Darren McFadden: Buy, Sell, Hold, or Cut Bait? (1 Viewer)

[Englishteacher]

Feel free to add your league specs and situation involving McFadden. Also, give your opinions on the player, team, etc.

 

[EBF]

He's a terrible, terrible football player, but you have to hold. His value is so low that it's basically nonexistent.

Even though I'm a huge DMC critic, there's always the chance that he makes some noise eventually.

 

[Matt Waldman]

See my pinned post at the top of this forum. There's a free profile of McFadden and I believe he hasn't changed much as a player and my view is similar to EBF. He was vastly overrated coming out of Arkansas.

 

[Mark Davis]

I'm trying to assess value based on what I'd give for him in the rookie draft. I'm thinking a pick in the mid-30's or 3rd rounder, which isn't very much for a guy who was 1st overall in most leagues a couple years back. I know it's hard to move a guy you invested the top pick in for something like that as well.

 

[Englishteacher]

He's a terrible, terrible football player, but you have to hold. His value is so low that it's basically nonexistent. Even though I'm a huge DMC critic, there's always the chance that he makes some noise eventually.

Won't a "terrible, terrible football player" remain one? What could change and why would it happen if it did?

 

[Bruno2]

I'd have to hold as well. Wait and see who the QB for the Raiders will be. It was clear when Russell wasn't the starter the offense was alot better. Also see how the Raiders backfield shakes out. Fargas seems to always end up with the bulk of the carries when healthy. Bush is the enigma, I get the feeling the Raiders want to make him the lead back but for some reason or another they always fall back on Fargas. As for McFadden, if he can ever stay healthy he might worth something in PPR leagues.

 

[squistion]

Very difficult to say what he is really worth. He had turf toe injuries on both feet his first year. There were injury issues again the second year and when he was healthy he was not given the ball that much and/or Jamarcus Russell was usually behind center.

He is a hold in the one league I own in him. I have to see more of what he can or can not do before I would consider cutting him. I might acquire him in a PPR league if the price was low enough or he was part of a package deal, although he is not a player on my target list this year.

 

[EBF]

He's a terrible, terrible football player, but you have to hold. His value is so low that it's basically nonexistent. Even though I'm a huge DMC critic, there's always the chance that he makes some noise eventually.

Won't a "terrible, terrible football player" remain one? What could change and why would it happen if it did?

He's really limited as a running back, but he has some skills that could be exploited under the right circumstance.He's very fast in a straight line and he actually looks pretty good running routes downfield. Maybe a creative OC and a good QB could turn him into a productive "slash" type of player somewhere in the future. It probably won't happen in Oakland.The reason you should hold is because you won't get anything of value for him. At this point I would be surprised if anyone would offer even a 2nd round rookie pick in most leagues. If you can find a deal like that I would probably take it, but if your leaguemates are as skeptical of DMC as they should be then you won't be able to trade him for anything that's more likely to become useful than he is.

 

[finito]

Hold.

If an when he has a good game - sell.

 

[Matt Waldman]

To give a better answer:

I would sell him. I believe the toe injuries will always act up to some extend. I think his receiving skills are overrated - he drops more passes than you would like. He's no Reggie Bush as a receiver. He is not an instinctive runner and as promising as Oakland's offensive line has looked at times in the run game, I think you sell him after a good game or two next year - maximize what you can get back; ppr, non-ppr. Use him as a throw-in with 1-2 others players for a proven player and a young prospect.

 

[Englishteacher]

Hold. If an when he has a good game - sell.

 

[Englishteacher]

To give a better answer: I would sell him. I believe the toe injuries will always act up to some extend. I think his receiving skills are overrated - he drops more passes than you would like. He's no Reggie Bush as a receiver. He is not an instinctive runner and as promising as Oakland's offensive line has looked at times in the run game, I think you sell him after a good game or two next year - maximize what you can get back; ppr, non-ppr. Use him as a throw-in with 1-2 others players for a proven player and a young prospect.

