Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SSOG

  1. Rivers at 22 seems really low for me. He's got protection issues in spades, and a limited receiving corps, but he's not yet 32, has a resume full of production, and even in last year's "debacle" or a season, put up 4600+ yards and 27 TDs.A lot can change in an offseason... improve his O-line, give him a real WR (Mike Wallace perhaps?) and he could easily bounce back to his old ways.

    I agree. Rivers should be ranked higher.That team needs an injection of talent at WR. $25.9 million contract for Robert Meachem?
    Rivers is 31, which is not old at all if you're producing (Witness #4 Drew Brees), but is a problem if you're not. He's 4 years removed from his last elite fantasy finish, his team is trending downward, and he looks terrible. I'm officially abandoning ship.
  2. I could argue that Luck should be ranked over Ryan.Seems like Brandon Weeden should be in the conversation.

    You could argue it, and you'd have a very strong case. I wavered more on Luck vs Ryan than any other duo. Two weeks ago, I would have gone with Luck, and two weeks from now I might again, but Luck hasn't been as spectacular recently, and Ryan is essentially 5th in VBD to date. Weeden I'm not interested in. My QB ranks are heavily skewed towards upside since replacement level production is so cheap to acquire. Cleveland is a mess, and Weeden has looked poor while compiling strong counting stats on huge attempt totals. Plus, he's essentially the same age as Jay Cutler.
  3. Just for funsies:

    1- Rodgers

    2- Griffin

    3- Newton

    4- Brees

    5- Ryan

    6- Luck

    7- Stafford

    8- Roethlisberger

    9- Brady

    10- Eli

    11- Peyton

    12- Tannehill

    13- Romo

    14- Dalton

    15- Vick

    16- Flacco

    17- Locker

    18- Freeman

    19- Ponder

    20- Wilson

    21- Schaub

    22- Rivers

    23- Cutler

    24- Bradford

    Have at it, Shark Pool.

  4. According to Football Outsiders, Stafford is 9th in DYAR and 10th in DVOA, and Detroit is the 8th best passing offense. Sounds like business as usual. It's been partly obscured by the lack of TDs, and partly obscured by the tough schedule they've faced so far (4th toughest schedule of defenses to date). Still, it's not like he's playing appreciably worse than he did last year, he's just been putting up fewer points because of the lack of TDs.

    In terms of mechanics he is not "appreciably worse" than last year, but he won't have anywhere near last years numbers if he continues to play the way he has been. Last year was a fluke, a future outlier. His footwork and throwing motion have been poor since he entered the leaque and he rested on his (5000+ yard, 40+ TD) laurels instead of correcting those deficiencies. He probably is throwing sidearmed more often this season, though I'm not sure if that qualifies as "appreciably worse".Plus his coaching staff is mediocre. Poor work ethic and bad coaching is not a recipe for success.
    Agreed. People got blinded by his numbers. He was never as good as his raw stats last year. Still, he is who we thought he was- a low-end top-10 NFL QB.
  5. According to Football Outsiders, Stafford is 9th in DYAR and 10th in DVOA, and Detroit is the 8th best passing offense. Sounds like business as usual. It's been partly obscured by the lack of TDs, and partly obscured by the tough schedule they've faced so far (4th toughest schedule of defenses to date). Still, it's not like he's playing appreciably worse than he did last year, he's just been putting up fewer points because of the lack of TDs.

  6. What do we see his dynasty/keeper value at?I know a lot will depend on whether GB keeps Jennings next year, but even so, how do you keep this guy off the field? Could be GB's version of Harvin/Welker in the slot going forward.

    WR13-20 range in standard leagues. Obviously higher in return yardage leagues. My league rewards punt return yardage the same as receiving yardage, and there are about 8 receivers I would trade him for (Calvin, Green, Julio, Harvin, Nicks, Cruz, Demaryius, with Fitz, Dez, and Nelson as maybes).
  7. Apropos of nothing, Vincent Jackson is currently on pace for 160 targets, and has gotten at least 7 in every game. He's also looking like a good bet for a fourth straight (!!!) top 12 finish. Question for the doubters: is he winning you over, or do you still expect him to fall off?

