Doug Martin vs Jamaal Charles (1 Viewer)

[Leonidas]

Both will be solid RB1s.

To me it's very simple. Which guy has more upside? Charles. Which guy could rush for 2000 yards if given the opportunity to do so? IMO, only Charles and Peterson have a chance at 2000 yards rushing. In Andy Reid's offense, Charles is going to catch the ball a lot, so Martin isn't going to have an advantage there.

Martin will be solid, but I can't see him getting more than 1900 total yards and 12 TDs, which means I think last year was his ceiling.

I take Charles......he has a better chance to take the #1RB in FF from Peterson than Martin does.

Wait...you think Martin's ceiling is what he did last year as a rookie?

Yes. Close to it.

As much as I don't like taking out high games...... you can't ignore the fact that he had 26% of his yards and half of his TDs in 2 games.....he had only 6 TDs in the other 14 games. He averaged only 4 yards a carry in the other 14 games. Now I understand that his OL gets an upgrade and Martin should do better than the 4YPC, but to exceed 1900 total yards, Martin is going to have to get at least 1500 yards rushing, which means he needs about 350 carries at 4.3YPC, a nice improvement over last season (taking out the OAK and MIN games). That would mean Martin will need 400+ touches to get there.....that's a tall order. 1700 total yards and 10 TDs seems very reasonable to me given what I saw of him last year. Makes him a solid RB1, but Charles has much more upside IMO.

IMO, the chance that Martin exceeds 1900/12 is about 15%.

Even if you take out everybody's top 2 games, which is intentionally cherry picking to reduce Martin's numbers, Martin still comes out as RB5 (and Charles RB10 or worse). As a rookie. Who now has significant O-line improvement and a defensive improvement.

Don't forget that Charles got 29% of his YFC and 33% of his Touchdowns in his two best games.

 

[jurb26]

The shark pool cracks me up. Sometimes I wonder if people argue just to argue. I provided numbers as to why Charles has a predicted higher ceiling than Martin and people still argue other things, such as losing guards, having revis back, etc. None of those really contradicts anything I have written. Show me numbers---show me a prediction. How do you expect his ypc to increase, do you have statistics to help? I am sure Revis and Nicks, etc will help Martin but show me numbers. And if you do, why did you choose the ypc you did or the rushing attempts you did. Or is just guessing? Guessing is fine, but anyone can do that. I predict Charles has a higher ceiling but I provided a rationale BACKED with numbers and why I used the numbers I did.

Your turn. Until then you are just arguing to argue.

Why does anyone have to make up numbers for you to feel better about this? That makes no sense. You clearly don't like Martin and won't agree with them any way. It doesn't change the fact that some of the comments being made about Martin's situation are absurd. To say nothing about his situation has improved is simply ridiculous. Personally, I could care less about pitting Martin against Charles. I have them both ranked in my top 3 for this year. If its PPR, I have Charles a bit higher. Otherwise they are neck and neck for me. I could care less about arguing for Martin over Charles because I see them as equal. It's simply the misleading information that I take acception too in regards to Martin. Saying nothing about his situation has improved is akin to saying nothing about Charles' has improved. They are equally popustrious statements. Neither perceived improvements guarantee escalated success though. They simply increase the probability of it. In the end that is what draft positions and projections are all about. Probability of success. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[silentcoach]

The shark pool cracks me up. Sometimes I wonder if people argue just to argue. I provided numbers as to why Charles has a predicted higher ceiling than Martin and people still argue other things, such as losing guards, having revis back, etc. None of those really contradicts anything I have written. Show me numbers---show me a prediction. How do you expect his ypc to increase, do you have statistics to help? I am sure Revis and Nicks, etc will help Martin but show me numbers. And if you do, why did you choose the ypc you did or the rushing attempts you did. Or is just guessing? Guessing is fine, but anyone can do that. I predict Charles has a higher ceiling but I provided a rationale BACKED with numbers and why I used the numbers I did.

Your turn. Until then you are just arguing to argue.

Why does anyone have to make up numbers for you to feel better about this? That makes no sense. You clearly don't like Martin and won't agree with them any way. It doesn't change the fact that some of the comments being made about Martin's situation are absurd. To say nothing about his situation has improved is simply ridiculous.Personally, I could care less about pitting Martin against Charles. I have them both ranked in my top 3 for this year. If its PPR, I have Charles a bit higher. Otherwise they are neck and neck for me. I could care less about arguing for Martin over Charles because I see them as equal. It's simply the misleading information that I take acception too in regards to Martin. Saying nothing about his situation has improved is akin to saying nothing about Charles' has improved. They are equally popustrious statements. Neither perceived improvements guarantee escalated success though. They simply increase the probability of it. In the end that is what draft positions and projections are all about. Probability of success. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because how else are you supposed to compare them?

Person A: Charles is better!

Person B: Martin is better!

It does not take much to understand that the above leads to just bantering back and forth with ZERO substance, and that it what we were having for awhile. At least with numbers, we can see what the heck people are arguing about.

Go back, read my initial post. I never said Martin did not improve, nor did I remove his big game, or anything of that sort. I simply provided MY rationale as to why Charles was a better pick (since that is what the thread asked for) and I provided my reasoning.

That was all.

Here was my post.

It is really simple. Charles supporters prefer him over Martin because Charles has been putting up sick numbers despite being underutilized at times.

2012 - 284 rushes (good) and 49 pass attempts

2010 - 230 attempts (yuck) and 64 pass targets (better)

2009 - 203 attempts (yuck) and 60 pass targets (meh)

Ok, so what does this all tell us-- average the 3 years span and you get 234 rushing attempts BUT he averaged 1392 yards....i dont have to tell you but that is CRAZY good.

Now, receptions over the 3 years--41 rec for 340 yards with an average 58 targets during the 3 year span.

Total touchdowns was 7.5

So, what does this tell me? That even with limited touches Charles has put 1392 rushing yds, 41 rec and 340 yards with 7.5 touchdowns over a 3 year span when he has *only* averaged 234 rushing attempts and 58 pass targets.

CONCLUSION

However, NOW you have Reid. I already pointed that Reid's baseline for rbs is about around 265 rushing attempts.Over the last 3 years Reid's rbs have been on pace for 86 receiving targets with a median of 89 pass targets. Given how productive he has been with fewer touches, it is not unreasonable that Charles can be in for a monster year if Charles is used as Reid has used previous rbs AND charles is as efficient. There is always the possibility that Charles will not be as efficient, but in the aggregate will have more fantasy points simply because he is being used more then before.

Martin simply does not have the CALCULATED upside that Charles has based on the information in this post. Martin may do better, but that does not negate the best thing we can do is PREDICT.

Based on Charles' past efficiency and how Reid uses his rbs the following is the math I got by just multiplying predicted usage with the same ratio of current usage. Of course, as mentioned before, his efficiency may decrease, but this is just to show how how the numbers would look like.

Charles predicted stats with current efficiency:

1576 rushing yards 61 rec for 504 yards and 9 tds.

Not bad .

No misleading information on Martin...

I provided the Charles side of the argument and I was looking for someone to provide to the Martin side without just saying "Martin is better! His situation improved...!" I showed Charles' situation improved and what this improvement means in numbers and I explained why I used the numbers I did.

If you think Martin can get/do better than 2000 total yards 60 receptions and 9 tds, then Martin is your guy. I have no bias against Martin as your post falsely indicated.

 

[jurb26]

The shark pool cracks me up. Sometimes I wonder if people argue just to argue. I provided numbers as to why Charles has a predicted higher ceiling than Martin and people still argue other things, such as losing guards, having revis back, etc. None of those really contradicts anything I have written. Show me numbers---show me a prediction. How do you expect his ypc to increase, do you have statistics to help? I am sure Revis and Nicks, etc will help Martin but show me numbers. And if you do, why did you choose the ypc you did or the rushing attempts you did. Or is just guessing? Guessing is fine, but anyone can do that. I predict Charles has a higher ceiling but I provided a rationale BACKED with numbers and why I used the numbers I did.

Your turn. Until then you are just arguing to argue.

Why does anyone have to make up numbers for you to feel better about this? That makes no sense. You clearly don't like Martin and won't agree with them any way. It doesn't change the fact that some of the comments being made about Martin's situation are absurd. To say nothing about his situation has improved is simply ridiculous.Personally, I could care less about pitting Martin against Charles. I have them both ranked in my top 3 for this year. If its PPR, I have Charles a bit higher. Otherwise they are neck and neck for me. I could care less about arguing for Martin over Charles because I see them as equal. It's simply the misleading information that I take acception too in regards to Martin. Saying nothing about his situation has improved is akin to saying nothing about Charles' has improved. They are equally popustrious statements. Neither perceived improvements guarantee escalated success though. They simply increase the probability of it. In the end that is what draft positions and projections are all about. Probability of success. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because how else are you supposed to compare them?Person A: Charles is better!

Person B: Martin is better!

It does not take much to understand that the above leads to just bantering back and forth with ZERO substance, and that it what we were having for awhile. At least with numbers, we can see what the heck people are arguing about.

Make sense?

So we will have people arguing over numbers instead of words? The numbers people project are simply a product of the reason, logic and comprehension of the situation as they see it. You made it abundantly clear you like Charles more. So when people project Martin higher or at about the same what are you going to do to combats that! Simply repost yours? Nobody cares about projections that lack substance. Substance comes from the reasoning expressed in their words.Again, you aren't really addressing the issue here though. The real issues is the ridiculous claim that Martin has seen no improvement.

None the less ill appease you and post my projections.

