a_rackowski
Footballguy
Looking to know more about him. thinking he could be a surprise in round 2.......
He's on the radar for anyone in deep leagues. Just like there's been some Treavor Scales talk around here lately...and he played for Harvard.I work with a guy whose real name is Michael Hill and he hasn't even heard of Michael Hill...I think you may be reaching deep here.
Joique Bell was also Div-II.Out of the FCS/D2 RBs, I like Hill (and Rayon Simmons) better than Miguel Maysonet.Hill reminds me a lot of Chris Polk/Ryan Mathews.Looking to know more about him. thinking he could be a surprise in round 2.......
I'm from Missouri and I had no idea there's a school named Western Missouri.Shutout said:I work with a guy whose real name is Michael Hill and he hasn't even heard of Michael Hill...I think you may be reaching deep here.
I really posted that in jest and while I 'm sure there ARE hidden lumps of coal out there that might be diamonds in the future, the real message in this one is that's a pretty far reach to be digging at where energy could be better spent elsewhere.He's on the radar for anyone in deep leagues. Just like there's been some Treavor Scales talk around here lately...and he played for Harvard.Shutout said:I work with a guy whose real name is Michael Hill and he hasn't even heard of Michael Hill...I think you may be reaching deep here.
I think you are wrong about hill. i aldo think he is much better than ellingtons and wheatens and stacys and will be DRAFTED before them. i think we SHOULD be talking about him in 12 team leaguesI really posted that in jest and while I 'm sure there ARE hidden lumps of coal out there that might be diamonds in the future, the real message in this one is that's a pretty far reach to be digging at where energy could be better spent elsewhere. In this particular draft, there is SO much uncertainty even at the top that IMO your energy would be better placed trying to distinguish the Stacys from the Ellington and the Wheatons from the Allens much more than trying to dig up a tater that isn't generating any sprouts anywhere. I know everyone wants to find the next Foster or Colston but you have to remember that even with those guys, those weren't guys that a concentrated consensus of people were talking about that were deep in the shadows of the lists; those were guys who people went and looked up after they were given a role in the league.He's on the radar for anyone in deep leagues. Just like there's been some Treavor Scales talk around here lately...and he played for Harvard.Shutout said:I work with a guy whose real name is Michael Hill and he hasn't even heard of Michael Hill...I think you may be reaching deep here.
I guess we will see but, generally speaking, when a guy gets completely overlooked all the way up to the draft, there is a reason for it. At this time of the process almost anyone who has generated a buzz in some scout's mind has an article somewhere. Again, you may be right and if you are, that will be quite a feather in your cap. I just don't think you will be.I think you are wrong about hill. i aldo think he is much better than ellingtons and wheatens and stacys and will be DRAFTED before them. i think we SHOULD be talking about him in 12 team leaguesI really posted that in jest and while I 'm sure there ARE hidden lumps of coal out there that might be diamonds in the future, the real message in this one is that's a pretty far reach to be digging at where energy could be better spent elsewhere. In this particular draft, there is SO much uncertainty even at the top that IMO your energy would be better placed trying to distinguish the Stacys from the Ellington and the Wheatons from the Allens much more than trying to dig up a tater that isn't generating any sprouts anywhere. I know everyone wants to find the next Foster or Colston but you have to remember that even with those guys, those weren't guys that a concentrated consensus of people were talking about that were deep in the shadows of the lists; those were guys who people went and looked up after they were given a role in the league.He's on the radar for anyone in deep leagues. Just like there's been some Treavor Scales talk around here lately...and he played for Harvard.Shutout said:I work with a guy whose real name is Michael Hill and he hasn't even heard of Michael Hill...I think you may be reaching deep here.
Why "anyone"? Wouldn't you want to limit the informaiton you are deciding on to reasonable prospects? I mean, Someone could give you literally 1000 names of Wrs from various College programs. All that does is waste your time. Regardless of the league size, the idea is to roster players that have impact, not just any warm body. There is nothing worse than wasting roster spots on a guy who never does anything.Either way, some of us play in 32-team leagues and like getting information on anyone.
The issue in all that though is understanding what happens in real life to these late round selections. The VAST majority of players taken in late rounds aren't even in the league in a couple of years.I think looking for guys like this is probably worth the time. Here's why:
There is a difference between what a fantasy team is looking for in a sleeper and what an NFL team might be looking for in the late rounds of a draft. NFL teams need role players. They can get decent value out of a guy in the late rounds if he does good special teams work and is a solid camp/backup/COP type guy. They look at D1 guys who they KNOW aren't ever going to be top-shelf O/D starters and are sometimes OK with that.
But to us, those guys don't really buy you anything. You are really trying to focus on guys who DO have a shot at being a starter. You are better off with a guy who has a 98% chance of being cut by his NFL team and a 2% chance of being an eventual starter than you are with a guy who has only a 30% chance of being cut but a 1% chance of being a starter. The first guy might provide more value to an NFL team and be drafted slightly higher than the second guy, but I'd rather have that 2nd guy.