  8. what a beast

    :goodposting: Get him in your dynasty league if it's not too late. Jennings will not be back after this season and Cobb looks like he has the makings of a star.
    26 receptions, 1 rush, 358 yards, and 3 scores in the last four games. Yardage total has gone up for four straight weeks. Quarterback calling him potentially the best pick in his GM's history. I agree that you should do what you've got to do to get him, but I fear it's already too late.
  9. Which brings us to the Williams contract. I dont remember the exact specifica, but DW can be cut following the season with significant savings against the cap for the team. I too was surprised when Stewart resigned with the team, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was with a wink and a nod that he'd get his shot next year and moving forward.

    Williams' contract details from Rotoworld:

    7/29/2011: Signed a five-year, $43 million contract. The deal contains $21 million guaranteed, including a $16 million signing bonus and $5 million of Williams' second-year base salary. 2012: $5.25 million, 2013: $4.75 million, 2014: $5.75 million, 2015: $6.75 million, 2016: Free Agent

    There are 3 seasons remaining on his contract after this season. I assume his $16M signing bonus is being prorated across the years of the contract for salary cap purposes, in standard fashion. If so, here is my take on his outlook:1. After this season, there would be $9.6M remaining to hit the cap. So if they cut him after this season, that means a $9.6M cap hit. I think it's much more likely they will pay him his $4.75M salary for 2013 and keep him.2. After the 2013 season, there would be $6.4M remaining to hit the cap. So if they cut him after the 2013 season, that means a $6.4M cap hit. I think it's much more likely they will pay him his $5.75M salary for 2014 and keep him. Or it's possible they could renegotiate his contract to extend him and reduce his cap numbers for 2013 and beyond.3. After the 2014 season, there would be just $3.2M remaining to hit the cap, so it seems likely they will not pay him his $6.75M salary. They would likely either cut him or renegotiate his salary and extend him another season or two, depending on how he is playing.Williams would have incentive to renegotiate after 2013 or 2014, since he would be turning 31 in April 2014 and 32 in April 2015, plus he already showed he prefers to stay with the Panthers.Bottom line, I think it is likely Williams is a Panther through his retirement from the NFL. And it seems likely Cam Newton and Tolbert will also be around throughout Stewart's prime.I own Stewart in one dynasty league, and I only start him when I have no other options. If I could trade him for anything useful, I would, but no one in my league values him.In non PPR leagues, he's only finished in the top 20 once, and it seems possible he never will again. It certainly seems like a long shot that he'll ever again finish as a RB1.
    What you left out is that his cap number for 2013 is actually his salary (4.75MM) plus the proration of his signing bonus (3.2MM), so while cutting him does cost the team slightly more against the cap (9.6MM vs 7.95MM), it's saving them money considering the bonus is a sunk cost - already paid, while the salary is not. That's $1.65MM against the cap to be free from the remainder of the contract. I'd say its plausible, given Stewart's extension, that the team approaches DW about a restructuring of his contract before next season, and if he refuses... It's plausible they could look to part ways.
    Good point. But if they were going to be willing to extend Stewart one year after resigning Williams and then use that as reason to cut Williams, why did they resign Williams in the first place? It doesn't make much sense.
    With the uncapped season approaching, Carolina started saving all of its pennies, putting a terrible team on the field and being very financially conservative until they saw how everything was going to shake out. This resulted in that atrocious 2-14 season and the firing of John Fox (who is a very good coach who just didn't have any groceries to make a meal out of). The problem was that, coming out of the uncapped season, the new CBA contained a salary floor, and Carolina was waaaaaay under it. In other words, they had to spend huge money, and there was nobody left on the market to spend it on, which resulted in ludicrous contracts like the Williams contract and the Olindo Mare contract ($12 million contract, cut after one season). In that context, the Williams contract wasn't so crazy- if you've got to overpay someone, you might as well overpay a fan favorite. But the point is that just because the Panthers gave him the huge contract doesn't mean they thought he was worth it, or that they're particularly married to him (witness Mare).
  10. Problem is he's never interested in a deal unless it grossly favors him.