Martin, 325 carries, 1560 yds, 12 TDs, 45 receptions, 435 yds, 1 TD

Charles, 270 carries, 1510 yds, 8 TDs, 68 receptions, 496 yds, 2 TDs

 

[Leonidas]

The shark pool cracks me up. Sometimes I wonder if people argue just to argue. I provided numbers as to why Charles has a predicted higher ceiling than Martin and people still argue other things, such as losing guards, having revis back, etc. None of those really contradicts anything I have written. Show me numbers---show me a prediction. How do you expect his ypc to increase, do you have statistics to help? I am sure Revis and Nicks, etc will help Martin but show me numbers. And if you do, why did you choose the ypc you did or the rushing attempts you did. Or is just guessing? Guessing is fine, but anyone can do that. I predict Charles has a higher ceiling but I provided a rationale BACKED with numbers and why I used the numbers I did.

Your turn. Until then you are just arguing to argue.

Why does anyone have to make up numbers for you to feel better about this? That makes no sense. You clearly don't like Martin and won't agree with them any way. It doesn't change the fact that some of the comments being made about Martin's situation are absurd. To say nothing about his situation has improved is simply ridiculous.

Personally, I could care less about pitting Martin against Charles. I have them both ranked in my top 3 for this year. If its PPR, I have Charles a bit higher. Otherwise they are neck and neck for me. I could care less about arguing for Martin over Charles because I see them as equal. It's simply the misleading information that I take acception too in regards to Martin. Saying nothing about his situation has improved is akin to saying nothing about Charles' has improved. They are equally popustrious statements. Neither perceived improvements guarantee escalated success though. They simply increase the probability of it. In the end that is what draft positions and projections are all about. Probability of success. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because how else are you supposed to compare them?

Person A: Charles is better!

Person B: Martin is better!

It does not take much to understand that the above leads to just bantering back and forth with ZERO substance, and that it what we were having for awhile. At least with numbers, we can see what the heck people are arguing about.

Go back, read my initial post. I never said Martin did not improve, nor did I remove his big game, or anything of that sort. I simply provided MY rationale as to why Charles was a better pick (since that is what the thread asked for) and I provided my reasoning.

That was all.

Here was my post.

It is really simple. Charles supporters prefer him over Martin because Charles has been putting up sick numbers despite being underutilized at times.

2012 - 284 rushes (good) and 49 pass attempts

2010 - 230 attempts (yuck) and 64 pass targets (better)

2009 - 203 attempts (yuck) and 60 pass targets (meh)

Ok, so what does this all tell us-- average the 3 years span and you get 234 rushing attempts BUT he averaged 1392 yards....i dont have to tell you but that is CRAZY good.

Now, receptions over the 3 years--41 rec for 340 yards with an average 58 targets during the 3 year span.

Total touchdowns was 7.5

So, what does this tell me? That even with limited touches Charles has put 1392 rushing yds, 41 rec and 340 yards with 7.5 touchdowns over a 3 year span when he has *only* averaged 234 rushing attempts and 58 pass targets.

CONCLUSION

However, NOW you have Reid. I already pointed that Reid's baseline for rbs is about around 265 rushing attempts.Over the last 3 years Reid's rbs have been on pace for 86 receiving targets with a median of 89 pass targets. Given how productive he has been with fewer touches, it is not unreasonable that Charles can be in for a monster year if Charles is used as Reid has used previous rbs AND charles is as efficient. There is always the possibility that Charles will not be as efficient, but in the aggregate will have more fantasy points simply because he is being used more then before.

Martin simply does not have the CALCULATED upside that Charles has based on the information in this post. Martin may do better, but that does not negate the best thing we can do is PREDICT.

Based on Charles' past efficiency and how Reid uses his rbs the following is the math I got by just multiplying predicted usage with the same ratio of current usage. Of course, as mentioned before, his efficiency may decrease, but this is just to show how how the numbers would look like.

Charles predicted stats with current efficiency:

1576 rushing yards 61 rec for 504 yards and 9 tds.

Not bad .

No misleading information on Martin...

I provided the Charles side of the argument and I was looking for someone to provide to the Martin side without just saying "Martin is better! His situation improved...!" I showed Charles' situation improved and what this improvement means in numbers and I explained why I used the numbers I did.

If you think Martin can get 2000 total yards 61 receptions and 9 tds, then Martin is your guy. I have no bias against Martin as your post falsely indicated.

Martin: 320 1,504 12 - 53 510 2

A few more carries (defense), a tiny uptick in YPC (experience, Guards), one more rushing TD (more scoring opportunities, Freeman more consistent), a few more grabs for one more receiving TD (same)

 

[silentcoach]

The shark pool cracks me up. Sometimes I wonder if people argue just to argue. I provided numbers as to why Charles has a predicted higher ceiling than Martin and people still argue other things, such as losing guards, having revis back, etc. None of those really contradicts anything I have written. Show me numbers---show me a prediction. How do you expect his ypc to increase, do you have statistics to help? I am sure Revis and Nicks, etc will help Martin but show me numbers. And if you do, why did you choose the ypc you did or the rushing attempts you did. Or is just guessing? Guessing is fine, but anyone can do that. I predict Charles has a higher ceiling but I provided a rationale BACKED with numbers and why I used the numbers I did.

Your turn. Until then you are just arguing to argue.

Why does anyone have to make up numbers for you to feel better about this? That makes no sense. You clearly don't like Martin and won't agree with them any way. It doesn't change the fact that some of the comments being made about Martin's situation are absurd. To say nothing about his situation has improved is simply ridiculous.Personally, I could care less about pitting Martin against Charles. I have them both ranked in my top 3 for this year. If its PPR, I have Charles a bit higher. Otherwise they are neck and neck for me. I could care less about arguing for Martin over Charles because I see them as equal. It's simply the misleading information that I take acception too in regards to Martin. Saying nothing about his situation has improved is akin to saying nothing about Charles' has improved. They are equally popustrious statements. Neither perceived improvements guarantee escalated success though. They simply increase the probability of it. In the end that is what draft positions and projections are all about. Probability of success. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because how else are you supposed to compare them?Person A: Charles is better!

Person B: Martin is better!

It does not take much to understand that the above leads to just bantering back and forth with ZERO substance, and that it what we were having for awhile. At least with numbers, we can see what the heck people are arguing about.

Make sense?

So we will have people arguing over numbers instead of words? The numbers people project are simply a product of the reason, logic and comprehension of the situation as they see it. You made it abundantly clear you like Charles more. So when people project Martin higher or at about the same what are you going to do to combats that! Simply repost yours? Nobody cares about projections that lack substance. Substance comes from the reasoning expressed in their words.Again, you aren't really addressing the issue here though. The real issues is the ridiculous claim that Martin has seen no improvement.

None the less ill appease you and post my projections.

Martin, 325 carries, 1560 yds, 12 TDs, 45 receptions, 435 yds, 1 TD

Charles, 270 carries, 1510 yds, 8 TDs, 68 receptions, 496 yds, 2 TDs

Maybe. People will only argue about the numbers if the reasoning for choosing numbers make no sense. As long as you provide your rationale, we can finally see what we are working with. You think Martin will average 4.8/carry. I'm guessing that is because you think his oline has improved. That is fine. I use zero improvement on Charles numbers and only used increased carries. This helps to understand what we are working with.

So, what does this mean to me? It means Martin will have to increase YPC to reach his output. Charles will just have to maintain his output while getting more touches. You choose which you want, and roll with it, but with numbers we finally see what you are talking about with "better oline, improvements etc." To you that means 4.8 ypc. It helps the conversation.

 

[jurb26]

The shark pool cracks me up. Sometimes I wonder if people argue just to argue. I provided numbers as to why Charles has a predicted higher ceiling than Martin and people still argue other things, such as losing guards, having revis back, etc. None of those really contradicts anything I have written. Show me numbers---show me a prediction. How do you expect his ypc to increase, do you have statistics to help? I am sure Revis and Nicks, etc will help Martin but show me numbers. And if you do, why did you choose the ypc you did or the rushing attempts you did. Or is just guessing? Guessing is fine, but anyone can do that. I predict Charles has a higher ceiling but I provided a rationale BACKED with numbers and why I used the numbers I did.

Your turn. Until then you are just arguing to argue.

Why does anyone have to make up numbers for you to feel better about this? That makes no sense. You clearly don't like Martin and won't agree with them any way. It doesn't change the fact that some of the comments being made about Martin's situation are absurd. To say nothing about his situation has improved is simply ridiculous.Personally, I could care less about pitting Martin against Charles. I have them both ranked in my top 3 for this year. If its PPR, I have Charles a bit higher. Otherwise they are neck and neck for me. I could care less about arguing for Martin over Charles because I see them as equal. It's simply the misleading information that I take acception too in regards to Martin. Saying nothing about his situation has improved is akin to saying nothing about Charles' has improved. They are equally popustrious statements. Neither perceived improvements guarantee escalated success though. They simply increase the probability of it. In the end that is what draft positions and projections are all about. Probability of success. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because how else are you supposed to compare them?Person A: Charles is better!

Person B: Martin is better!

It does not take much to understand that the above leads to just bantering back and forth with ZERO substance, and that it what we were having for awhile. At least with numbers, we can see what the heck people are arguing about.

Make sense?

So we will have people arguing over numbers instead of words? The numbers people project are simply a product of the reason, logic and comprehension of the situation as they see it. You made it abundantly clear you like Charles more. So when people project Martin higher or at about the same what are you going to do to combats that! Simply repost yours? Nobody cares about projections that lack substance. Substance comes from the reasoning expressed in their words.Again, you aren't really addressing the issue here though. The real issues is the ridiculous claim that Martin has seen no improvement.

None the less ill appease you and post my projections.