You think the Raiders think they have a bust at this point in McFadden?

 

[Spike]

I'm trying to assess value based on what I'd give for him in the rookie draft. I'm thinking a pick in the mid-30's or 3rd rounder, which isn't very much for a guy who was 1st overall in most leagues a couple years back. I know it's hard to move a guy you invested the top pick in for something like that as well.

This. Rightly or wrongly.

 

[Spike]

To give a better answer:

I would sell him. I believe the toe injuries will always act up to some extend. I think his receiving skills are overrated - he drops more passes than you would like. He's no Reggie Bush as a receiver. He is not an instinctive runner and as promising as Oakland's offensive line has looked at times in the run game, I think you sell him after a good game or two next year - maximize what you can get back; ppr, non-ppr. Use him as a throw-in with 1-2 others players for a proven player and a young prospect.

You think the Raiders think they have a bust at this point in McFadden the whole team?

Fixed.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

could it be a case of where the situation does matter and trumped his talent?

If he was on say the Colts what would his value be.

Obviously the talent he has cant overcome the situation in Oakland.

That being said someone traded him for rookie pick like 1.10 in a dynasty Im in

 

[Mark Davis]

could it be a case of where the situation does matter and trumped his talent?If he was on say the Colts what would his value be.Obviously the talent he has cant overcome the situation in Oakland. That being said someone traded him for rookie pick like 1.10 in a dynasty Im in

So you would give 1.10 for him?

 

[GreatLakesMike]

could it be a case of where the situation does matter and trumped his talent?If he was on say the Colts what would his value be.Obviously the talent he has cant overcome the situation in Oakland. That being said someone traded him for rookie pick like 1.10 in a dynasty Im in

So you would give 1.10 for him?

I doubt if the McFadden owner would accept that offer. Most of the examples being given are extremes, and not the norm.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

could it be a case of where the situation does matter and trumped his talent?If he was on say the Colts what would his value be.Obviously the talent he has cant overcome the situation in Oakland. That being said someone traded him for rookie pick like 1.10 in a dynasty Im in

So you would give 1.10 for him?

No I woudlnt unless his situation changes. Actually I think all they need is for JR to get the hook permanently and he may see an increase in value.

 

[Englishteacher]

could it be a case of where the situation does matter and trumped his talent?If he was on say the Colts what would his value be.Obviously the talent he has cant overcome the situation in Oakland. That being said someone traded him for rookie pick like 1.10 in a dynasty Im in

So you would give 1.10 for him?

No I woudlnt unless his situation changes. Actually I think all they need is for JR to get the hook permanently and he may see an increase in value.

They've committed to Cable I think for 2010 and he gave the hook to Russell late in the year. He'll get another opportunity in training camp/pre-season sure but it's almost a win-win whether he does or doesn't step up; they're looking for better quarterback play from whichever guy gives it to them at this point.

 

[Englishteacher]

I'm trying to assess value based on what I'd give for him in the rookie draft. I'm thinking a pick in the mid-30's or 3rd rounder, which isn't very much for a guy who was 1st overall in most leagues a couple years back. I know it's hard to move a guy you invested the top pick in for something like that as well.

This. Rightly or wrongly.

Sunk cost dilemmaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sunk cost dilemma is a dilemma of having to choose between continuing a project of uncertain prospects already involving considerable sunk costs, or discontinuing the project. Given this choice between the certain loss of the sunk costs when stopping the project versus possible – even if unlikely – long-term profitability when going on, policy makers tend to favour uncertain success over certain loss.[1]

As long as the project is neither completed nor stopped, the dilemma will keep presenting itself.

[edit]Game-theoretic model

The sunk cost dilemma has been described by Oliver F. Lehmann using concepts from game theory and decision theory. He models the situation as a one-player game (like jigsaw puzzles and Rubik's Cube) in which a sequence of decisions, each of which by themselves seem good, in the end lead to overall disaster.