    Welcome to FF.You just described 90% of the owners in my leagues. :wall:
    He's actually describing 100% of humans. It's loss aversion, and it's a hard-wired short circuit in our mental processing. We perceive losses as greater than gains. Some people, through experience and confidence in their evaluations, get to the point where they can work around it, but it never goes away entirely, and without that wealth of experience and bold confidence, it'll override any potential trade unless the gains far outweigh the losses. For what it's worth, monkeys are exactly the same. If you give a monkey a banana, he's going to be thrilled with you. If you give him two bananas and then take one away, he's going to try to maul you. Both instances produce the same result (the monkey has one more banana than he did), but in the second scenario, he can't see past the loss to appreciate the gain.
  11. I don't profess to know if there is more to this story than meets the eye, but for 2-3 pages now you have provided no insight other than to attack EBF for his stance on McFadden. Your assertion that EBF provides no value to the McFadden discussion because "he has long been a McFadden detractor" doesn't come close to the lack of value you have provided by constantly looking for ways to belittle his belief. Furthermore, I could care less if someone has disliked a particular player from the first day they entered the league or whether they have loved a player from the first day. What I am interested in is their thought process behind said belief and the reasoning for continuing to feel that way. I don't get the logic that says you need to warn newcomers that someone has always been a detractor of a player because it literally doesn't matter to the discussion one bit whatsoever. If I was entering this thread for the first time, I truly could care less what someone's ingrained belief on a player is and it wouldn't matter at all if they were "biased" against a player. What I am interested in is what they see/believe that causes that ingrained belief (and for the record, we are not exactly talking about a player that has blown away any reason to have that belief every step of the way. There is a legitimate case to be made either way).

    I realize EBF doesn't need me fighting any battles for him, just found the incessant needling to be unproductive to the thread.

    The bolded is pretty much the platonic ideal of our opinion-forming process, but the reality is sadly a different beast entirely. It's not that we see evidence, form a belief, and then take in all new data in an open minded manner and continually revise our existing belief. Instead, we are all slaves to far and away the most pervasive cognitive bias out there- confirmation bias. We take in and assimilate information that reinforces our preexisting beliefs, while ignoring information that contradicts. It's not a conscious process, so it's impossible to avoid, even if we are aware of it and on guard against it. We engage in motivated reasoning, where our mental faculties are bent, not towards objectively parsing the data, but towards crafting arguments to defend our initial position. There are just some players that, no matter what, we'll always have a blind spot on. That's why, when I was compiling my own rankings, I would always follow up by comparing them to other available rankings and hedging some of my more extreme positions. Yes, this led to a slightly more homogenized set of rankings, but it was really the only way to guard against my own biases, prejudices, and preconceptions. That's why spirited discussions like these are so valuable- other, neutral third parties can more readily see when we're engaging in motivated reasoning and ignoring a substantial portion of the evidence in front of us.

    Something to add onto this whole RB debate.

    Has anyone ever looked into the correlation between age and injuries.

    It seems the younger the players are, the more they get banged up. I obviously haven't looked into this myself, but It seems like a pretty consistent theme to me, for both RBs and WRs.

    Andre Calvin and Fitz all had season ending injuries within their first few years.. Calvin and Andre even labeled as injury prone.

    Up and comers Julio Jones, Dez Bryant,Demaryius Thomas, Kenny Britt, Hakeem Nicks all seem to be banged up on a consistent basis also... among many others. All of them entered the league at around 21 or 22.

    For RBs Frank Gore and Steven Jackson were known as some of the most injury prone backs around, once they hit 25 or 26, they rarely missed games after that point.

    Look at the past few draft classes: Ryan Williams, Mikel Leshoure, CJ Spiller Mark Ingram and Even Trent Richardson have either consistently been on the injury report or had season ending injuries.

    One of my theories on this is maybe young guys don't go the extra mile to keep their bodies in perfect shape(diet, serious off-season training) and maturity as a whole.

    Perhaps when you get to the NFL it takes a few years to learn how to avoid contact, I really don't know, but it seems like something is consistent here.

    Maybe their bodies aren't fully developed is another idea. Perhaps a full NFL season, in one way or another, causes an immature body to fail.

    My main point here is, how many of these guys are actually injury prone?

    It seems a larger % of these guys shed the Injury prone label around age 25 or 26.

    But then again, to completely contradict myself.... guys like Adrian Peterson and Matt Forte, who have never been 'injury prone' , get season ending injuries around where I suspect most shed the label.

    My head is spinning... someone figure this out for me LOL

    My first blush thought is that I'm extremely skeptical that injuries would be more common among young players. My second blush thought is that, actually, injuries might very well be more common among younger players, due to selection bias and other lurking variables. For instance, 40 year old QBs probably are less likely to get hurt than 33 year old QBs, because if you were injury prone, you'd be out of the league before age 40- only the most durable players survive, so it'd be no surprise if the players who survived wound up being more durable.