Martin, 325 carries, 1560 yds, 12 TDs, 45 receptions, 435 yds, 1 TD

Charles, 270 carries, 1510 yds, 8 TDs, 68 receptions, 496 yds, 2 TDs

Maybe. People will only argue about the numbers if the reasoning for choosing numbers make no sense. As long as you provide your rationale, we can finally see what we are working with. You think Martin will average 4.8/carry. Interesting. I'm guessing that is because you think his oline has improved. That is fine. I use zero improvement on Charles numbers and only used increased carries. This helps to understand what we are working with.So, what does this mean to me? It means Martin will have to increase YPC to reach his output. Charles will just have to maintain his output while getting more touches. You choose which you want, and roll with it, but it helps the conversation.

Given the improvements to each payers situation I think they are equally likely to succeed. What I like about Martin more is I think he's a safer bey to score more often, hence his slight advantage in standard. Charles is a safer bet to catch more, so the reverse is true in PPR.

 

[silentcoach]

The shark pool cracks me up. Sometimes I wonder if people argue just to argue. I provided numbers as to why Charles has a predicted higher ceiling than Martin and people still argue other things, such as losing guards, having revis back, etc. None of those really contradicts anything I have written. Show me numbers---show me a prediction. How do you expect his ypc to increase, do you have statistics to help? I am sure Revis and Nicks, etc will help Martin but show me numbers. And if you do, why did you choose the ypc you did or the rushing attempts you did. Or is just guessing? Guessing is fine, but anyone can do that. I predict Charles has a higher ceiling but I provided a rationale BACKED with numbers and why I used the numbers I did.

Your turn. Until then you are just arguing to argue.

Why does anyone have to make up numbers for you to feel better about this? That makes no sense. You clearly don't like Martin and won't agree with them any way. It doesn't change the fact that some of the comments being made about Martin's situation are absurd. To say nothing about his situation has improved is simply ridiculous.Personally, I could care less about pitting Martin against Charles. I have them both ranked in my top 3 for this year. If its PPR, I have Charles a bit higher. Otherwise they are neck and neck for me. I could care less about arguing for Martin over Charles because I see them as equal. It's simply the misleading information that I take acception too in regards to Martin. Saying nothing about his situation has improved is akin to saying nothing about Charles' has improved. They are equally popustrious statements. Neither perceived improvements guarantee escalated success though. They simply increase the probability of it. In the end that is what draft positions and projections are all about. Probability of success. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because how else are you supposed to compare them?Person A: Charles is better!

Person B: Martin is better!

It does not take much to understand that the above leads to just bantering back and forth with ZERO substance, and that it what we were having for awhile. At least with numbers, we can see what the heck people are arguing about.

Make sense?

So we will have people arguing over numbers instead of words? The numbers people project are simply a product of the reason, logic and comprehension of the situation as they see it. You made it abundantly clear you like Charles more. So when people project Martin higher or at about the same what are you going to do to combats that! Simply repost yours? Nobody cares about projections that lack substance. Substance comes from the reasoning expressed in their words.Again, you aren't really addressing the issue here though. The real issues is the ridiculous claim that Martin has seen no improvement.

None the less ill appease you and post my projections.

Martin, 325 carries, 1560 yds, 12 TDs, 45 receptions, 435 yds, 1 TD

Charles, 270 carries, 1510 yds, 8 TDs, 68 receptions, 496 yds, 2 TDs

Maybe. People will only argue about the numbers if the reasoning for choosing numbers make no sense. As long as you provide your rationale, we can finally see what we are working with. You think Martin will average 4.8/carry. Interesting. I'm guessing that is because you think his oline has improved. That is fine. I use zero improvement on Charles numbers and only used increased carries. This helps to understand what we are working with.So, what does this mean to me? It means Martin will have to increase YPC to reach his output. Charles will just have to maintain his output while getting more touches. You choose which you want, and roll with it, but it helps the conversation.

Given the improvements to each payers situation I think they are equally likely to succeed. What I like about Martin more is I think he's a safer bey to score more often, hence his slight advantage in standard. Charles is a safer bet to catch more, so the reverse is true in PPR.

Yeah, I was assuming PPR all along, but you see when you finally post numbers I get an idea, everyone does, of what your words "Martin situation has improved" actually means.

I have no problem working with the numbers you provided. if you would have gave me a 5.0 yards per carry, then who knows .

 

[LususV]

The shark pool cracks me up. Sometimes I wonder if people argue just to argue. I provided numbers as to why Charles has a predicted higher ceiling than Martin and people still argue other things, such as losing guards, having revis back, etc. None of those really contradicts anything I have written. Show me numbers---show me a prediction. How do you expect his ypc to increase, do you have statistics to help? I am sure Revis and Nicks, etc will help Martin but show me numbers. And if you do, why did you choose the ypc you did or the rushing attempts you did. Or is just guessing? Guessing is fine, but anyone can do that. I predict Charles has a higher ceiling but I provided a rationale BACKED with numbers and why I used the numbers I did.

Your turn. Until then you are just arguing to argue.

Why does anyone have to make up numbers for you to feel better about this? That makes no sense. You clearly don't like Martin and won't agree with them any way. It doesn't change the fact that some of the comments being made about Martin's situation are absurd. To say nothing about his situation has improved is simply ridiculous.Personally, I could care less about pitting Martin against Charles. I have them both ranked in my top 3 for this year. If its PPR, I have Charles a bit higher. Otherwise they are neck and neck for me. I could care less about arguing for Martin over Charles because I see them as equal. It's simply the misleading information that I take acception too in regards to Martin. Saying nothing about his situation has improved is akin to saying nothing about Charles' has improved. They are equally popustrious statements. Neither perceived improvements guarantee escalated success though. They simply increase the probability of it. In the end that is what draft positions and projections are all about. Probability of success. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because how else are you supposed to compare them?Person A: Charles is better!

Person B: Martin is better!

It does not take much to understand that the above leads to just bantering back and forth with ZERO substance, and that it what we were having for awhile. At least with numbers, we can see what the heck people are arguing about.

Make sense?

So we will have people arguing over numbers instead of words? The numbers people project are simply a product of the reason, logic and comprehension of the situation as they see it. You made it abundantly clear you like Charles more. So when people project Martin higher or at about the same what are you going to do to combats that! Simply repost yours? Nobody cares about projections that lack substance. Substance comes from the reasoning expressed in their words.Again, you aren't really addressing the issue here though. The real issues is the ridiculous claim that Martin has seen no improvement.

None the less ill appease you and post my projections.

Martin, 325 carries, 1560 yds, 12 TDs, 45 receptions, 435 yds, 1 TD

Charles, 270 carries, 1510 yds, 8 TDs, 68 receptions, 496 yds, 2 TDs

Maybe. People will only argue about the numbers if the reasoning for choosing numbers make no sense. As long as you provide your rationale, we can finally see what we are working with. You think Martin will average 4.8/carry. I'm guessing that is because you think his oline has improved. That is fine. I use zero improvement on Charles numbers and only used increased carries. This helps to understand what we are working with.

So, what does this mean to me? It means Martin will have to increase YPC to reach his output. Charles will just have to maintain his output while getting more touches. You choose which you want, and roll with it, but with numbers we finally see what you are talking about with "better oline, improvements etc." To you that means 4.8 ypc. It helps the conversation.

I think it's absurd not to see Martin's carries increasing this year. Everything about his situation screams more carries.

 

[Largent]

Charles week 15-16, @ Oakland/ home Indy.

Martin week 15-16, 49ers/ @ Rams

All things equal I look at this and it would lead me to put a JCahz sticker on the board.

 

[Bluefire]

Charles for me by a pretty fair margin (although if you've followed any of my posts on these boards you'll have noticed that I'm picking Charles 1.01 this year and honestly don't want Martin any higher than 1.04 at best). This is for several reasons.

If Charles wasn't on one of the worst offenses in the NFL last season he'd probably have been a Top 3 RB last year. His points were really only hurt because of his lack of scoring production. This season he'll see more touches than last season and he'll probably eclipse 60 receptions with ease. He's also now on an offense which boasts one of the better offensive lines in the league, has a new good steady and consistent QB and one of the greater offensive minded head coaches we've seen in the past two decades. All of the writing is on the wall for Charles this season short of an ACL tear I really think he's the most likely RB to be RB1 at the end of the season. Also bear in mind that last year there were several games where Charles saw under 10 carries because his coaches are awful. That simply won't happen with Reid there. He'll be seeing 15+ touches a game more or less guaranteed. My projection for Charles this season will be 290 carries, 1500 yards, 10 TDs. It's not super likely he eclipses 300 carries, Andy Reid RBs usually don't, he'll more than make up for that in receptions though and will likely lead all RBs in that statistic when 2013 is in the books.

Martin produced 33% of his production all of last season in two games last year. If those two games were changed up to his 'average' on the season he would have finished closer to around RB8 or 9 instead of RB2. I'm firmly in the camp that Martin has a rather large sophomore slump this season. Last years numbers were 319 carries, 1454 yards, 4.6ypc and 11 TDs. I think we'd be lucky to see 300, 1260 yards, 4.2ypc and 8 TDs this season. Still a solid season but a far cry from a Top 3 fantasy pick. I'm taking these numbers mainly assuming he'll be 'more consistent' this season and by being more consistent his numbers will drop as he won't put up a 4TD game vs Oakland this year. Some people have made the argument in other threads of

How can you call a player inconsistent with only one year of production behind him?

My only real response to that would be how can you call him not-inconsistent with only one year of production behind him? We have to look at the information we have and the information we have could go to say that Martin had two lucky games against two of the worst rushing defenses in the NFL last season. The rest of his games were all average at best. So I'd rather go with the majority of the information (14 games) that say he's an average to above average player than include the minority information (2 games) that portrays him as an elite player.

So yeah for me, it's Charles by a pretty large mile.

I like this post but I think 290 carries is using a ceiling instead of a base.

