fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Bingo
That's not necessarily what really matters in a dynasty league - I know you know that. Would anyone every really want to start McFadden? If not I'd much rather use the roster spot to take the chance on Michael amounting to something.He'll probably score more than CM, which is all that really matters.Yea, bc he'll prob score a lot points this season, maybe even more next year.Some people play in leagues where points still count in 2015 & 2016, not just 2017 & beyond.Why would anyone even roster DMC anymore? He'll be out of the league within 2 years and on the high end has another 3-4 TDs in him.Got offered McFadden for CMike- Dynasty
Would anyone really want to start CM? That's a terrible correlation.We at least know McFadden has a role in the offense, even if it's limited. His role, like CM's is primed to expand. Probably more so. He's likely the 3rd down back now.That's not necessarily what really matters in a dynasty league - I know you know that. Would anyone every really want to start McFadden? If not I'd much rather use the roster spot to take the chance on Michael amounting to something.He'll probably score more than CM, which is all that really matters.Yea, bc he'll prob score a lot points this season, maybe even more next year.Some people play in leagues where points still count in 2015 & 2016, not just 2017 & beyond.Why would anyone even roster DMC anymore? He'll be out of the league within 2 years and on the high end has another 3-4 TDs in him.Got offered McFadden for CMike- Dynasty
McFadden is a proven mediocrity over the last couple of seasons. I really don't see any upside even if his role expands. I'm not even a Michael supporter, but as an unknown he's a better dynasty asset than a veteran mediocrity that you'd be loathe to start on your team.Would anyone really want to start CM? That's a terrible correlation.We at least know McFadden has a role in the offense, even if it's limited. His role, like CM's is primed to expand. Probably more so. He's likely the 3rd down back now.That's not necessarily what really matters in a dynasty league - I know you know that. Would anyone every really want to start McFadden? If not I'd much rather use the roster spot to take the chance on Michael amounting to something.He'll probably score more than CM, which is all that really matters.Yea, bc he'll prob score a lot points this season, maybe even more next year.Some people play in leagues where points still count in 2015 & 2016, not just 2017 & beyond.Why would anyone even roster DMC anymore? He'll be out of the league within 2 years and on the high end has another 3-4 TDs in him.Got offered McFadden for CMike- Dynasty
This is pretty ridiculous. Anyone who gets an expanded role has greater upside than they had before. This is true for both McFaddn and CM right now. Short term, McFadden has more value. Perhaps long term CM does. Even still you are basically rewarding a guy for doing nothing which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Mediocre RBs are capable of rewarding fantasy owners if they get opportunity. We see it every year. Guys who aren't getting on the field on the other hand, can't. Plus, we haven't even seen CM prove he is capable of being mediocre let alone more. Nothing thus far suggest he is but the book is still being written.McFadden is a proven mediocrity over the last couple of seasons. I really don't see any upside even if his role expands. I'm not even a Michael supporter, but as an unknown he's a better dynasty asset than a veteran mediocrity that you'd be loathe to start on your team.Would anyone really want to start CM? That's a terrible correlation.We at least know McFadden has a role in the offense, even if it's limited. His role, like CM's is primed to expand. Probably more so. He's likely the 3rd down back now.That's not necessarily what really matters in a dynasty league - I know you know that. Would anyone every really want to start McFadden? If not I'd much rather use the roster spot to take the chance on Michael amounting to something.He'll probably score more than CM, which is all that really matters.Yea, bc he'll prob score a lot points this season, maybe even more next year.Some people play in leagues where points still count in 2015 & 2016, not just 2017 & beyond.Why would anyone even roster DMC anymore? He'll be out of the league within 2 years and on the high end has another 3-4 TDs in him.Got offered McFadden for CMike- Dynasty
I am forced to start him at flex this week with bye weeks and injuries killing me.Sounds like we are gonna get a good 7 carries this week for sure. Down big, they'll have nothing to lose but to try to get him going. Gonna be crazy in here on Sunday.