The calculation of the payoff for each decision is:

Payoffd = Project revenue - Open costs

while the calculated project payoff gets smaller.

Each time the decision has to be made, the strategy of going ahead with the project is dominant, i.e. has the highest payoff, which remains always positive.

As decisions are only made considering open costs but not sunk costs, each single decision is computed to be beneficial. But in the end, the overall payoff of the project is negative. While the project progresses towards disaster, the decision not to go on with the project gets more and more unlikely. The project is like a train: once it has been put on a track, it is very difficult to change its direction.

 

[LHUCKS]

BUY

 

[Matt Waldman]

To give a better answer: I would sell him. I believe the toe injuries will always act up to some extend. I think his receiving skills are overrated - he drops more passes than you would like. He's no Reggie Bush as a receiver. He is not an instinctive runner and as promising as Oakland's offensive line has looked at times in the run game, I think you sell him after a good game or two next year - maximize what you can get back; ppr, non-ppr. Use him as a throw-in with 1-2 others players for a proven player and a young prospect.

You think the Raiders think they have a bust at this point in McFadden?

I don't know what the Raiders think. All I know is what I see, and what I see is a player who I think is unlikely to develop into an every down, 15-20 touch per game back. I think he's a highly-touted situational player who doesn't hold onto the ball well or gets yards after the contact as effectively as some people imagined. At this point Darren McFadden and Chris Johnson are great examples of how speed can only do so much. You only need a baseline of speed/explosiveness to be a good NFL back, but both have more than enough. The problem is one has the other skill sets (and the line) to maximize his and produce one of the best seasons ever for an RB. The other is an 8-10 touch per game back with one or two big gains every 2-3 games, but can't string together enough good runs to keep the team on schedule to move the ball up and down the field. I know QB play would help, but how much did Kerry Collins help Johnson last year? VY was much better than 2008, but he's still learning.

 

[POTA]

Sunk cost dilemma

Pretty much. I think the "hold" vs. "cut bait" / "sell" decision comes down to your cost of keeping him. Obviously that's a roster spot, or a keeper slot, or whathaveyou. But at some point, the accumulated cost of holding him becomes greater than the cost of cutting him outright. While this isn't a business project where there are daily costs (time, material, salaries, etc.), there are still costs involved. You're keeping him over someone else. What are the odds that that "someone else" that you passed on because of keeping him? It entirely depends on your league. In a very deep league (12+ teams, 18+ players per team) the cost is much lower than in shallower leagues because of the available FA pool.

 

[flat_earth]

I really do not like McFadden's game and hate his situation in Oakland, but come on...people saying he's worth a 3rd or even late 2nd round rookie pick are undervaluing him. I do not own the guy in any of my leagues, but I would pay a high 2nd/very late 1st price for him if I felt like I could afford to take a shot at some upside. He's a longshot just like the other players you typically find in that range, and he's still younger than most of them too. Chances are he'll never develop into anything, but then neither will the other 3rd tier RBs you'd be taking in that range.

 

[Jerry Lawler]

Sunk cost dilemma

Pretty much. I think the "hold" vs. "cut bait" / "sell" decision comes down to your cost of keeping him. Obviously that's a roster spot, or a keeper slot, or whathaveyou. But at some point, the accumulated cost of holding him becomes greater than the cost of cutting him outright. While this isn't a business project where there are daily costs (time, material, salaries, etc.), there are still costs involved. You're keeping him over someone else. What are the odds that that "someone else" that you passed on because of keeping him? It entirely depends on your league. In a very deep league (12+ teams, 18+ players per team) the cost is much lower than in shallower leagues because of the available FA pool.