Leading rushers under Ried the last 5 years

2012 - Mccoy was on pace for 267 carries

2011 - Mccoy on pace for 291 carries

2010 - Mcccoy on pace 221 carries

2009 - Mccoy's rookie year + Old Westbrook so let's not even count that as there seemed to be a weird split going on.

2008 - Westbrook on pace for 266 attempts.

Average is 261 carries per season with a median of 266.5 carries

261-267 seems to be the baseline for carries for Charles this season based Reid's tendencies in loving to pass the ball and how he has used his rbs in the past. Of course 290 is attainable (see Mccoy 2011) but I would call that Charles' ceiling in carries.

Andy Reid stopped calling the plays after the 2008 season. You should baseline over the seasons prior, when he was still calling the plays, since he's doing that for KC.

So, looking at 1999-2008:

1999 - Duce Staley, 325 attempts in 16 games
2000 - Duce Staley, 79 in 5 starts (252.8 in 16)
2001 - Duce Staley, 166 in 10 starts (265 in 16)
2002 - Duce Staley, 269 in 16 starts
2003 - Westbrook, 117 in 8 starts (234 in 16)
2004 - Westbrook, 177 att in 12 starts (236 over 16 games)
2005 - Westbrook, 156 in 12 starts (208 over 16 games)
2006 - Westbrook, 240 in 14 starts (274 over 16 games)
2007 - Westbrook, 278 in 15 starts (296 over 16 games)
2008 - Westbrook, 233 in 14 starts (266 over 16 games)


Here's the thing that you start to notice about Andy Reid looking at the data. His main RBs project to about 63% of the total carries * 414 carries, or 260.

However, there are some years that really stand out. These are:

1999 - 76% of carries to main RB
2007 - 70% of carries to main RB

Looking at those two years, these were the years that there really wasn't much of anyone to give carries to in that offense. In 1999, it was completely the Duce Staley show, and in 2007 Correll Buckhalter had been reduced mainly to a kickoff return guy, and they didn't have anyone else.

I feel like that's pretty comparable to the Chiefs this season. They have Charles and a bunch of nothing.

So, taking that into consideration, let's go on the low end of around 70% of carries to the main RB. In this case:

70% of 414 = 290 carries.

Over that timespan, the floor/ceiling/average at 70% of carries (given total carries) would have been:

Floor: 70% of 365 = 255 carries
Average: 70% of 414 = 290 carries
Ceiling: 70% of 489 = 342

I certainly don't think he'll approach that 342 number (after all, Duce Staley's 325 is the highest one's gotten), so I feel that 489 carry season is more of a fluke. If we get rid of that outlier from both the average and the ceiling and go with the 2nd highest total of 427 we get:

Floor: 70% of 365 = 255 carries
Average: 70% of 406 = 284.2 carries
Ceiling: 70% of 427 = 298.9 carries
I'd argue those numbers would be pretty close, and would then project Charles at 284 carries, about 24 higher than what footballguys has him at.

 

[Tanner9919]

KHY , you've given a pretty detailed account of why you believe Charles will be the better RB between the two, including mentioning Andy Reid a sickening amount of times..

but you're summarily dismissing or simply glossing over the fact that not only was Martin just a rookie, but so was Schiano..I live in NJ and I've seen enough Rutgers games over the years to tell you that without a doubt, we were only scratching the surface regarding Martin's usage in the TB offense going forward..

so while Charles rec numbers might go off the charts, his rush attempts will not go higher than approx 260 or so ( as others have pointed out, Reid's offense in Philly avg'd roughly 265 carries/yr for the 'main' guy) so you want to use that as a guide, let's give him 260/1378 ( 5.3 ypc avg), 60 recs..

L. McCoy scored 17 rush TD in 2011, by far the highest total in Reid's offense during his coaching span in Philly..but McCoy never scored more than 7 rush Tds in any other season since he turned pro.

Westbrook scored more than 7 rushing Tds just once (9) and only once did he score more than 5 rec TDs (6)..so McCoy's 17 Tds seem like an anomaly when the full body of Reid's work is accounted for..

so what you're going to get with Charles is an increase in recs but not a huge uptick in rushing yards..

you're hoping for that 17 rush TD season from him, but the numbers don't play that out..it appears,on avg,that a RB in Reid's offense, will score about 7 rush TDs and another 3-4 rec TDs..

Martin,on the other hand, will likely see an increase in rushing attempts, receptions, and basically turn into Ray Rice for Schiano..his ypc avg is stunning, when you consider he went to a hapless team ,with a rookie coach , while missing OGs , with a questionable QB in Freeman..you can bash him all you want, but I think he performed amazingly well considering all of the above adversity..

now,with a year under his belt, Schiano will loosen up the offense because has a defense that can keep them in ball games, he doesn't need to keep things so close to the vest...so I'm guessing he's going to roll the dice and open things up.

 

[Shutout]

Not posting their stuff for free, but Rotoviz has several articles defending Martin at #1 also, including their RB app (which is mostly based on comparing prior year info to other historical RBs and looking at their year+1).

When is the last time the consensus pre-season #1 RB actually WAS the #1 RB? This is a sincere question. I don't know the answer but it seems like every year, all the community experts start slobbering over the most recent memory they have of a RB and talk them up all off-season, to the point that they just get penciled in as "ADP and everyone else", "Ray Rice and everyone else", "Arian Foster and everyone else".

Yet, it seems like it has been 11-12 years since "the guy" actually was "the guy". Probably not as long as that. I was thinking Faulk but LT probably backed it up a few years.

Point being, if anything, I think if someone plugs my guys heavily as the #1, that is telling me to go in another direction.

 

[Shutout]

KHY , you've given a pretty detailed account of why you believe Charles will be the better RB between the two, including mentioning Andy Reid a sickening amount of times..

but you're summarily dismissing or simply glossing over the fact that not only was Martin just a rookie, but so was Schiano..I live in NJ and I've seen enough Rutgers games over the years to tell you that without a doubt, we were only scratching the surface regarding Martin's usage in the TB offense going forward..

so while Charles rec numbers might go off the charts, his rush attempts will not go higher than approx 260 or so ( as others have pointed out, Reid's offense in Philly avg'd roughly 265 carries/yr for the 'main' guy) so you want to use that as a guide, let's give him 260/1378 ( 5.3 ypc avg), 60 recs..

L. McCoy scored 17 rush TD in 2011, by far the highest total in Reid's offense during his coaching span in Philly..but McCoy never scored more than 7 rush Tds in any other season since he turned pro.

Westbrook scored more than 7 rushing Tds just once (9) and only once did he score more than 5 rec TDs (6)..so McCoy's 17 Tds seem like an anomaly when the full body of Reid's work is accounted for..

so what you're going to get with Charles is an increase in recs but not a huge uptick in rushing yards..

you're hoping for that 17 rush TD season from him, but the numbers don't play that out..it appears,on avg,that a RB in Reid's offense, will score about 7 rush TDs and another 3-4 rec TDs..

Martin,on the other hand, will likely see an increase in rushing attempts, receptions, and basically turn into Ray Rice for Schiano..his ypc avg is stunning, when you consider he went to a hapless team ,with a rookie coach , while missing OGs , with a questionable QB in Freeman..you can bash him all you want, but I think he performed amazingly well considering all of the above adversity..

now,with a year under his belt, Schiano will loosen up the offense because has a defense that can keep them in ball games, he doesn't need to keep things so close to the vest...so I'm guessing he's going to roll the dice and open things up.

I don't know the answer to this so I'm asking: What % was Martin of the Bucs offense last year? I'm asking because, just on a hunch, I'm guessing that if he is truly going to be used more, as you say, that he is going to be approaching 40-45% of the offense. In the 90's, yeah, you did that if you were the Cowboys but teams don't do that out of want in the NFL these days (not good, competitive teams). Your thought may be correct (i will assume it is, sounds like you know your coach there) but you may have to factor in for diminishing returns. It is hard to see a team in today's NFL utilizing a RB that much. If nothing else, if they do, then a year from now, everyone will be labeling Martin as a Arian Foster type...suddenly he is used TOO much and as soon as that ypc dips by .2, people will say he is going to be burned out too quickly. Not a problem in redrafts but dynasty would be a concern.

 

[Leonidas]

Not posting their stuff for free, but Rotoviz has several articles defending Martin at #1 also, including their RB app (which is mostly based on comparing prior year info to other historical RBs and looking at their year+1).

When is the last time the consensus pre-season #1 RB actually WAS the #1 RB? This is a sincere question. I don't know the answer but it seems like every year, all the community experts start slobbering over the most recent memory they have of a RB and talk them up all off-season, to the point that they just get penciled in as "ADP and everyone else", "Ray Rice and everyone else", "Arian Foster and everyone else".

Yet, it seems like it has been 11-12 years since "the guy" actually was "the guy". Probably not as long as that. I was thinking Faulk but LT probably backed it up a few years.

Point being, if anything, I think if someone plugs my guys heavily as the #1, that is telling me to go in another direction.

If drafting your guy and having him finish as the #2 or #3 RB would be a disappointment, maybe you do want to go in another direction? It's not like the consensus #1 pick fails to produce. Sometimes they get hurt, but generally they finish in the top 3 or so. Foster and Peterson have been that #1 selection recently on a lot of people's boards, do you think the guys who drafted them were disappointed with what they got?

Drafting a guy in the first three picks overall, or the very first overall pick, isn't just about having them finish in the top spot. If they finish second or third, that was a great pick for you.

It's not like we are gambling and can take Tiger Woods or 'the field'. When you go in that other direction, what are the chances that guy will finish #1?

 

[adrenaline]

I like Martin better because of his greater chance of scoring, simple as that.

 

[Khy]

Not posting their stuff for free, but Rotoviz has several articles defending Martin at #1 also, including their RB app (which is mostly based on comparing prior year info to other historical RBs and looking at their year+1).

