a related story, Mahomes is no longer a 1st or 2nd rounder for me. I think this season may be sort of maddening for Mahomes owners. Reid is going to exploit the fear of Mahomes to spring CEH. It controls the game clock and puts Mahomes in danger less often. What better recipe for a return to the Super Bowl than a healthy Mahomes picking apart your D with play action while sporting a clean jersey?

The CEH hype is out of control. My main league just drafted this weekend and this league has been going on since 1995. CEH went at the 1.10. I drafted Darwin at the 25.09 and then took Darrell and DeAndre at the 30.11 and 36.11 spots respectively. Clearly CEH has been crowned by the fantasy community. If you're the kinda guy who loves to draft value, there's somebody slipping to you at the end of the first or early second round who you didn't expect to be there thanks to the CEH effect. I still like Darwin to be the eventual #2 because I think he has a complete game. But Washington has solid passing game chops and Darrell played well, too. The big unknown is how much (if any) that Darwin has grown. Given how things are so jammed up right now with camps and practices, we probably won't know till the season starts. Which is why I grabbed all three to hedge my bets.

That's why ill be the contrarian and take Kelce. He's the clear #1 at his position in a format that requires a TE. Thomas is a near tie but I break the tie in Kelce's favor because he produces even when the other top KC targets are healthy. And I think E.Sanders is going to be a bigger drain on targets in NO than some think. Sanders is going to compliment Brees' old man "smarts" game and is going to be an attractive check down for Brees when Thomas is blanketed. I don't think Thomas is dropping out of the top 10 WR's by any means. But I can see some throws that Brees would have forced to Thomas in years past going to Sanders who is suddenly always open unlike the other prior Saints WR's. Brees is way to smart to force feed Thomas when Sanders is making it easy to keep the chains moving with lower risk.

The funny thing about this is that it seems pretty obvious that the o-line is a big part of the problem since both baacks were <4.0 ypc and they were routinely getting met at the LOS if not in the backfield. I have wondered if the criticism of Miller for his yards after contact might be a bit misplaced. Meeting first contact in the hole or in the backfield is very different than meeting contact at speed or on the backside of the hole. It's difficult to draw much from a sample size of a couple of carries. But 30 carries between them and what they were able to muster last night starts to tell a story. While Miller isn't special like I had hoped he might be as a rookie, he wouldn't be the first back in NFL history to be fairly dependent on competent blocking either.

I thought the positives were significant...that he isn't getting pulled in favor of Johnson when the Browns fall behind and they aren't pulling him in passing situations. I think this may be shaping up to be a situation where both backs are less compliments of each other and more in a larger/smaller timeshare situation. Crow can block and catch and Duke can run, so it's less about specialization than people think. That does bode well if one of them gets hurt because that could lead to a clear bellcow share for the healthy one rather than having a backup RB on the roster stepping into the niche touches the injured guy used to have. Of course that's easy for me to say as an owner of both where the combined cost from years past was pretty cheap. I'd be anxious right now if I owned Duke at this year's draft prices and someone else was holding Crow.

This is my read as well. I am a Washington investor. But it might be that Murray holds him off. The early stuff on Washington was good. But it may take an injury for him to get more than a COP/3rd Down role.