Would anyone want to start CM today? No. Would anyone want to start McFadden today? No.Would anyone really want to start CM? That's a terrible correlation.We at least know McFadden has a role in the offense, even if it's limited. His role, like CM's is primed to expand. Probably more so. He's likely the 3rd down back now.That's not necessarily what really matters in a dynasty league - I know you know that. Would anyone every really want to start McFadden? If not I'd much rather use the roster spot to take the chance on Michael amounting to something.He'll probably score more than CM, which is all that really matters.Yea, bc he'll prob score a lot points this season, maybe even more next year.Some people play in leagues where points still count in 2015 & 2016, not just 2017 & beyond.Why would anyone even roster DMC anymore? He'll be out of the league within 2 years and on the high end has another 3-4 TDs in him.Got offered McFadden for CMike- Dynasty
You have no idea if CM has a higher ceiling. That fine if you want to believe that but it's pure speculation. Don't present it as if it's a fact.Would anyone want to start CM today? No. Would anyone want to start McFadden today? No.Would anyone really want to start CM? That's a terrible correlation.We at least know McFadden has a role in the offense, even if it's limited. His role, like CM's is primed to expand. Probably more so. He's likely the 3rd down back now.That's not necessarily what really matters in a dynasty league - I know you know that. Would anyone every really want to start McFadden? If not I'd much rather use the roster spot to take the chance on Michael amounting to something.He'll probably score more than CM, which is all that really matters.Yea, bc he'll prob score a lot points this season, maybe even more next year.Some people play in leagues where points still count in 2015 & 2016, not just 2017 & beyond.Why would anyone even roster DMC anymore? He'll be out of the league within 2 years and on the high end has another 3-4 TDs in him.Got offered McFadden for CMike- Dynasty
Which of these two has a higher ceiling? Michael. So I'd rather have Michael not starting on my bench than McFadden.
It seems rather obvious IMO.
come on jurb, as silly as this CMike thread is, no one wants McFadden.This is pretty ridiculous. Anyone who gets an expanded role has greater upside than they had before. This is true for both McFaddn and CM right now. Short term, McFadden has more value. Perhaps long term CM does. Even still you are basically rewarding a guy for doing nothing which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.Mediocre RBs are capable of rewarding fantasy owners if they get opportunity. We see it every year. Guys who aren't getting on the field on the other hand, can't. Plus, we haven't even seen CM prove he is capable of being mediocre let alone more. Nothing thus far suggest he is but the book is still being written.McFadden is a proven mediocrity over the last couple of seasons. I really don't see any upside even if his role expands. I'm not even a Michael supporter, but as an unknown he's a better dynasty asset than a veteran mediocrity that you'd be loathe to start on your team.Would anyone really want to start CM? That's a terrible correlation.We at least know McFadden has a role in the offense, even if it's limited. His role, like CM's is primed to expand. Probably more so. He's likely the 3rd down back now.That's not necessarily what really matters in a dynasty league - I know you know that. Would anyone every really want to start McFadden? If not I'd much rather use the roster spot to take the chance on Michael amounting to something.He'll probably score more than CM, which is all that really matters.Yea, bc he'll prob score a lot points this season, maybe even more next year.Some people play in leagues where points still count in 2015 & 2016, not just 2017 & beyond.Why would anyone even roster DMC anymore? He'll be out of the league within 2 years and on the high end has another 3-4 TDs in him.Got offered McFadden for CMike- Dynasty
Right now we know McFadden is part of the rotation and 2nd in that rotation. It also appears he is the 3rd down back. With CM, he will get in for a series and if the "got hand" might see more.