When is the last time the consensus pre-season #1 RB actually WAS the #1 RB? This is a sincere question. I don't know the answer but it seems like every year, all the community experts start slobbering over the most recent memory they have of a RB and talk them up all off-season, to the point that they just get penciled in as "ADP and everyone else", "Ray Rice and everyone else", "Arian Foster and everyone else".

Yet, it seems like it has been 11-12 years since "the guy" actually was "the guy". Probably not as long as that. I was thinking Faulk but LT probably backed it up a few years.

Point being, if anything, I think if someone plugs my guys heavily as the #1, that is telling me to go in another direction.

If drafting your guy and having him finish as the #2 or #3 RB would be a disappointment, maybe you do want to go in another direction? It's not like the consensus #1 pick fails to produce. Sometimes they get hurt, but generally they finish in the top 3 or so. Foster and Peterson have been that #1 selection recently on a lot of people's boards, do you think the guys who drafted them were disappointed with what they got?

Drafting a guy in the first three picks overall, or the very first overall pick, isn't just about having them finish in the top spot. If they finish second or third, that was a great pick for you.

It's not like we are gambling and can take Tiger Woods or 'the field'. When you go in that other direction, what are the chances that guy will finish #1?

No OBVIOUSLY if I take a RB at 1.01 and he finishes as RB3 I'm probably extremely happy with my pick. As long as he finishes in the top 5 RBs it's not a bad pick. That's why you pick one of the elite guys because you figure at worst you have a Top 5 RB. Same reason the first WR to be drafted will be Calvin in almost every league (even though I feel fairly confident that Dez will finish WR1 this season), you know that short of injury it's almost impossible for him to finish outside the top 5. That said, I'm of the opinion that there's a decent chance that Martin doesn't finish in the top 5 RBs. I've tried to give reasons for these but obviously Martin supporters just ignore those reasons. No matter how many legit numbers I can throw out they're irrelevant when you love a guy. I honestly think that there's a good chance Martin finishes outside the top 5. The earliest I'm drafting him is probably at around 1.03 or 1.04. I'm drafting AP, Charles and probably Lynch (non-ppr) over him. And then it still gets dicey for me because in non-ppr Alfred Morris, Spiller and McCoy are just as enticing for me as Martin is right now. I think I'd take Martin just because I think he has a better floor than those three but I think they all have higher ceilings. Except Alfred Morris, I think non-ppr Morris and Martin are about even for me in terms of their floor/ceilings. My "rb ratings" this year look something like this...

1. Charles

2. Peterson

3. Lynch

4. Spiller

5. Martin

6. Morris

7. McCoy

8. Foster

9. Rice

10. Richardson

Again, just my personal rankings. A lot of them probably unpopular opinions. Mainly Martin at 5 (which I've explained) and Foster at 8. Obviously I'm going to defend Charles in this post for a multitude of reasons as I can't think of the last time I recall this many stars aligning for a player of his caliber. I think he has a legit shot to shatter a ton of RB records this year and continue to be a dominant force for the next few seasons.

 

[Khy]

I like Martin better because of his greater chance of scoring, simple as that.

I feel like this is a false assumption personally... here's why. I feel like you're making this assumption because you're just looking at Martin's TDs vs Charles TDs. Which isn't really a fair comparison for several reasons. I'll break this down a little bit...

Martin had 12 total touchdowns last season or 27% of the Bucs 44 touchdowns scored last season. Their offense has seen almost no improvements at all this season past a slightly upgraded O-Line. So I'd expect their total TDs scored to remain in that 40-50 range this season. Assuming a similar percentage to last year that means Martin stands to hit 11-13 TDs this season. Obviously good.

Charles had 6 total touchdowns last season or 33% of the Cheifs NFL low 18 touchdowns scored last season. Their offense has seen a ton of improvements this season. Including a upgraded O-Line, the best QB they've had in over a decade and the best offensive minded coach they've had in over a decade. You have to assume that they will score at least double if not more than 18 touchdowns this season because of all of these things. Their offense went from league worse to having a ton of talent on it. They have Alex Smith, an amazing O-Line, Dwayne Bowe, Jon Baldwin and one of the best RBs in the NFL. Even if they just double their TDs from last season that's 36 TDs. Assuming Charles maintains his 33% mark that means he'll hit around 12 TDs this season? Granted I'm assuming that the Chiefs will probably come closer to the Bucs level of offensive production this season. If they hit even 40 TDs that would put Charles at a likely mark to match Martin's touchdown production.

Taking this into account I also think you'd be crazy to assume that Charles won't outproduce Martin in both rushing and receiving yardage. He's the all-time NFL leader in YPC and a full 0.8 career YPC over the next active RB (Adrian Peterson).

Those two things combined with the fact that Charles has multiple years of amazing production as proof that he is elite as opposed to one elite season under his belt makes me think he's the clear cut pick between the two.

 

[adrenaline]

I like Martin better because of his greater chance of scoring, simple as that.

I feel like this is a false assumption personally... here's why. I feel like you're making this assumption because you're just looking at Martin's TDs vs Charles TDs. Which isn't really a fair comparison for several reasons. I'll break this down a little bit...

Martin had 12 total touchdowns last season or 27% of the Bucs 44 touchdowns scored last season. Their offense has seen almost no improvements at all this season past a slightly upgraded O-Line. So I'd expect their total TDs scored to remain in that 40-50 range this season. Assuming a similar percentage to last year that means Martin stands to hit 11-13 TDs this season. Obviously good.

Charles had 6 total touchdowns last season or 33% of the Cheifs NFL low 18 touchdowns scored last season. Their offense has seen a ton of improvements this season. Including a upgraded O-Line, the best QB they've had in over a decade and the best offensive minded coach they've had in over a decade. You have to assume that they will score at least double if not more than 18 touchdowns this season because of all of these things. Their offense went from league worse to having a ton of talent on it. They have Alex Smith, an amazing O-Line, Dwayne Bowe, Jon Baldwin and one of the best RBs in the NFL. Even if they just double their TDs from last season that's 36 TDs. Assuming Charles maintains his 33% mark that means he'll hit around 12 TDs this season? Granted I'm assuming that the Chiefs will probably come closer to the Bucs level of offensive production this season. If they hit even 40 TDs that would put Charles at a likely mark to match Martin's touchdown production.

Taking this into account I also think you'd be crazy to assume that Charles won't outproduce Martin in both rushing and receiving yardage. He's the all-time NFL leader in YPC and a full 0.8 career YPC over the next active RB (Adrian Peterson).

Those two things combined with the fact that Charles has multiple years of amazing production as proof that he is elite as opposed to one elite season under his belt makes me think he's the clear cut pick between the two.

In 5 seasons Charles hasn't topped 8 total TDs in a season. He's not a goal line back, he doesn't have the size unlike Martin.

 

[Shutout]

Not posting their stuff for free, but Rotoviz has several articles defending Martin at #1 also, including their RB app (which is mostly based on comparing prior year info to other historical RBs and looking at their year+1).

When is the last time the consensus pre-season #1 RB actually WAS the #1 RB? This is a sincere question. I don't know the answer but it seems like every year, all the community experts start slobbering over the most recent memory they have of a RB and talk them up all off-season, to the point that they just get penciled in as "ADP and everyone else", "Ray Rice and everyone else", "Arian Foster and everyone else".

Yet, it seems like it has been 11-12 years since "the guy" actually was "the guy". Probably not as long as that. I was thinking Faulk but LT probably backed it up a few years.

Point being, if anything, I think if someone plugs my guys heavily as the #1, that is telling me to go in another direction.

If drafting your guy and having him finish as the #2 or #3 RB would be a disappointment, maybe you do want to go in another direction? It's not like the consensus #1 pick fails to produce. Sometimes they get hurt, but generally they finish in the top 3 or so. Foster and Peterson have been that #1 selection recently on a lot of people's boards, do you think the guys who drafted them were disappointed with what they got?

Drafting a guy in the first three picks overall, or the very first overall pick, isn't just about having them finish in the top spot. If they finish second or third, that was a great pick for you.

It's not like we are gambling and can take Tiger Woods or 'the field'. When you go in that other direction, what are the chances that guy will finish #1?

Oh...pardon me. I guess I took this thread too literally. I thought we were trying to rank one over the other, thus establishing which one would be the better pick for a team. If your point is "its all relative. Just draft him at #1 and be happy if he is #4" then what is the point of this conversation? They are both terrific backs and will likely both finish very high. So if you don't care if one is 3 and one is 6, etc, then why bother?

 

[Shutout]

I like Martin better because of his greater chance of scoring, simple as that.

I feel like this is a false assumption personally... here's why. I feel like you're making this assumption because you're just looking at Martin's TDs vs Charles TDs. Which isn't really a fair comparison for several reasons. I'll break this down a little bit...

Martin had 12 total touchdowns last season or 27% of the Bucs 44 touchdowns scored last season. Their offense has seen almost no improvements at all this season past a slightly upgraded O-Line. So I'd expect their total TDs scored to remain in that 40-50 range this season. Assuming a similar percentage to last year that means Martin stands to hit 11-13 TDs this season. Obviously good.

Charles had 6 total touchdowns last season or 33% of the Cheifs NFL low 18 touchdowns scored last season. Their offense has seen a ton of improvements this season. Including a upgraded O-Line, the best QB they've had in over a decade and the best offensive minded coach they've had in over a decade. You have to assume that they will score at least double if not more than 18 touchdowns this season because of all of these things. Their offense went from league worse to having a ton of talent on it. They have Alex Smith, an amazing O-Line, Dwayne Bowe, Jon Baldwin and one of the best RBs in the NFL. Even if they just double their TDs from last season that's 36 TDs. Assuming Charles maintains his 33% mark that means he'll hit around 12 TDs this season? Granted I'm assuming that the Chiefs will probably come closer to the Bucs level of offensive production this season. If they hit even 40 TDs that would put Charles at a likely mark to match Martin's touchdown production.