Assuming he never contributes anything to your team, the cost of holding him is a replacement level FA plus whatever draft pick you could get for him now. I never liked McFadden much. He reminds me of Michael Bennett: a player with tons of straight line speed who outclassed college defenses while putting up monster stats, but doesn't have the skills needed to be a successful starting RB in the NFL. I would still give a mid-to-late round rookie pick for him though, because he could excel short-term under the right circumstances. When other owners combine recent success with elite prospect pedigree, I think he'll net a top 20 RB. Keep in mind that even Michael Bennett made a Pro Bowl once, and that was without the benefit of a system that got him the ball in space.

 

[TS Garp]

I'd hold. The chances of him ever living up to the hype are slim to none, and the Raiders will likely always use him in a rotation since he's so fragile, but I do still think there's a chance that he develops into what we saw from Reggie Bush this year, although you'll see him get more carries. Granted, Bush is on one of the best offenses in the league and McFadden is on one of the worst, but I think he'll have a good run at some point and you can deal him then for more than you'll get now.

 

[LHUCKS]

The chances of him ever living up to the hype are slim to none

This is when you know it's time to buy...exactly what I was hearing about Leinart in the "shark" pool about six months ago...now everybody has him ranked in the their top 25.

 

[Birdie048]

I say Buy.... since he is such a low value right now, he is too cheap not to exceed his value. Somebody might be trying to get what they invested in him.... but we all know that won't happen.

The Oak OL was impressive in 2007 when they ran something like 580 times (with a 4.8 ypc avg). They ran fewer in 2008 (something like 525 with a 4.4 ypc) and in 2009, they really reduced running plays (410 for a 4.1 ypc).

#1 NYJ with 607, #2 Carolina 525, #3 Miami 509, #4 Cinn 505, #5 Tenn 499 & #6 Clev 498 rushing attempts

If they return to their strength, the run game, they might find more success. M Bush & D McFadden could make a nice duo like Miami & Carolina.

The QB can only improve. There is no way it goes down hill. They can't! It ain't possible for them to get any worse! And the horror of it is, Oak was not even the worst passing offense.... Clev, Buff & NYJ were worse.

I say Buy. His value is so low, it has to be worth the risk for the talent level he has.

 

[renesauz]

Sunk cost dilemma

Pretty much. I think the "hold" vs. "cut bait" / "sell" decision comes down to your cost of keeping him. Obviously that's a roster spot, or a keeper slot, or whathaveyou. But at some point, the accumulated cost of holding him becomes greater than the cost of cutting him outright. While this isn't a business project where there are daily costs (time, material, salaries, etc.), there are still costs involved. You're keeping him over someone else. What are the odds that that "someone else" that you passed on because of keeping him? It entirely depends on your league. In a very deep league (12+ teams, 18+ players per team) the cost is much lower than in shallower leagues because of the available FA pool.

I voted "hold" because his value is low enough that he really won't pull much in trade. I could see a cut bait strategy in slimmer leagues, as Matt suggests, but in most of my leagues, there really aren't too many better looking prospects to pick up. The fact remains that he's still young and has had a couple of nagging injuries...there are reasons, howvere improbable, to believe he can turn his career around...Now, if someone believe in him enough to offer me a low 1 or high 2 for him....I'll take my money and run!

 

[Holy Schneikes]

He's probably worth about what Cedric Benson, Thomas Jones, and Deangelo Williams were worth at the end of their first 25 games.

I kid, for every one of those guys, there ten guys who truly aren't worth the initial hype (ala Bush). But the point is that on a terrible team, and with injuries factored in, it's very difficult to TOTALLY write a guy off after two below average seasons. The guy is still 22 years old and playing for a team that has NO CLUE what it is doing. I'm not even talking about how BAD the team is, more about the fact that it is very dis-functional - not the place for young, ostensibly talented kid to hone his craft.

Not saying the guy is going to be great. Just saying it's hard to know WHAT he will be yet. I'd at least hold, if not buy at this point. You won't find a guy with his "upside" (I know folks hate that word) much cheaper.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

The chances of him ever living up to the hype are slim to none

This is when you know it's time to buy...exactly what I was hearing about Leinart in the "shark" pool about six months ago...now everybody has him ranked in the their top 25.