    With that said, I think the phenomenon you're noticing (young studs tend to get hurt) really is a much larger phenomenon. The NFL is a violent sport, and EVERYONE tends to get hurt. Literally every player in the league is a massive injury risk. Injuries to young players are less likely to be career-ending (if Michael Turner tears his ACL, teams probably won't be interested in a 2-year rehab project of a back on the wrong side of 30). Young players also recover from injuries quicker, and are more likely to return to pre-injury form. As a result, you should expect to see a lot of grizzled vets who had injury problems in their youth (because they had plenty of opportunity to recover), and fewer grizzled vets who had injury problems late in their career (because they were more likely to be cast aside).

    I'd be interested in seeing the data on the subject, but I'd be surprised if my initial reactions didn't hold up. Anatomy and physiology are cruel mistresses, but they are nothing if not inexorably predictable. As the body ages, it becomes more susceptible to life's ravages, not less so.

  12. YPC is great on paper but who knows if he'll ever get a chance to be the feature back. Once deangelo is gone they'll bring in someone else for him to share carries with. Great players stay on the field every down because you can't afford to sit them. Stewart isn't that type of back.

    Well, apparently neither are Aaron Rodgers or Steve Young or Ahman Green or Priest Holmes or Maurice Jones-Drew.
    Did anyone of those backs sit through their prime years like Stewart has? Maybe he's just not that great.
    Jones-Drew sat for three years. He was just fortunate that the all-NFL RB he shared a backfield with was 30, not 25. Otherwise, he would have spent even more of his prime in a time-share. Michael Turner also missed half his prime. These arguments against Stewart are literally the exact same arguments that were used against Jones-Drew in 2009. People said his ypc was inflated, that he physically couldn't handle the workload, and that his talent was wildly overrated because he couldn't keep Taylor off the field. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
  13. YPC is great on paper but who knows if he'll ever get a chance to be the feature back. Once deangelo is gone they'll bring in someone else for him to share carries with. Great players stay on the field every down because you can't afford to sit them. Stewart isn't that type of back.

    Well, apparently neither are Aaron Rodgers or Steve Young or Ahman Green or Priest Holmes or Maurice Jones-Drew.
  14. Ability, talent, potential - I hear these words all the time but Many times it doesn't translate to the field. I'd much rather have McFadden than Stewart in redrafts and dynasty. The one league I have Stewart in I'm always looking for someone else to start in his place. Almost like owning Chris Johnson except minus the breakout season.

    No breakout season? There are a lot of 2009 championship banners hanging over mantles as a result of Jonathan Stewart.
  15. Not saying I totally agree with EBF about the McFadden debate.

    But you have to admit, this place would be really boring if we all agreed about talent.

    Hell yeah. Plus there'd never be anyone to trade with.

    I don't care what some fantasy website says about broken tackles. I know what I have seen. McFadden doesn't make his own yards. If he has a good hole, he will gauge you like nobody's business. But if he doesn't have a big hole, he is pedestrian. It isn't just this year that we have seen this. Ray Rice, MJD, Gore, and ADP all find ways to be effective even if their line isn't blocking well. They are elite. McFadden does not and is not.

    "Who you gonna believe? Me or some website that compiles broken tackle stats?"

    You don't have much more credibility in talking about McFadden than EBF does (and he has none). While he has been the #1 DMC hater since 2008, you have a run a close second, always dissing him and rarely having anything good to say.

    Like EBF you see what you want to see in any game he plays and ignore anything else that does not confirm your bias.

    At least you should give a disclaimer as to where you are really coming from with this player, otherwise people new to this forum might actually think you have some sort of unbiased, objective opinion.

    Just because someone sees holes in a players game doesn't make him a "hater." Both EBF and I have always acknowledged that McFadden had talent. But he has always been overrated and has not lived up to the hype. I take pride in having been right about him. I said this off season that he was no good in the zone blocking scheme and I have been proven right. I have said that he lacks durability to be a true featured back, and in 5 years of being handed the job, he has repeatedly failed to be a bell weather back because of durability. That doesn't make me a hater: it makes me a realist. He is being used all wrong by the current coaching staff and i foresaw that. That doesn't make me a hater, that makes me a good fantasy football evaluator. His ideal role is as a change of pace back who is used heavily in the passing game and in the second half of games after the defense starts to tire. He can be effective in that role.
    EBF said that Darren McFadden is not a good football player. That's a direct quote.