Taking this into account I also think you'd be crazy to assume that Charles won't outproduce Martin in both rushing and receiving yardage. He's the all-time NFL leader in YPC and a full 0.8 career YPC over the next active RB (Adrian Peterson).

Those two things combined with the fact that Charles has multiple years of amazing production as proof that he is elite as opposed to one elite season under his belt makes me think he's the clear cut pick between the two.

In 5 seasons Charles hasn't topped 8 total TDs in a season. He's not a goal line back, he doesn't have the size unlike Martin.

So basically you are using Charles' history against him, situationally, to state that he has not done something, yet you ignore the variable that he has been on terrible teams, was injured one of those years, and totally dismiss his history of the NFL leading YPC stats. That's pretty good because it can't be countered since Martin basically has no comparable history to compare it to. What's the old saying, "lots of guys have found themselves in the place to do something once in a row...show me a true trend."?

Frankly, I do not see what being a goal line back has anything at all to do with this.

81% of Brian Westbrook's career Tds were from outside the GL.

61% of Shady McCoy's career Tds were from outside the GL with Reid.

88% of Jamaal Charles' career Tds have been outside the GL.

So, we can see that Reid has been successful using Rbs that get their TDs in ways other than the "3 yards and a cloud of dust" method and we know that Charles, with his speed and history has shown that he is very capable of working inside that type of system.

Basically, what people should REALLY be focussing on here is that Jamaal Charles has always had the ability. His speed and YPC and production have established that. Now, he is entering into that perfect storm where abilty meets opportunity. That is what all FF'ers drool to find. Why are so many people trying to use it against Charles in this case?

 

[Khy]

I like Martin better because of his greater chance of scoring, simple as that.

I feel like this is a false assumption personally... here's why. I feel like you're making this assumption because you're just looking at Martin's TDs vs Charles TDs. Which isn't really a fair comparison for several reasons. I'll break this down a little bit...

Martin had 12 total touchdowns last season or 27% of the Bucs 44 touchdowns scored last season. Their offense has seen almost no improvements at all this season past a slightly upgraded O-Line. So I'd expect their total TDs scored to remain in that 40-50 range this season. Assuming a similar percentage to last year that means Martin stands to hit 11-13 TDs this season. Obviously good.

Charles had 6 total touchdowns last season or 33% of the Cheifs NFL low 18 touchdowns scored last season. Their offense has seen a ton of improvements this season. Including a upgraded O-Line, the best QB they've had in over a decade and the best offensive minded coach they've had in over a decade. You have to assume that they will score at least double if not more than 18 touchdowns this season because of all of these things. Their offense went from league worse to having a ton of talent on it. They have Alex Smith, an amazing O-Line, Dwayne Bowe, Jon Baldwin and one of the best RBs in the NFL. Even if they just double their TDs from last season that's 36 TDs. Assuming Charles maintains his 33% mark that means he'll hit around 12 TDs this season? Granted I'm assuming that the Chiefs will probably come closer to the Bucs level of offensive production this season. If they hit even 40 TDs that would put Charles at a likely mark to match Martin's touchdown production.

Taking this into account I also think you'd be crazy to assume that Charles won't outproduce Martin in both rushing and receiving yardage. He's the all-time NFL leader in YPC and a full 0.8 career YPC over the next active RB (Adrian Peterson).

Those two things combined with the fact that Charles has multiple years of amazing production as proof that he is elite as opposed to one elite season under his belt makes me think he's the clear cut pick between the two.

In 5 seasons Charles hasn't topped 8 total TDs in a season. He's not a goal line back, he doesn't have the size unlike Martin.

So basically you are using Charles' history against him, situationally, to state that he has not done something, yet you ignore the variable that he has been on terrible teams, was injured one of those years, and totally dismiss his history of the NFL leading YPC stats. That's pretty good because it can't be countered since Martin basically has no comparable history to compare it to. What's the old saying, "lots of guys have found themselves in the place to do something once in a row...show me a true trend."?

Frankly, I do not see what being a goal line back has anything at all to do with this.

81% of Brian Westbrook's career Tds were from outside the GL.

61% of Shady McCoy's career Tds were from outside the GL with Reid.

88% of Jamaal Charles' career Tds have been outside the GL.

So, we can see that Reid has been successful using Rbs that get their TDs in ways other than the "3 yards and a cloud of dust" method and we know that Charles, with his speed and history has shown that he is very capable of working inside that type of system.

Basically, what people should REALLY be focussing on here is that Jamaal Charles has always had the ability. His speed and YPC and production have established that. Now, he is entering into that perfect storm where abilty meets opportunity. That is what all FF'ers drool to find. Why are so many people trying to use it against Charles in this case?

You hit the nail on the head... people in this thread (and other SP threads) keep talking about how Charles has a history of low scoring seasons. Everyone is completely ignoring the fact that he is on the best team he's ever been on this year by a lightyear and a half. The difference between his surrounding talent and coaching this year vs last year is like the difference between the Browns last year and the 2007 Patriots (obviously over exaggerating a little lol). We are literally looking at as you said, the perfect storm of greatness.

Charles has been one of the most talented RBs in the NFL since entering the league. He's also consistently been the lone bright spot on the Chiefs offense his entire career. Literally the only reason this team has won games since he was drafted was Charles + Good Defense. Otherwise they would probably have been 0-16 for the past 3 seasons. As I said in my post, I really can't recall the last time someone with his talent level has had this much of an overall team improvement around him in a single year. Usually this is something that takes a few years or a RB happens to fall into. This guy just walked out of raw sewage into a fresh water river. Literally the only person I can see making an argument to draft over him at 1.01 is Peterson. But Martin vs Charles? I don't even think it's close, I think their floors are roughly the same. But Martin's floor and ceiling don't vary that much to me as he's no hall of fame special talent in my mind. Charles though? I feel like his ceiling this year is breaking a handful of single season records this season. He'll get TDs easy, he doesn't need to score from within the 5 yard line because if he touched the ball outside of it, it's likely he's already in the end zone. That's how good he is and this team can now get him into those situations.

 

[adrenaline]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

 

[Khy]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

Biggest yes, not the only relevant one though. Lets see what we have here for relevant offensive moves.

#1: Andy Reid - Head Coach: Definitely the most important one, Reid is an offensive genius and will help this team blossom. It has tons of young talent that he can work with.

#2: Alex Smith - Quarterback: Upgrading from Matt Cassel to Alex Smith is a massive upgrade. I'm not sure how you're downplaying this so much. Smith was a winning QB once he actually had a team around him and a coach that didn't write him off instantly.

#3: Eric Fisher - Tackle: Monster upgrade at RT compared to last year.

#4: Travis Kelce - Tight End: Kid is an amazing run blocker and will be used primarily as one out of the gate with Moeaki being more of their receiving TE.

#5: Defense: They already had an awesome defense and it just got better this year which will mean more offensive snaps and thus more touches all around.

The value of a new and proven head coach isn't something you can ignore. Reid is a great head coach and will get this team moving in the right direction early.

 

[silentcoach]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

I think Charles' supporters question Martin's TALENT (at least compared to Charles), and that is something we'll come to learn. Right or Wrong.

What would Martin have done on the chiefs the last few years? What would Charles have done with TB last year? We'll never know, but when you have both players ranked similarly the same, and with similar upgrades on offense.....who is better?

That is what the thread is about.

Some argue Martin, some argue Charles. If you think their scoring output AND talent are the same, I'd go with whomever you think has the better SOS (another argument on its own).

 

[Leonidas]

I honestly think that there's a good chance Martin finishes outside the top 5.

We have covered, extensively, why the "two big games" reason is not legitimate. Even if you discredit those big games, Martin still would have finished in the top 5 last season. As a rookie. Without the O-line improvements.

 

[Leonidas]

Not posting their stuff for free, but Rotoviz has several articles defending Martin at #1 also, including their RB app (which is mostly based on comparing prior year info to other historical RBs and looking at their year+1).

When is the last time the consensus pre-season #1 RB actually WAS the #1 RB? This is a sincere question. I don't know the answer but it seems like every year, all the community experts start slobbering over the most recent memory they have of a RB and talk them up all off-season, to the point that they just get penciled in as "ADP and everyone else", "Ray Rice and everyone else", "Arian Foster and everyone else".

Yet, it seems like it has been 11-12 years since "the guy" actually was "the guy". Probably not as long as that. I was thinking Faulk but LT probably backed it up a few years.

Point being, if anything, I think if someone plugs my guys heavily as the #1, that is telling me to go in another direction.

If drafting your guy and having him finish as the #2 or #3 RB would be a disappointment, maybe you do want to go in another direction? It's not like the consensus #1 pick fails to produce. Sometimes they get hurt, but generally they finish in the top 3 or so. Foster and Peterson have been that #1 selection recently on a lot of people's boards, do you think the guys who drafted them were disappointed with what they got?

Drafting a guy in the first three picks overall, or the very first overall pick, isn't just about having them finish in the top spot. If they finish second or third, that was a great pick for you.

It's not like we are gambling and can take Tiger Woods or 'the field'. When you go in that other direction, what are the chances that guy will finish #1?

Oh...pardon me. I guess I took this thread too literally. I thought we were trying to rank one over the other, thus establishing which one would be the better pick for a team. If your point is "its all relative. Just draft him at #1 and be happy if he is #4" then what is the point of this conversation? They are both terrific backs and will likely both finish very high. So if you don't care if one is 3 and one is 6, etc, then why bother?

That is not my point at all. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Go back and follow the conversation, making note of the specific post I was directly replying to.