Aaron Rodgers said Jeff Janis is still trying to master the mental side of the game. "When he can stop thinking so much and react more, you see the athletic ability," Rodgers said. "He's obviously gifted very well with his athleticism, his jumping ability and his speed. He just needs to get to a level where he's not thinking as much and his instincts take over." Janis almost single-handedly saved the Packers' postseason run with two Hail Mary catches in the dying minutes of the Divisional Round loss, but he has yet to carve out a consistent role in the offense. These comments could help explain why. With Davante Adams' future in question, Janis has a real opportunity to seize a role, but he needs to show a better grasp of the offense. According to ESPN Packers reporter Rob Demovsky, third-year WR Jeff Janis "is still a raw guy," and it "seems he's just not there yet." Janis is running as a starter with Jordy Nelson (ACL) on active/PUP, but was reported to have had several miscommunications with Aaron Rodgers on the first day of camp. Demovsky considers Davante Adams the favorite to return as Green Bay's No. 3 receiver. Janis made waves for his monster game in the Divisional Round against Arizona, but he has just two career catches in the regular season. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Michael Cohen and Bob McGinn agreed on their Packers Podcast that third-year WR Jeff Janis has had a "disappointing" training camp so far. It's been the consensus among beat writers from other Packers media outlets, as well. McGinn did suggest Janis may be more of a "gamer" than practice player, and that Janis' performance in Green Bay's preseason games carries more weight than his play on the practice field. By all accounts, Janis has dropped too many passes and still struggles to get on the same page as Aaron Rodgers.

First, ask that to the guys that are insulted by believing they are the token interviews. Second, I don't think it unreasonable for anyone to question why someone must be compelled to do something (anything) against their will. Can there be justification for this interference with the individual's right to do best with his time and resources as he sees fit? Certainly. But whether such interference is justified IS the very heart of the question. If there is nothing to be gained, even if the motives were altruistic or well-intentioned, then that would certainly swing some (myself included) to think that the the individual's interest in self-autonomy should be respected over such interference or compulsion when it serves no real or tangible purpose other than that it assuages someone else's sense of guilt. I'm not a big fan of trampling over individual liberty simply because someone wants it to look like they are trying to do something when in reality nothing is being accomplished. The road to Hell and well-intended pavers and all that...

You can't legislate motives. It's THAT simple. That's the biggest hurdle to any sort of ethical/moral legalism. You can't effectively legislate morality. You can more efficiently legislate actions and inaction, but you can't really legislate motives and thoughts which drive those actions and inactions. Racism, in it's manifestation, is always going to occur in the context of some individual's internalized thought process. It happens when an individual does something or makes some decision for a racist reason. Did so-and-so not get that job because the interviewer was racist or because the interviewer had a legitimate or at least non-racist motivation to not hire so-and-so? To know the answer to that, you have to be able to look in a person's soul. But we can't do that so well. So we come up with these top-down, broad brush attempts at solutions like the RR which, by their very nature, invariably entangle all transactions, not just those transactions in which racists are involved.

Wow. You say you don't care about college production because you only care about which guy will be the better pro. Well, no $%#&. You think anyone on these boards cares about what these guys did in college for any reason other than how that might predict what they can do in the pros? At this point, with rookies, ALL you have is what they did in college and a little bit from the combine (if they were invited) and a little bit from OTA's and a day or two of training camps. That's it. Here's the thing, you may not know crap about Richards, but you are still taking a position on him in a draft when you pass on him because you don't know anything about him. The unknown defaults to a negative decision on a guy when you are in an affirmative selection format. You are going to pick someone, if you pass on him in favor of someone else, your HAVE made a decision on him. How is that a better thing to do than what you are giving the other poster grief for...which is taking a position based on what little is known about them from college? Now, I am a Washington owner, so maybe I am biased. But when I see blurbs about Washington that contain the context of him pushing Murray and getting first team reps and then I see blurbs about an UDFA who is opening eyes without any context that addresses depth charts or playing time or even role with the team, I don't get too excited. An UDFA exceeding expectations might mean he's simply performing better than they expected from an UDFA. It doesn't necessarily mean he's the next Arian Foster. I'd still favor Washington until I hear something solid about Richards passing him on the depth chart. It sounds to me like the Raiders did quite a bit of value mining in this draft. But that doesn't mean every nugget has equal value.