    When will you guys realize that Jonathan Stewart is nothing special, just a plain back that will likely never break out? Take him over McFadden? Haha good one

    He already broke out. He has a top 12 finish in half a season as a starter. He owns the NFL record for most rushing yards in a player's first three starts. Only three RBs in the entire NFL have a higher career ypc. It just happens that one of those three RBs shares a backfield with him.
  16. It is actually pretty hilarious that I even have to argue the idea that the guy has been a disappointment when it's so patently obvious.

    I'm not arguing that McFadden isn't a disappointment. He clearly has been. It took him two years to figure things out (which happens sometimes with rookies), put up an uberstud season, got hurt in a second uberstud season, and is now miscast and struggling in the wrong scheme. In arguing with you because you said, and I quote, that McFadden is "not a good football player". That's preposterous. Someone can be a disappointment and still be a fantastic football player. Witness Jonathan Stewart.
  17. When McFadden was entering the league I said he was overrated and that he would not live up to his billing as the next Peterson. Through five years he has exactly one 1000+ yard rushing season and has been a major disappointment more often than not. I've been wrong about plenty of guys, but my read was dead on here. Sorry if you don't see it that way.

    Mendenhall has exactly two 1000 yard rushing seasons. Stewart has exactly one. So... You think McFadden is going to be terrible, he averages 11.08 points per game, and this is proof that you were right. You think Mendenhall is going to be great, he averages 11.22 points per make, and this is proof that you were right. You think that Stewart is going to be a stud, he averages 9.45 points per game, and this is proof that you were right. You think Mendenhall is going to be durable, he plays 53 games in 5 years, and this is proof that you were right. You think McFadden is going to be injury prone, he plays 50 games in 5 years, and this is proof that you were right. No wonder your read is dead on- the data apparently means whatever you want it to mean. When you like a guy who is a good receiver, those receiving numbers are your trump card. When you don't like a guy who is a good receiver, you pretend those receiving yards don't exist. You keep insisting that Mendenhall has had a better career than McFadden, but McFadden has put up 200 more yards in 3 fewer games at a half a yard more per carry for a worse team. Mendenhall's team is likely to let him walk at the end of the year. What are the chances Oakland lets McFadden walk?
  18. You can bend over backwards trying to convince yourself that he's a star. He isn't and he never will be. One good season after five years in the league. Not even among the top 5 backs in his draft class in terms of career total yardage. Less productive to date than Jonathan Stewart, who (ironically) is widely accepted to be a perennial tease and disappointment by the same people who keep drinking the DMC Kool-Aid every year.

    Who is bending over backwards? I'm not the guy saying that ypc is a great indicator, except when a back I don't like has a great ypc, or a back I do like has a poor ypc. I'm not the guy making the "health is a skill" argument to justify putting one RB over another RB who has played a whopping 3 fewer games over the course of his career. I'm not the one who is conveniently forgetting that receiving yards exist whenever it is convenient to the narrative I'm trying to tell (especially after spending so many years talking about nothing but receptions and receiving yards to back up my support of Reggie Bush). Look, sometimes you take a moderate stance about a player, and then you're happy to admit that stance was wrong. Other times you take a heavy stance on a player, and you defend that stance to the death. Such was the case with Reggie Bush, who you continually lauded for his huge numbers of garbage receptions (making him PPR viable), while killing Forte over vastly superior efficiency metrics. Such is the case for McFadden, who has caused you to forget that PPR even exists as a scoring option. Such is the case with Mendenhall, a mediocre talent if ever there was one who consistently puts up blah rate stats. Such is the case with Crabtree, who you traded Calvin Freaking Johnson for. You never talk about AJ Green anymore, but for all I know, you're still not sold on him and think Blackmon will be a better pro. Look, sometimes someone takes a hard stance and is wrong. I thought for sure Devin Hester would be a 800-1000 yard receiver by now. I thought Marshall would have played his way out of the league, and Evans would be a perennial pro bowler. I thought Ocho would discover the fountain of youth and hold off Nicks in scoring for several more years. I was spectacularly wrong on all counts. Wesseling was all aboard on Knowshon Moreno for years after it was apparent he didn't have the goods. At some point, you just have to admit it and move on. You still want to tell me McFadden is a bad RB who just happens to possess elite straight line speed? Guess what: I've seen Felix Jones play. I've seen Tatum Bell play. I've seen Michael Bennett play. I've seen Darren McFadden play. I know the difference.
  19. Defending inefficient backs with the "talent" for staying healthy is ironic given your stance on Forte. It's doubly ironic given that you're mounting it as a defense of Mendenhall, who has played a whopping 3 more games than McFadden.