My point was that the guy taken as the consensus #1 overall doesn't have to actually finish RB1 for it to be a good pick or for it to justify taking the guy who is consensus #1 overall the next year.

 

[LususV]

Not posting their stuff for free, but Rotoviz has several articles defending Martin at #1 also, including their RB app (which is mostly based on comparing prior year info to other historical RBs and looking at their year+1).

When is the last time the consensus pre-season #1 RB actually WAS the #1 RB? This is a sincere question. I don't know the answer but it seems like every year, all the community experts start slobbering over the most recent memory they have of a RB and talk them up all off-season, to the point that they just get penciled in as "ADP and everyone else", "Ray Rice and everyone else", "Arian Foster and everyone else".

Yet, it seems like it has been 11-12 years since "the guy" actually was "the guy". Probably not as long as that. I was thinking Faulk but LT probably backed it up a few years.

Point being, if anything, I think if someone plugs my guys heavily as the #1, that is telling me to go in another direction.

Um, Martin isn't the consensus #1 guy. AP is.

And 'everyone likes this guy so I'll take someone else instead' is an odd logical leap.

 

[LususV]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

Biggest yes, not the only relevant one though. Lets see what we have here for relevant offensive moves.

#1: Andy Reid - Head Coach: Definitely the most important one, Reid is an offensive genius and will help this team blossom. It has tons of young talent that he can work with.

#2: Alex Smith - Quarterback: Upgrading from Matt Cassel to Alex Smith is a massive upgrade. I'm not sure how you're downplaying this so much. Smith was a winning QB once he actually had a team around him and a coach that didn't write him off instantly.

#3: Eric Fisher - Tackle: Monster upgrade at RT compared to last year.

#4: Travis Kelce - Tight End: Kid is an amazing run blocker and will be used primarily as one out of the gate with Moeaki being more of their receiving TE.

#5: Defense: They already had an awesome defense and it just got better this year which will mean more offensive snaps and thus more touches all around.

The value of a new and proven head coach isn't something you can ignore. Reid is a great head coach and will get this team moving in the right direction early.

I like Fisher, but Winston was actually pretty damn good last year. I'd put Fisher as a downgrade in year 1, but obviously a good pick for the long run.

 

[Khy]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

I think Charles' supporters question Martin's TALENT (at least compared to Charles), and that is something we'll come to learn. Right or Wrong.

What would Martin have done on the chiefs the last few years? What would Charles have done with TB last year? We'll never know, but when you have both players ranked similarly the same, and with the same upgrades on offense.....who is better?

That is what the thread is about.

Some argue Martin, some argue Charles. If you think they are the same, I'd go with whomever you think has the better SOS (another argument on its own).

I wouldn't say Charles supporters are questioning his talent. Just people in general. I have multiple issues with the 2013 hype and assumptions for Doug Martin.

#1: Why is he a consensus #1 pick but Alfred Morris barely cracked the Top 10 on some people's lists? Morris scored more TDs than him, rushed for more yards, had a higher YPC and was significantly more consistent. Sure Martin added an extra 300 total yards on his receptions over Morris. But I also don't think it's logical to expect Martin to average 9.6 yards per reception again this season. That's better than Sproles, Forte, Foster and Peterson averaged last year by about 2 ypc. It's insane to think he'll do that again, be he'll probably have about the same amount of receptions at about 50.

#2: The lack of information we have on him and the small amount we do have showing some level of inconsistency. Yes, Charles also appears inconsistent on paper but it's kind of hard to match 300 yards and 4 TDs on 5 carries which isn't Charles fault it's Romeo Crennel's. Which won't be a problem this season.

#3: Just the typical sophomore slump. Honestly, I wasn't that high on Martin going into the draft or going into last season. I'd personally be surprised if he ever has a better season then he had last year. I don't understand how everyone just assumes he'll improve on last season. That is almost the complete opposite of what history tells us of off the charts rookie seasons. Typically these rookies that end their campaign at the top of their respective position they have a rather steep drop off the next year. Some good examples of this include: Michael Clayton, Rashaan Salaam, Matt Ryan, Mike Williams etc. There are a million and one examples of players who had extraordinary rookie seasons and terrible second years. And very few examples of extraordinary rookie seasons with improved second years. Typically the only people who do that end up being Hall of Fame players who happen to be among the top of their position for their entire career. Examples would be people like: Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, etc. I just think it's a bad assumption that he'll improve on his amazing rookie season. I'd say it's probably like 90% more likely that he has a decent drop off from last year.

 

[adrenaline]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

Biggest yes, not the only relevant one though. Lets see what we have here for relevant offensive moves.

#1: Andy Reid - Head Coach: Definitely the most important one, Reid is an offensive genius and will help this team blossom. It has tons of young talent that he can work with.

#2: Alex Smith - Quarterback: Upgrading from Matt Cassel to Alex Smith is a massive upgrade. I'm not sure how you're downplaying this so much. Smith was a winning QB once he actually had a team around him and a coach that didn't write him off instantly.

#3: Eric Fisher - Tackle: Monster upgrade at RT compared to last year.

#4: Travis Kelce - Tight End: Kid is an amazing run blocker and will be used primarily as one out of the gate with Moeaki being more of their receiving TE.

#5: Defense: They already had an awesome defense and it just got better this year which will mean more offensive snaps and thus more touches all around.

The value of a new and proven head coach isn't something you can ignore. Reid is a great head coach and will get this team moving in the right direction early.

Do you think this Chiefs team is tons better than the Eagles team reid coached to a 4-12 record last season?

 

[Shawnky]

As a Martin owner, I wouldn't trade him for Charles.

 

[LususV]

#3: Just the typical sophomore slump. Honestly, I wasn't that high on Martin going into the draft or going into last season. I'd personally be surprised if he ever has a better season then he had last year. I don't understand how everyone just assumes he'll improve on last season. That is almost the complete opposite of what history tells us of off the charts rookie seasons. Typically these rookies that end their campaign at the top of their respective position they have a rather steep drop off the next year. Some good examples of this include: Michael Clayton, Rashaan Salaam, Matt Ryan, Mike Williams etc. There are a million and one examples of players who had extraordinary rookie seasons and terrible second years. And very few examples of extraordinary rookie seasons with improved second years. Typically the only people who do that end up being Hall of Fame players who happen to be among the top of their position for their entire career. Examples would be people like: Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, etc. I just think it's a bad assumption that he'll improve on his amazing rookie season. I'd say it's probably like 90% more likely that he has a decent drop off from last year.

ding ding ding ding ding

I think that's what colors people's opinions more than anything. I was -extremely- high on Martin, and paid $25 for him in my auction keeper league before he'd had a single preseason carry.

 

[adrenaline]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

I think Charles' supporters question Martin's TALENT (at least compared to Charles), and that is something we'll come to learn. Right or Wrong.

What would Martin have done on the chiefs the last few years? What would Charles have done with TB last year? We'll never know, but when you have both players ranked similarly the same, and with similar upgrades on offense.....who is better?

That is what the thread is about.

Some argue Martin, some argue Charles. If you think their scoring output AND talent are the same, I'd go with whomever you think has the better SOS (another argument on its own).

Doesn't matter what Martin would do with the Chiefs & Charles with TB because it isn't reality.

The fact is RB position is a young man's game with a more often than not short lifespan. When a RB comes into the NFL as a 1st round pick & explodes you best get him while he's good.

 

[Leonidas]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

I think Charles' supporters question Martin's TALENT (at least compared to Charles), and that is something we'll come to learn. Right or Wrong.

What would Martin have done on the chiefs the last few years? What would Charles have done with TB last year? We'll never know, but when you have both players ranked similarly the same, and with the same upgrades on offense.....who is better?

That is what the thread is about.

Some argue Martin, some argue Charles. If you think they are the same, I'd go with whomever you think has the better SOS (another argument on its own).

I wouldn't say Charles supporters are questioning his talent. Just people in general. I have multiple issues with the 2013 hype and assumptions for Doug Martin.

#1: Why is he a consensus #1 pick but Alfred Morris barely cracked the Top 10 on some people's lists? Morris scored more TDs than him, rushed for more yards, had a higher YPC and was significantly more consistent. Sure Martin added an extra 300 total yards on his receptions over Morris. But I also don't think it's logical to expect Martin to average 9.6 yards per reception again this season. That's better than Sproles, Forte, Foster and Peterson averaged last year by about 2 ypc. It's insane to think he'll do that again, be he'll probably have about the same amount of receptions at about 50.

#2: The lack of information we have on him and the small amount we do have showing some level of inconsistency. Yes, Charles also appears inconsistent on paper but it's kind of hard to match 300 yards and 4 TDs on 5 carries which isn't Charles fault it's Romeo Crennel's. Which won't be a problem this season.

#3: Just the typical sophomore slump. Honestly, I wasn't that high on Martin going into the draft or going into last season. I'd personally be surprised if he ever has a better season then he had last year. I don't understand how everyone just assumes he'll improve on last season. That is almost the complete opposite of what history tells us of off the charts rookie seasons. Typically these rookies that end their campaign at the top of their respective position they have a rather steep drop off the next year. Some good examples of this include: Michael Clayton, Rashaan Salaam, Matt Ryan, Mike Williams etc. There are a million and one examples of players who had extraordinary rookie seasons and terrible second years. And very few examples of extraordinary rookie seasons with improved second years. Typically the only people who do that end up being Hall of Fame players who happen to be among the top of their position for their entire career. Examples would be people like: Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, etc. I just think it's a bad assumption that he'll improve on his amazing rookie season. I'd say it's probably like 90% more likely that he has a decent drop off from last year.

Matt Ryan went from 246 points as a rookie to...239 points his second year. Steep dropoff what?

 

[Wise Old Owl]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

Biggest yes, not the only relevant one though. Lets see what we have here for relevant offensive moves.

