Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Any thoughts on Gerhart? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bri
- Start date
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I don't fault the strategy. They may have picked the wrong guy. He wasn't a good compliment to Peterson, and when Peterson was out, he was pedestrian as a lead back.
I expect St. Louis to draft a RB in the 2nd or 3rd. Other teams that have #1 RBs that probably aren't happy with their depth are Denver, Philly, Tampa.
I think a lot of teams with elite backs are happy with their depth. Tennessee has Ringer. Houston has Ward and Tate. Jax has Jennings and Karim. SF has Dixon. Pittsburgh has Redman. Atlanta has Snelling.
Teams that will take a RB if it's BPA are New England, the Giants, Packers.
I expect St. Louis to draft a RB in the 2nd or 3rd. Other teams that have #1 RBs that probably aren't happy with their depth are Denver, Philly, Tampa.
I think a lot of teams with elite backs are happy with their depth. Tennessee has Ringer. Houston has Ward and Tate. Jax has Jennings and Karim. SF has Dixon. Pittsburgh has Redman. Atlanta has Snelling.
Teams that will take a RB if it's BPA are New England, the Giants, Packers.
loose circuits
Footballguy
pretty much agree with everything here. Atlanta may need a contingent plan as Snelling is a RFA. Same with Tolbert in San Diego.Not sure I see much difference with the backs that will be drafted in the 2nd v the guys that will be available much later. If I was a team looking for a back this year, I'd just wait and take whomever falls to the later rounds unless no other position peaked my interest at that spot. I see the 2-20 as pretty similar prospects, all have some holes but also some things to like
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
I agree, except Ill go even a step farther. If they miss on Julio Jones at WR, and another player or two they covet doesnt get to them... don't flip out when they take the talent that is Mark Ingram.Jackson will be 28 when the season starts. Meanwhile Sam Braford will be 23 and Ingram will be 21.
mlball77
Footballguy
I agree.Gerhart sort of seems like he could be a decent grinder at RB if given the chance. Not flashy and not likely to break many long runs, yet effective in moving the chains. He doesn’t have that wow factor, but I am not writing him off at this early stage in his career due to such.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
I agree. For instance, I think Gerhart in GB or Miami would have been a VERY productive fantasy producer...now I've just got to wait for him to fill in well for Peterson at some point, so I can unload him for what he SHOULD be worth as a handcuff, rather than his perceived value now.Unless he really performs well, or the injury to Peterson is for awhile...then I'd probably hang onto him, because his value as a starter could be worth more than his trade value.
So were the Vikings wise to draft him? What about someone else in his round of the draft? Which would have been better for the team?
Donnybrook
Footballguy
This is how I would answer those questions. NO. NO. I don't think we was worth of a second round pick. Minnesota thought he could catch the football because he played baseball. Last year in one of mock draft threads, I made the comment that he wasn't a good fit in Cleveland because they already had Peyton Hillis. Then, I had read the posts of all the draftnik know-it-alls tell me how he was soo much better than Hillis. Apparently, I was somehow construed to be a racist just for making the comparison etc. A year later we all know the truth. Gerhart needs to improve in many ways especially his receiving ability so one day he can be considered as good as Hillis.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
With ease? Give me a break.
His "above average" nose for the goal line netted him 1 (one) TD last year. I'm guessing the average was 0 (zero)? Seriously, I watched the Redskin game (against one of the worst defences in the league last year) and he looked very pedestrian. He almost averaged 4 yards that game but it was more the bad defence than his good running ability.
griff321
Footballguy
I don't think you can use TDs as a metric to evaluate his "nose" for the goal line. I know last preseason hype had Gerhart stealing all the goal line carries, but like I told many before the season it was a faulty assumption. According to FFArmory.com Gerhart was never used once in this capacity by the Vikings this season. You could say that his lack of opportunity is indicative of a deficiency of talent, but in my opinion the correlation is explained by being behind one of the very best goal line backs in the league. So, the onus is still on owners to make a subjective evaluation of his goal line ability in the NFL. I think what's lost in this mix is also just how bad the Vikings run blocking was last year and the guy still managed a 4.0ypc.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
This is sig-worthy
griff321
Footballguy
This is sig-worthy
What a well thought out rebuttal that's chock full of examples or at the very least a solid opinion. Thank you for reading the entire post and addressing the actual substance. Instead of appealing to narcissism you took the high road.Any opinion on the actual substance of my argument that we haven't yet seen him in this role at all, so it's a faulty evaluation to look at TD numbers?
Traditionally the backups of top backs are in such an ideal situation that they do perform quite favorably. Why do you disagree? Or is it you just think he'd struggle to be top 20?
I think that's what you meant. (not quoting the rebuttals if ya don't mind) If so I agree