I don't want either but that's not really the point.come on jurb, as silly as this CMike thread is, no one wants McFadden.This is pretty ridiculous. Anyone who gets an expanded role has greater upside than they had before. This is true for both McFaddn and CM right now. Short term, McFadden has more value. Perhaps long term CM does. Even still you are basically rewarding a guy for doing nothing which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.Mediocre RBs are capable of rewarding fantasy owners if they get opportunity. We see it every year. Guys who aren't getting on the field on the other hand, can't. Plus, we haven't even seen CM prove he is capable of being mediocre let alone more. Nothing thus far suggest he is but the book is still being written.McFadden is a proven mediocrity over the last couple of seasons. I really don't see any upside even if his role expands. I'm not even a Michael supporter, but as an unknown he's a better dynasty asset than a veteran mediocrity that you'd be loathe to start on your team.Would anyone really want to start CM? That's a terrible correlation.We at least know McFadden has a role in the offense, even if it's limited. His role, like CM's is primed to expand. Probably more so. He's likely the 3rd down back now.That's not necessarily what really matters in a dynasty league - I know you know that. Would anyone every really want to start McFadden? If not I'd much rather use the roster spot to take the chance on Michael amounting to something.He'll probably score more than CM, which is all that really matters.Yea, bc he'll prob score a lot points this season, maybe even more next year.Some people play in leagues where points still count in 2015 & 2016, not just 2017 & beyond.Why would anyone even roster DMC anymore? He'll be out of the league within 2 years and on the high end has another 3-4 TDs in him.Got offered McFadden for CMike- Dynasty
Right now we know McFadden is part of the rotation and 2nd in that rotation. It also appears he is the 3rd down back. With CM, he will get in for a series and if the "got hand" might see more.
If DMC scores more than CM this year, I doubt many will be too excited about CM's fantasy prospects going forward. Pretty much everything is breaking right for CM to get an opportunity to show something this year. Dunbar is out. Randle has been mediocre and made a really boneheaded play last week. DMC is DMC. He'll either suck with a potential expanded role moving forward, or get hurt.That's not necessarily what really matters in a dynasty league - I know you know that. Would anyone every really want to start McFadden? If not I'd much rather use the roster spot to take the chance on Michael amounting to something.He'll probably score more than CM, which is all that really matters.Yea, bc he'll prob score a lot points this season, maybe even more next year.Some people play in leagues where points still count in 2015 & 2016, not just 2017 & beyond.Why would anyone even roster DMC anymore? He'll be out of the league within 2 years and on the high end has another 3-4 TDs in him.Got offered McFadden for CMike- Dynasty
What does it say about your "mystery box" that he can't supplant a turd?I'll take a mystery box (Michael) over a proven turd (McFadden) any time.
Nothing, given that he's been with the team for four weeks. Let's revisit this at the end of the season. If he's still not playing, I'll concede the point. IIRC you were a huge McFadden believer when he was coming out of college, so I think maybe you're still clinging to that dream a bit. It is painfully apparent watching him play right now that he offers very little.What does it say about your "mystery box" that he can't supplant a turd?I'll take a mystery box (Michael) over a proven turd (McFadden) any time.
You don't follow or read very well. I said just a few post ago I wouldn't want either.I guess I have to also remind you for like a 100th time that I was a big supporter of CM coming out of college as well. Means about as much right now.Nothing, given that he's been with the team for four weeks. Let's revisit this at the end of the season. If he's still not playing, I'll concede the point. IIRC you were a huge McFadden believer when he was coming out of college, so I think maybe you're still clinging to that dream a bit. It is painfully apparent watching him play right now that he offers very little.What does it say about your "mystery box" that he can't supplant a turd?I'll take a mystery box (Michael) over a proven turd (McFadden) any time.
may the force be with you....ourmanflint said:I am forced to start him at flex this week with bye weeks and injuries killing me.Deamon said:Sounds like we are gonna get a good 7 carries this week for sure. Down big, they'll have nothing to lose but to try to get him going. Gonna be crazy in here on Sunday.
Don't encourage this #### in the FFA. TIA.If all you want to do is crack jokes about Michael and his owners the perhaps you could create a Michael thread in the FFA because right now this thread belongs there.
.