    Who cares if McFadden is only an uberstud in very specific schemes? Is the same not true of Welker?

  20. You're probably the only person on the planet not related to Mendenhall who thinks he's a better back than McFadden.

    It's lonely at the top. :thumbup: McFadden is not a good football player. All speed. No moves. Bad body type. No durability. Big bust given what he was hyped to be. It has been funny bashing Chicken Legs all these years and having people insist that I'm wrong about him while he torpedoes their FF teams season after season. Guy is a total fraud. If other people don't see it, that's fine. I've been lucky enough to duck that albatross in all my dynasty leagues and I'm better off for it. Mendy has had his share of injuries as well. Even with that being the case, he still has more career rushing yards. I would expect the gap to keep growing.
    Yes, Mendy has more rushing yards. And McFadden has more receiving yards. Those count, too, right? McFadden has twice as many receptions, which count extra in ppr leagues. McFadden has produced nearly identical totals to Mendy on a worse team with less of a commitment to the running game. He's done it far more efficiently. Mendy has put up the kind of ypc totals that you were busy excoriating Forte for (rightly so, in my opinion). McFadden has put up a ypc more in line with Stewart, MJD, and Peterson. And yet, despite your love of efficiency metrics, you are completely blind to what is glaringly obvious to everyone else on the planet. As I said, you just have no credibility on this subject.
  21. Nah, I was really down on Gore and Marshall. Gore because of his injury history and horrendous workouts. Marshall because he just looked slow to me. I think my exact words were that he "looks like he's running in molasses." When it became clear that I was dead wrong on both accounts, I quickly did a 180. Happens all the time. Torrey Smith is another recent example. Didn't like him last year. Like him now and have tried to trade for him in a few leagues. I'm plenty flexible in my opinions. Forte's YPC has increased significantly since the days when I was ripping on him, which is why I've had almost nothing bad to say about him for the last 1-2 years. The difference with McFadden and Locker is that they haven't really done anything to prove me wrong. McFadden was billed as the next Peterson by some and has only managed 1 good season in 5 years. If anything, he has justified my skepticism.As for Locker, the jury is still out. If a couple years pass and he's completing 60% of his passes at 8.0 YPA then I'll be the first one in line to admit how wrong I was. But after watching him struggle for years in college, I find that outcome unlikely. Hence my current stance. My general approach is to develop a strong opinion of a player early and then stick to that opinion until given clear evidence that it's wrong. I've always been this way and I don't see my strategy changing much. People often confuse it for stubbornness or an unwillingness to admit that you're wrong, but it's more about strength of conviction than anything. If I think a player is crap, it's gonna take more than a few good games to convince me otherwise. If I think a player's great, it's gonna take more than a season or two of struggling to change my mind. It's pretty much that simple. Sometimes the change happens faster based on what I'm seeing. Sometimes it takes a while.

    EBF, you know I love you, man, but you really have no credibility on McFadden at this point. Witness:RB1- 50 games played, 37 starts, 2898 rushing at 4.5 per, 1330 receiving at 9.7 per, 22 TDs, 554 fantasy points (11.08 per game)RB2- 53 games played, 46 starts, 3441 rushing at 4.1 per, 643 receiving at 8.9 per, 31 TDs, 595 fantasy points (11.22 per game)The first guy is McFadden, who you are lower on than anyone else is. The second is Mendenhall, who you are higher on than anyone else is. The numbers make it abundantly clear that both backs are nearly identical in terms of production and durability, while McFadden blows Mendenhall away in terms of efficiency, and yet one guy hasn't shown you anything while another guy has shown enough to convince you he's one of the best backs in the league. You're probably the only person on the planet not related to Mendenhall who thinks he's a better back than McFadden.
  22. You guys are right. Thomas isn't as good as Green. He's actually better. :boxing: Green - 628 yards on 67 targets (9.37 yards per target)Thomas - 513 yards on 46 targets (11.15 yards per target) Also has a slightly higher catch %.

    That's right. And Green is catching passes from a 4-time league MVP with a credible wr2 drawing coverages, while Demaryius is stuck as the only real threat on one of the most historically inept franchises in history shagging balls from a second year QB. Which really just makes Thomas look even better by comparison.
  • Create New...