LOL ya know there is only 32 starters in the league right? top 25 isnt exactly awesome

 

[Englishteacher]

He's probably worth about what Cedric Benson, Thomas Jones, and Deangelo Williams were worth at the end of their first 25 games.

I kid, for every one of those guys, there ten guys who truly aren't worth the initial hype (ala Bush). But the point is that on a terrible team, and with injuries factored in, it's very difficult to TOTALLY write a guy off after two below average seasons. The guy is still 22 years old and playing for a team that has NO CLUE what it is doing. I'm not even talking about how BAD the team is, more about the fact that it is very dis-functional - not the place for young, ostensibly talented kid to hone his craft.

Not saying the guy is going to be great. Just saying it's hard to know WHAT he will be yet. I'd at least hold, if not buy at this point. You won't find a guy with his "upside" (I know folks hate that word) much cheaper.

Those with small dynasty rosters or limited keepers are faced with a different scenario however. It would appear to be a buyer's market at this point though like you said. With a three-headed backfield, an inept offense, injury woes and questionable talent working against him, you really have to wonder about the potential payoff. I think the hype and the initial investment required to get him really clouds the decision making process. To get what you think could be a big payoff, you have to increase your investment in a player that thus far has been a bust.

He has youth and speed on his side. It remains to be seen whether he can round into a better football player. That would help. Then you have the team to factor in. So much of fantasy football depends on situation.

I'm going out on a limb to say he'll be a RB2 with late RB1 potential in ppr.

 

[Englishteacher]

The chances of him ever living up to the hype are slim to none

This is when you know it's time to buy...exactly what I was hearing about Leinart in the "shark" pool about six months ago...now everybody has him ranked in the their top 25.

LOL ya know there is only 32 starters in the league right? top 25 isnt exactly awesome

Especially at the QB spot where a normal league starts 12 in a given week. I think Leinart might be OK though; he has the situation to succeed and has improved. <Boldin staying would of course be huge>

 

[Buckna]

His value is in the toilet, I would hold or try to acquire Bush for cheap to have the pair. Maybe one of those two can emerge if Oakland ever gets its collective head out of its butt. At the very least, maybe you can package the Oakland backs together with another piece to get something decent in exchange.

 

[Da Guru]

I think that D-Mac would be OK in the right situation, but he is not in the right situation.

 

[pretender]

His value is in the toilet, I would hold or try to acquire Bush for cheap to have the pair. Maybe one of those two can emerge if Oakland ever gets its collective head out of its butt. At the very least, maybe you can package the Oakland backs together with another piece to get something decent in exchange.

I had Bush and McFadden and sold - I got Benson and Scott in exchange - we also swapped 3rd round rookie picks - I moved back one spot. The guy who traded Benson - figured Benson had his year and lost interest in him and is rebuilding his dynasty team (16 team league) I was going to hold him and as the other guy who made the trade said - hope one of them gets traded and gets a starting role. I think McFadden has "it" he just won't be able to use the talent in Oakland at this time. So the key to the trade for me was - I am in a win now mode and he is in a rebuild mode. Time will tell. But we both thought that McFadden has value.By the way I voted buy!

 

[moderated]

i'd sell for any value i could get in non-ppr, he just isn't a football player.

Best case scenario is he turns out like R.Bush, who is basically useless himself in leagues without ppr.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

i'd sell for any value i could get in non-ppr, he just isn't a football player. Best case scenario is he turns out like R.Bush, who is basically useless himself in leagues without ppr.

this just isnt true, Reggie Bush was scoring TDs like mad in 2008 pre-injury. granted his value is higher in PPR leagues, but in those first 7 games of that year he was very servicable as a RB2 in any scoring system. McFadden hasnt been that ever.