Really, dude? Do I really need to state the obvious for you that it is my opinion that Michael has a higher ceiling? Come on. I even ended the post with IMO. Are you familiar with that term?jurb26 said:You have no idea if CM has a higher ceiling. That fine if you want to believe that but it's pure speculation. Don't present it as if it's a fact.Just Win Baby said:Would anyone want to start CM today? No. Would anyone want to start McFadden today? No.jurb26 said:Would anyone really want to start CM? That's a terrible correlation.We at least know McFadden has a role in the offense, even if it's limited. His role, like CM's is primed to expand. Probably more so. He's likely the 3rd down back now.Dr. Octopus said:That's not necessarily what really matters in a dynasty league - I know you know that. Would anyone every really want to start McFadden? If not I'd much rather use the roster spot to take the chance on Michael amounting to something.jurb26 said:He'll probably score more than CM, which is all that really matters.fantasycurse42 said:Yea, bc he'll prob score a lot points this season, maybe even more next year.Alex P Keaton said:Some people play in leagues where points still count in 2015 & 2016, not just 2017 & beyond.fantasycurse42 said:Why would anyone even roster DMC anymore? He'll be out of the league within 2 years and on the high end has another 3-4 TDs in him.The Man With No Name said:Got offered McFadden for CMike- Dynasty
Which of these two has a higher ceiling? Michael. So I'd rather have Michael not starting on my bench than McFadden.
It seems rather obvious IMO.
You ended your post with "It seems rather obvious IMO" not just IMO. Clearly you can see the difference. Saying you think something is rather obvious, even if it's your opinion, alludes more to a factual stance than just an opinion. It's just your opinion that it's so obvious we should all agree. Right now, I think McFadden has the higher ceiling because he has the more defined role and CM has never in 3 years amounted to anything beyond a 3rd string RB. McFadden is higher in the rotation and seems to have a defined role of 3rd down work.Really, dude? Do I really need to state the obvious for you that it is my opinion that Michael has a higher ceiling? Come on. I even ended the post with IMO. Are you familiar with that term?jurb26 said:You have no idea if CM has a higher ceiling. That fine if you want to believe that but it's pure speculation. Don't present it as if it's a fact.Just Win Baby said:Would anyone want to start CM today? No. Would anyone want to start McFadden today? No.jurb26 said:Would anyone really want to start CM? That's a terrible correlation.We at least know McFadden has a role in the offense, even if it's limited. His role, like CM's is primed to expand. Probably more so. He's likely the 3rd down back now.Dr. Octopus said:That's not necessarily what really matters in a dynasty league - I know you know that. Would anyone every really want to start McFadden? If not I'd much rather use the roster spot to take the chance on Michael amounting to something.jurb26 said:He'll probably score more than CM, which is all that really matters.fantasycurse42 said:Yea, bc he'll prob score a lot points this season, maybe even more next year.Alex P Keaton said:Some people play in leagues where points still count in 2015 & 2016, not just 2017 & beyond.fantasycurse42 said:Why would anyone even roster DMC anymore? He'll be out of the league within 2 years and on the high end has another 3-4 TDs in him.The Man With No Name said:Got offered McFadden for CMike- Dynasty
Which of these two has a higher ceiling? Michael. So I'd rather have Michael not starting on my bench than McFadden.
It seems rather obvious IMO.
Serious question. Are you saying you do not feel Michael has a higher ceiling than McFadden at this point in time? Yes or no.
I'd say 90-95% or higher do agree here, you're in the extreme minority. We have a lot of data on DMC to know his ceiling, he's basically unstartable in all circumstances. If the Cowboys said he'd be getting 80% of touches, I'd still be reluctant and skeptical to start the guy. He's very injury prone and not very talented.It's just your opinion that it's so obvious we should all agree
Well put.DMC versus CMike
One is a one dollar bill, the other a 2 dollar lottery ticket. Who knows which will end up worth more, but I do know 1 dollar won't buy much these days
Perfect analogy that most should be able to agree with. It's about taking a shot. CMike is a lotto ticket that might hit or he could be absolutely worthless and end up in the trash like 90% of lotto tickets. DMC supporters will say a dollar has value and can buy something and take a more "a bird in hand" approach. And I wouldn't disagree with them if I needed CMike now. I'm just willing to roll the dice on end of roster fodder.DMC versus CMike
One is a one dollar bill, the other a 2 dollar lottery ticket. Who knows which will end up worth more, but I do know 1 dollar won't buy much these days
Ceiling? Come on. No one nows what he can do there yet. He;s had one carry into a brick wall.My ceiling is similar to McFadden.
