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!
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...NFL&id=5420
Get him cheap while you can.
I assume he reads Mike Lombardi, and is changing his gameplan as we speak.
Who's the schmuck?
It wasn't me...I waited until the 13th round!Who's the schmuck?
Nope, Benson is a free agent after this season. Last time Cincy gave a fat extension to a RB was Rudi, and that didn't work out. So while Scott may have limited value this season, he's a smart pickup for dynasty owners in case the Bengals don't resign Benson.
Not that it really matters much for purposes of the thread topic, but, assuming Rotoworld has accurate contract info, 2010 is the last year of Benson's deal. He's a free agent in 2011.
The point is that - like it or not - the more the press talks about fantasy gems like Scott the more their value begins to creep up.So if you want him now might be a good time to get him. Personally it doesn't change my opinion at all. He was my #1 RB target after the 10th round in all formats this year. I own him in all of my leagues.Giants4Life said:
So now the press determines value? I dont get it. An article on Bernard Scott doesnt change his value
I actually appreciate these posts. Not like he's saying it's gospel or painting it as something it's not. Good to have opposing views but let's not be so down on these postings that they stop happening.I'll put Scott on my redraft radar.
he meant cost. depending on your def of value, this could decrease his value.
I'm not a big fan of Scott in dynasty formats. He turns 27 in February, and he's a headcase that could blow up at any point. I don't see enough upside in him to warrant a roster spot at this time, unless you play in larger leagues. If Scott does start next year, then yeah, I suppose any starter is worth a roster spot. Too much risk, not enough upside IMO.
Me -- he's the RB I took a flier on in the last round of my draft, knowing his value if Benson goes down and that he could pick up some playing time every game...and dropped him for Huggins in preseason hype.Who's the schmuck?
Im going C. Scott has little production unless Benson is hurt/suspended.
For the record, that is insane.My answer is A for now with the potential to morph closer to C depending on Brian Leonard's health. The Bengals don't throw to backs enough to make a 3rd down back rosterable and thats even more true when he'd be splitting those catches with Brian Leonard.
D. But how long can you sit waiting for Bumson to go down? That is the question. He will very spotty at best until then.
I own both in a dynasty league and I pretty much see it as: C
though of course most Bengals fans know this already.The one thing I can see that will keep Scott back a bit is that Benson tends to play better and get in a better groove the more he gets the rock. B Scott will probably still have one or two series unless something happens to Ced Ben. If Benson (God forbid) gets hurt again, I don't think Scott would see quite the same kind of load - you'd probably see about 20 or so carries for Scott with a max of say 25 with Peerman getting about 3 series again and around 10 totes.-QG
There are almost no RBs that get 25 carries per game. Or even 20 for that matter.The 30 carry RB is a myth. Look it up.
Per game yes, no back gets close to 500 carries in a season but backs still get 30 from time to time, ie Foster.There are almost no RBs that get 25 carries per game. Or even 20 for that matter.The 30 carry RB is a myth. Look it up.
C'mon man. RBs have 480-carry seasons all the timeThere are almost no RBs that get 25 carries per game. Or even 20 for that matter.The 30 carry RB is a myth. Look it up.
What I mean by 30 carries is that when they are on all cylinders he'll tote the rock that many times. It'll vary by conditions of course. I see about 90/10 split when they are up and running the ball strong. I think this ratio would be less if Benson were hurt and Scott the number 1 - more like 75/25 or even 70/30.-QG
You can't always get what you want. Unless Benson gets injured, Scott will only get minimal touches.
The most popular player on the team is the backup quarterback.The most popular player on the message boards is the backup running back.Football Jones said:
Nice contribution. What's implied is that people are wasting their time talking about backups. But far more starting RB's either go down with injury (Benson himself was limited in practice on Wednesday w/ shoulder issues) and/or get outplayed during the course of the season than QB's.Identifying, evaluating, and making judicious waiver wire pickups/drops, as well as handcuff or "lottery" choices in deep rosters during the season can be key either for in-season redraft roster or dynasty. Please don't attempt to de-rail what has become a good thread started by the OP.
It's a figure of speech, dude. It's easier to say than "23.5 touches per game on average with a few 30-carry games thrown in the mix".whodeywhodey said:
Big difference between "talking about backups" and "anointing a backup as a feature back waiting to happen". One can be quite productive; the other would be outlawed by Christine O'Donnell.
-QG
-QG