 

[Garts]

McFadden has a style unlike any other RB I have ever seen. Almost a WR playing RB you could say.

Fairly big and some power, but goes down very easily and has almost no side-to-side wiggle.

He needs WIDE run lanes to get going...he just isn't that good and doesn't seem to have 'it'.

 

[moderated]

i'd sell for any value i could get in non-ppr, he just isn't a football player. Best case scenario is he turns out like R.Bush, who is basically useless himself in leagues without ppr.

this just isnt true, Reggie Bush was scoring TDs like mad in 2008 pre-injury. granted his value is higher in PPR leagues, but in those first 7 games of that year he was very servicable as a RB2 in any scoring system. McFadden hasnt been that ever.

true, so i guess his upside is Reggie Bush but without the TD ability, in other words McFadden is as close to worthless as they come.

 

[thevidon]

Mcfadden just isnt a talented RB. Its not from lack of opportunity - its from lack of talent that his non-productivity stems.

Can he burst through a big hole in the line running straight forward at a fast pace? Yes.

Does that create any value for him? No.

 

[domvin]

I gave up on him, about week 6 this year

dealt

Rodgers, royal, DMC

for Chester, Cutler, and marshall

needless to say, I am content with what I received...

 

[eefflrat]

I gave up on him, about week 6 this year

dealt

Rodgers, royal, DMC

for Chester, Cutler, and marshall

needless to say, I am content with what I received...

I don't know about needless.....but if you're happy that's all that matters

 

[karmarooster]

At this point Darren McFadden and Chris Johnson are great examples of how speed can only do so much. You only need a baseline of speed/explosiveness to be a good NFL back, but both have more than enough. The problem is one has the other skill sets (and the line) to maximize his and produce one of the best seasons ever for an RB.

This is the thing... CJ plays with a great offensive line and for half the year a mobile QB. DMC was stuck behind a rotten offensive line and a rotten QB on a rotten organization. I don't think we can declare DMC a bust until we see him in a situation where he can succeed like CJ: a stable org, physical o-line and a QB to keep the safeties away.

I'd hold. The chances of him ever living up to the hype are slim to none, and the Raiders will likely always use him in a rotation since he's so fragile, but I do still think there's a chance that he develops into what we saw from Reggie Bush this year, although you'll see him get more carries. Granted, Bush is on one of the best offenses in the league and McFadden is on one of the worst, but I think he'll have a good run at some point and you can deal him then for more than you'll get now.

for example, if DMC played for a creative coach/OC like Payton in a Bush-like role.... with a Brees-like QB...

With a three-headed backfield, an inept offense, injury woes and questionable talent working against him, you really have to wonder about the potential payoff. I think the hype and the initial investment required to get him really clouds the decision making process. To get what you think could be a big payoff, you have to increase your investment in a player that thus far has been a bust.

He has youth and speed on his side. It remains to be seen whether he can round into a better football player. That would help. Then you have the team to factor in. So much of fantasy football depends on situation.

I'm going out on a limb to say he'll be a RB2 with late RB1 potential in ppr.

all those problems, the 3-headed RB, inept organization, uncreative coach, sub-par o-line... the list goes on and on. in reality his best chance of success is if he changes teams somehow. if he does that, i would still knock down your optimism and say he could be a RB3 with a RB2 potential in PPR. and it probably isn't coming 2010 unless there are drastic changes in oakland.

ETA - I'm thinking about buying if i can get him on the cheap, 2nd rounder.

How would you compare his dynasty trade value to Michael Bush?

 

[finito]

How would you compare his dynasty trade value to Michael Bush?

I would think McFadden's value would be higher simply because of how much it cost to acquire him. Personally, I would bet on Bush, he seems to be a better runningback.

 

[Englishteacher]

How would you compare his dynasty trade value to Michael Bush?