When did you become so insulting? What are you trying to gain from this conversation?You don't follow or read very well. I said just a few post ago I wouldn't want either.I guess I have to also remind you for like a 100th time that I was a big supporter of CM coming out of college as well. Means about as much right now.Nothing, given that he's been with the team for four weeks. Let's revisit this at the end of the season. If he's still not playing, I'll concede the point. IIRC you were a huge McFadden believer when he was coming out of college, so I think maybe you're still clinging to that dream a bit. It is painfully apparent watching him play right now that he offers very little.What does it say about your "mystery box" that he can't supplant a turd?I'll take a mystery box (Michael) over a proven turd (McFadden) any time.
Plus, you're the one speaking in such hyperbole with terms like "turd." A turd should be able to get supplanted in days, not weeks or months.
My read exactly.McFadden takes over Dunbar's role as the 3rd down/passing down back
Randle keeps his early down role
C-Mike essentially taking over McFadden's old role.
Anybody that doesn't see a clear path to 15+ touches a game for C-Mike is just trolling. Not saying he's a lock for that or anything but all he has to do is look better than Randle and he'll eventually be the first RB in the game. That's not a tall order.
And in that one season he had 1157 yards rushing, plus 43 receptions for another 507 years. He was fantasy gold that year in PPR leagues. People act is he never had any fantasy relevance, but he did in 2010.McFadden has one season over 707 yards rushing in his 8 seasons and that was in 2010. He is not and will not be fantasy relevant. I would rather have a guy that has not yet proven that he can or cannot be.
He was having a monster in 2010 and his 2011 looked pretty good too. However that seems like a looooooooooong time ago in football years. Particularly for a guy who has had multiple lower leg injuries (Link). I am not sure he ever came back from the lisfranc that ended his 2011 season. He certainly never produced that way on the field, but the Raiders were a dumpster fire so it is a little hard to tell for certain.And in that one season he had 1157 yards rushing, plus 43 receptions for another 507 years. He was fantasy relevant that year. People act is he never had any fantasy relevance, but he did in 2010.McFadden has one season over 707 yards rushing in his 8 seasons and that was in 2010. He is not and will not be fantasy relevant. I would rather have a guy that has not yet proven that he can or cannot be.
Touches matter, so thank you for cutting to the point here. I'm not sure why CM would suddenly get more touches than McFadden, though. If McFadden is assuming the Dunbar role why does that mean he totally vacates his old role? Why would he suddenly be getting less touches than prior? This doesn't make a lot of sense IMO.Hi guys it's me, Chaka, the Official Let's Try To Keep it Excellent Inspector. Remember we don't want any bannings or to get this thread locked.
I think there are valid points being made from both jurb and everyone else (who all seem to be aligning against jurb). I typically agree with jurb about taking the guy who has the most opportunity because you can't do much if you don't get the ball. However I think that even if McFadden takes the Dunbar role (about 7.5 touches/game), and I think he will, it will likely come at the expense of his old role in the offense, which amounted to 8.75 touches/game. I do not believe that McFadden will simply start getting 16 touches/game (which is what Randle gets, and I think will continue to get) and keep Michael on the pine.
That, IMO, opens the door for Michael to assume all or part of McFadden's previous 9 touches per game. Again IMO, I prefer Michael's upside on those limited touches (o/u = 6 IMO) because even in his previous role (again 9 touches/game) McFadden did very little with them.
As always let's try to keep it excellent in here.
Cheers
Maybe we disagree on the meaning of the term ceiling in a fantasy football context. Ceiling means if the best case scenario happens. You are saying you think McFadden's best case scenario is better than Michael's best case scenario when you say you think McFadden has a higher ceiling.You ended your post with "It seems rather obvious IMO" not just IMO. Clearly you can see the difference. Saying you think something is rather obvious, even if it's your opinion, alludes more to a factual stance than just an opinion. It's just your opinion that it's so obvious we should all agree.