I'm still holding out hope. Lockett had 1 more target last year than Kearse (69 and 68 respectively) and his yards per reception (13.02) was nothing special. Both he and Kearse were a distant 3rd and 4th to Baldwin and both were behind Graham, who had by all accounts a wasted season. So in 2016, do I expect Baldwin or Graham to give way to either Lockett or Kearse? I think Wilson will pass more, but I don't see Lockett as the sole or even primary recipient of that increase. As between Kearse and Lockett I probably like Lockett more because I think Lockett is more talented and Graham can fill that size/jump ball role rather than forcing Kearse into it. But I still think Richardson is more talented than any other WR on the roster. I think he needs to stay healthy so he can show on the field what he has flashed and he needs to see the field some to get some real experience. For their costs of acquisition, I'm fine sitting back and taking a flier on Richardson. With Baldwin and Graham in place, I don't expect Lockett to rearrange that pecking order, so I see a ceiling there for him. But I think Richardson might be able to rearrange things if he's healthy. If I sit back and ask myself if I am more likely to be glad I stashed Richardson or more likely to regret that I passed on Lockett, I think I am more likely to be glad I stashed Richardson given the cost of acquisition and the ceiling I see for Lockett. There was this RB by the name of Robert Smith. Tantalizing talent but he never got his due because he was always injured. Until the season he didn't get injured. Then everyone clamored about what a talent he was and what a shame it was that he had been injured so much throughout his career. When there is a significant injury history that keeps a guy off the field, it can tend to also suppress the perception of the player's talent and ability. I fault no one for passing on a player due to injury risk. But it seems a bit short-sighted to go further and start to discount the player's talent when healthy.

I guess the teeth gnashing over the lack of results is somewhat humorous. You invent a rule that requires interviews but not hires, and then years later lament the fact that the rule hasn't really done anything and therefore must be "altered" to accomplish the stated goal. So can someone tell me how it can be altered to attain the stated goal? I mean, WTF did anyone expect? Did they think that racists are going to see the light and hire minorities because an interview miraculously changed their minds? Or did they think that non-racists won't just check the RR box and then go hire the guy they want? For the RR to work as intended, you have to believe that there were 1) minority candidates that were clearly better qualified than white candidates that 2) would get interviews they wouldn't otherwise get and that 3) the interviewer would only have such a slight touch of racism so as to not realize it so that he/she could have a revelation during the interview and be persuaded to give the minority candidate a chance. Tomlin was the perfect storm. But there are 32 NFL head coaching jobs in the world. We really think you can apply a statistical analysis to that small a number to claim with any credibility that we understand the dynamics involved in that kind of hiring decision sufficient to second-guess it? So back to my question about what to do now. If you've required interviews and that hasn't hasn't helped, what else is there to do if you believe the goal (more minority hiring) is worthy of more rule writing? Quotas. There, I said it. That's all you can do. Or get the owners and GM's out of it and let some blue ribbon committee of vetted non-racists do the hiring for all these teams. And if there is a perception in the league, even among minority candidates themselves, that there is only token compliance, how would a quota change that? I guess a token hire and subsequent firing one season later is less insulting than a token interview? I realize it isn't a popular solution, but is there a practical solution other than just letting old racist people die off or retire?

I think you guys are making the ole correlation versus causation error on this issue. Are coaches wrong? Sure. They make mistakes all the time. But Adams didn't get those looks because he was a 2nd round pick, he got those looks because of the things that made him the 2nd round pick of the same guys that waited until the 7th round to pick Janis. I see the same comment made on player salaries. While it may be true that at the time of the contract signing the team has a certain perception of the value of that player, that doesn't mean that that perception is static or that they somehow derive a greater benefit than winning games by sticking with him. The coaches are going to play the guys they think give them the best chance to win because those coaches get fired if they lose games.

Not if I signed a contract saying I can't and then took whatever it was they promised to pay me in return. I guess maybe I shouldn't have signed the contract? People limit their rights all the time by contract. Not sure why this should be any different.

Collective bargainers gonna collectively bargain. Everyone loves the leverage of union bargaining when it helps them stick it in the man's eye, but then they want to go all Frank Sinatra when when they realize the man is found in the compromise required of their union ties and those ties start to bind. I have no sympathy. They get what goes with it.