I would think McFadden's value would be higher simply because of how much it cost to acquire him. Personally, I would bet on Bush, he seems to be a better runningback.

Yes.

 

[az_prof]

How would you compare his dynasty trade value to Michael Bush?

I would think McFadden's value would be higher simply because of how much it cost to acquire him. Personally, I would bet on Bush, he seems to be a better runningback.

I have watched them both play a lot because I live in Norther CA and I think Bush is a better all-around back. People try to apologize for McFadden's poor play by blaming it all on Oakland's offense and OL, but somehow in that same offense and with the same OL Bush managed to perform. In 2009, Bush's ypc: 4.8McFadden's: 3.4Career YPC in same offense:Bush: 4.6McFadden: 3.9McFadden is better in open space as a receiver, but Bush is not a bad receiver by any means.Bush is a better goal line/short yardage back by quite a margin.As others have said, McFadden is good on sweeps where there are wide lanes and he isn't touched, but he does go down very easily.Bush can run inside or outside and doesn't go down on first contact and gets extra yards after contact.I wouldn't trade more than a second round pick for McFadden.

 

[Englishteacher]

At this point Darren McFadden and Chris Johnson are great examples of how speed can only do so much. You only need a baseline of speed/explosiveness to be a good NFL back, but both have more than enough. The problem is one has the other skill sets (and the line) to maximize his and produce one of the best seasons ever for an RB.

This is the thing... CJ plays with a great offensive line and for half the year a mobile QB. DMC was stuck behind a rotten offensive line and a rotten QB on a rotten organization. I don't think we can declare DMC a bust until we see him in a situation where he can succeed like CJ: a stable org, physical o-line and a QB to keep the safeties away.

I'd hold. The chances of him ever living up to the hype are slim to none, and the Raiders will likely always use him in a rotation since he's so fragile, but I do still think there's a chance that he develops into what we saw from Reggie Bush this year, although you'll see him get more carries. Granted, Bush is on one of the best offenses in the league and McFadden is on one of the worst, but I think he'll have a good run at some point and you can deal him then for more than you'll get now.

for example, if DMC played for a creative coach/OC like Payton in a Bush-like role.... with a Brees-like QB...

With a three-headed backfield, an inept offense, injury woes and questionable talent working against him, you really have to wonder about the potential payoff. I think the hype and the initial investment required to get him really clouds the decision making process. To get what you think could be a big payoff, you have to increase your investment in a player that thus far has been a bust.

He has youth and speed on his side. It remains to be seen whether he can round into a better football player. That would help. Then you have the team to factor in. So much of fantasy football depends on situation.

I'm going out on a limb to say he'll be a RB2 with late RB1 potential in ppr.

all those problems, the 3-headed RB, inept organization, uncreative coach, sub-par o-line... the list goes on and on. in reality his best chance of success is if he changes teams somehow. if he does that, i would still knock down your optimism and say he could be a RB3 with a RB2 potential in PPR. and it probably isn't coming 2010 unless there are drastic changes in oakland.

ETA - I'm thinking about buying if i can get him on the cheap, 2nd rounder.

How would you compare his dynasty trade value to Michael Bush?

I meant RB2 with Rb1 potential in ppr as a ceiling for McFadden.

 

[karmarooster]

I meant RB2 with Rb1 potential in ppr as a ceiling for McFadden.

yes i know, and i think that's far too optimistic. even if DMC (and oakland) round into form relatively soon, he's still lacking in all categories to make it as a RB2 or RB1 in PPR.... he needs more carries, more catches, more TDs, and a better YPC before he could be a RB1. IMO that's just not gonna happen. I think his version of success would be to stay healthy, run the ball 12-15 times per game, and tack on 3 or 4 receptions... maybe he can get 10 TDs in a year, maybe. if all that happens he could be a asset as a RB2. best case scenario.

 

[LHUCKS]

I think that D-Mac would be OK in the right situation, but he is not in the right situation.

this