Right now, I think McFadden has the higher ceiling because he has the more defined role and CM has never in 3 years amounted to anything beyond a 3rd string RB. McFadden is higher in the rotation and seems to have a defined role of 3rd down work.
Could that change by seasons end or next season? Sure, but you're asking about right now.
I don't like either guy very much and have little faith in either but I'll take the guy who is likely to get more opportunity. That appears to be McFadden.
I didn't say CM would get more touches, I never said any of those things you are suggesting. I said that his assumption of the Dunbar would come at the expense of his previous role. There are 16 touches, roughly, up for grabs (Dunbar's & McFadden's). I put Michael's o/u @ 6, which means that McFadden will get ~10, which would be an increase in touches for both.Touches matter, so thank you for cutting to the point here.I'm not sure why CM would suddenly get more touches than McFadden, though. If McFadden is assuming the Dunbar role why does that mean he totally vacates his old role? Why would he suddenly be getting less touches than prior? This doesn't make a lot of sense IMO.Hi guys it's me, Chaka, the Official Let's Try To Keep it Excellent Inspector. Remember we don't want any bannings or to get this thread locked.
I think there are valid points being made from both jurb and everyone else (who all seem to be aligning against jurb). I typically agree with jurb about taking the guy who has the most opportunity because you can't do much if you don't get the ball. However I think that even if McFadden takes the Dunbar role (about 7.5 touches/game), and I think he will, it will likely come at the expense of his old role in the offense, which amounted to 8.75 touches/game. I do not believe that McFadden will simply start getting 16 touches/game (which is what Randle gets, and I think will continue to get) and keep Michael on the pine.
That, IMO, opens the door for Michael to assume all or part of McFadden's previous 9 touches per game. Again IMO, I prefer Michael's upside on those limited touches (o/u = 6 IMO) because even in his previous role (again 9 touches/game) McFadden did very little with them.
As always let's try to keep it excellent in here.
Cheers
Maybe CM outperforms McFadden earning the greater workload. That's certainly possible but that is not how it looks heading into the game at least.
I think this is a great point for today. Michael is a very bad start today IMO because it is likely that the Pats will simply crush them and I am pretty sure that will favor their receiving back, which looks to be McFadden.No one really knows what will happen today. The Cowboys have been almost exclusively passing in the 4th quarter. If the Pats take a big lead the Cowboys can either do their dink and dunk to Mac (or maybe Randle if the Boys leave him in), Witten and Beasely or the Pats can let them run all day. We know the Pats will take the Cowboys' best weapon away but what the heck is that right now, Williams? Witten? You could end up with a null result today and a bye next week.
Huh, how exactly are we supposed to interpret this? This looks like you are saying McFadden shifts from his old role (9 touches per game) to Dunbar role (7.5 touches per game). With CM assuming McFaddns old role (9 touches per game).However I think that even if McFadden takes the Dunbar role (about 7.5 touches/game), and I think he will, it will likely come at the expense of his old role in the offense, which amounted to 8.75 touches/game.
That, IMO, opens the door for Michael to assume all or part of McFadden's previous 9 touches per game
Well I think you might be conflating "assumption" and "expense" with "assumption" and "expense" + "to the exclusion of", which was not my intended implication. I think it was clear in the first post and I think I made it even more clear in the second post.Huh, how exactly are we supposed to interpret this?This looks like you are saying McFadden shifts from his old role (9 touches per game) to Dunbar role (7.5 touches per game). With CM assuming McFaddns old role (9 touches per game).However I think that even if McFadden takes the Dunbar role (about 7.5 touches/game), and I think he will, it will likely come at the expense of his old role in the offense, which amounted to 8.75 touches/game.
That, IMO, opens the door for Michael to assume all or part of McFadden's previous 9 touches per game
This would mean McFadden gets less touches than prior, CM more and CM getting more than McFadden, no?
I don't think McFadden gets 16 touches, either. I think he gets more than CM but neither will be particularly high on touches.