#1: Andy Reid - Head Coach: Definitely the most important one, Reid is an offensive genius and will help this team blossom. It has tons of young talent that he can work with.

#2: Alex Smith - Quarterback: Upgrading from Matt Cassel to Alex Smith is a massive upgrade. I'm not sure how you're downplaying this so much. Smith was a winning QB once he actually had a team around him and a coach that didn't write him off instantly.

#3: Eric Fisher - Tackle: Monster upgrade at RT compared to last year.

#4: Travis Kelce - Tight End: Kid is an amazing run blocker and will be used primarily as one out of the gate with Moeaki being more of their receiving TE.

#5: Defense: They already had an awesome defense and it just got better this year which will mean more offensive snaps and thus more touches all around.

The value of a new and proven head coach isn't something you can ignore. Reid is a great head coach and will get this team moving in the right direction early.

Do you think this Chiefs team is tons better than the Eagles team reid coached to a 4-12 record last season?

The eagles quit on reid after they fired the DC midway through the season. They also had major injuries on the Oline and at RB and QB. This Chiefs team was actually pretty talented in almost most spots but the QB position last year. It's hard for a defense to shine when you have Cassel with 12 ints and 7 fumbles in 9 games.

 

[silentcoach]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

I think Charles' supporters question Martin's TALENT (at least compared to Charles), and that is something we'll come to learn. Right or Wrong.

What would Martin have done on the chiefs the last few years? What would Charles have done with TB last year? We'll never know, but when you have both players ranked similarly the same, and with similar upgrades on offense.....who is better?

That is what the thread is about.

Some argue Martin, some argue Charles. If you think their scoring output AND talent are the same, I'd go with whomever you think has the better SOS (another argument on its own).

Doesn't matter what Martin would do with the Chiefs & Charles with TB because it isn't reality.

The fact is RB position is a young man's game with a more often than not short lifespan. When a RB comes into the NFL as a 1st round pick & explodes you best get him while he's good.

It does matter when you are trying to tell others he is more TALENTED than Charles--that is all.

We are COMPARING players....we've decided both RBs have improved situations, so the tie breaker come down to who is simply the better running back, yeah?

So, who is the more talented RB seems like the more reasonable approach? That is the guy you draft.

I take it that your tiebreaker is (1)round someone is drafted and (2)Youth and (3) production as a rookie and that is fine.

I believe that in a vacuum, Charles is the more talented running back, so if everything else is equal, this is who I would draft. If you think Martin is more talented, then that is who you would draft. I am not here to convince you WHO to draft, I just provide the REASONING for why I choose who I choose. In the end we'll take whoever we want but the point of threads and posts is to provide a reason as to why you chose who you do so that others can use that information and decide how they want to draft.

Once the reason is provided, and it's reasonable, that is all that needs to be said.

 

[KellysHeroes]

Charles is going to be a PPR stud, taking him over Martin in redraft but dynasty you got go Martin

 

[Leonidas]

It does matter when you are trying to tell others he is more TALENTED than Charles--that is all.


We are COMPARING players....we've decided both RBs have improved situations, so the tie breaker come down to who is simply the better running back, yeah?

So, who is the more talented RB seems like the more reasonable approach? That is the guy you draft.

I take it that your tiebreaker is (1)round someone is drafted and (2)Youth and (3) production as a rookie and that is fine.

Maybe. Their production last year was fairly different. Martin clearly out produced Charles. Charles needs some of that improvement, in theory, just to catch up.

 

[Warrior]

I can't think of a more worthless argument than to take away a player's best 2 games and compare his remaining 14 games to the 16 (including the top two) games of another RB.

You guys are smarter than that. I hope.

 

[silentcoach]

It does matter when you are trying to tell others he is more TALENTED than Charles--that is all.


We are COMPARING players....we've decided both RBs have improved situations, so the tie breaker come down to who is simply the better running back, yeah?

So, who is the more talented RB seems like the more reasonable approach? That is the guy you draft.

I take it that your tiebreaker is (1)round someone is drafted and (2)Youth and (3) production as a rookie and that is fine.

Maybe. Their production last year was fairly different. Martin clearly out produced Charles. Charles needs some of that improvement, in theory, just to catch up.

I've already showed he does not need improvement, just more touches (which I guess is improvement), as I've provided in my posts. Certainly what someone did last year does not mean that is what he does next year, or drafting would not have been as fun .

I pointed to how Charles was used and how Reid uses rbs, so this seems reasonable.

You do not have to accept my rationale or reasoning, but the point is I made a coherent post providing such reasoning. In the end you can accept or ignore it and that is the point of discussion.

 

[Leonidas]

It does matter when you are trying to tell others he is more TALENTED than Charles--that is all.


We are COMPARING players....we've decided both RBs have improved situations, so the tie breaker come down to who is simply the better running back, yeah?

So, who is the more talented RB seems like the more reasonable approach? That is the guy you draft.

I take it that your tiebreaker is (1)round someone is drafted and (2)Youth and (3) production as a rookie and that is fine.

Maybe. Their production last year was fairly different. Martin clearly out produced Charles. Charles needs some of that improvement, in theory, just to catch up.

I've already showed he does not need improvement, just more touches (which I guess is improvement), as I've provided in my posts. Certainly what someone did last year does not mean that is what he does next year, or drafting would not have been as fun .

I pointed to how Charles was used and how Reid uses rbs, so this seems reasonable.

Absolutely. But the biggest change(s) being pointed to are those that should lead to more touches. Charles needs that change just to catch up. Now, he might only need PART of that change, and he might get enough touches to surpass Martin. We'll have to wait and see. Personally I would say 'assuming adequate touches we'll have to see if there are enough TD opportunities for Charles to not only catch but pass Martin'

 

[silentcoach]

I can't think of a more worthless argument than to take away a player's best 2 games and compare his remaining 14 games to the 16 (including the top two) games of another RB.

You guys are smarter than that. I hope.

I don't think you need to take anyone's games away. I understand the hesitance some people place in Martin's season only because he played 1 season and it seems like he got a lot of his production in 2 game. I would not subtract the 2 games because it happened, but I understand the skepticism it creates when we are to PREDICT how Martin will do in the future based on only 1 season.

 

[silentcoach]

It does matter when you are trying to tell others he is more TALENTED than Charles--that is all.


We are COMPARING players....we've decided both RBs have improved situations, so the tie breaker come down to who is simply the better running back, yeah?

So, who is the more talented RB seems like the more reasonable approach? That is the guy you draft.

I take it that your tiebreaker is (1)round someone is drafted and (2)Youth and (3) production as a rookie and that is fine.

Maybe. Their production last year was fairly different. Martin clearly out produced Charles. Charles needs some of that improvement, in theory, just to catch up.

I've already showed he does not need improvement, just more touches (which I guess is improvement), as I've provided in my posts. Certainly what someone did last year does not mean that is what he does next year, or drafting would not have been as fun .

I pointed to how Charles was used and how Reid uses rbs, so this seems reasonable.

Absolutely. But the biggest change(s) being pointed to are those that should lead to more touches. Charles needs that change just to catch up. Now, he might only need PART of that change, and he might get enough touches to surpass Martin. We'll have to wait and see. Personally I would say 'assuming adequate touches we'll have to see if there are enough TD opportunities for Charles to not only catch but pass Martin'

Agreed. That is why I provided a floor and a ceiling.

His floor is what he has done the last few years when healthy....which is a great floor.

Martin, we do not really know what his floor is. We only have 1 season of data. To assume his floor is what he did last year may not be the most reasonable assumption.

To assume that Charles NEEDS improvement to "catch up" to Martin is to assume that last year was Martin's floor. You are entitled to that opinion, but I do not think it necessarily follows.

 

[silentcoach]

I need to get back to studying. Both are good rbs so my tie breaker goes to who I value as more talented--Charles!!

Disclaimer--I did own Martin when he went off last year

 

[Khy]

I can't think of a more worthless argument than to take away a player's best 2 games and compare his remaining 14 games to the 16 (including the top two) games of another RB.

You guys are smarter than that. I hope.

I disagree 100% as long as you are fair to the rest of the field. If you take the top 2 games away from say the Top 15 RBs. And the #2 RB drops from #2 to #5 in PPG then clearly there's something wrong. Doug Martin drops almost 4 PPG when you factor out his 2 largest scoring games. Which is astronomical. Bear in mind the drop for #2 to #5 is also in a PPR league. In a standard scoring league it's even more of a dramatic drop off. I feel like you would have to be completely stoned out of your mind to ignore that fact. The guy had a good season, don't get me wrong. All this does is point to this:

If Doug Martin doesn't have those two monster games and instead meets his average on the rest of the season (14.28ppg) he finishes at 228 points on the year instead of 288 somewhere around RB 6 if you do the same process with all the other RBs in the top 10. He had 33% of his production in 2 games about 8% more than the next closest player (Alfred Morris @ 25.5%) but bear in mind that Morris' best week came in Week 17 which isn't fantasy relevant.

I'm not trying to discredit what Martin did last season but if you are choosing to ignore this data then you are just blindly following the crowd. It's literally the only data we have on the guy I'm not sure how you can just ignore it by saying "that's stupid, you're smarter than that". Is it enough data to come to an accurate hypothetical conclusion? Absolutely not, but sometimes you have to work with what you have. And what we have shows some solid evidence that he may have a significant drop off from his rookie season. Because if he didn't have two enormous games and instead performed at his rough average the rest of the season we wouldn't be hyping him as a potential #1 pick this season. He's obviously a Top 5 draft pick this year you'd be insane to say he wasn't. I'm just saying to consider him a #1 overall is complete blasphemy.

 

[Khy]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

I think Charles' supporters question Martin's TALENT (at least compared to Charles), and that is something we'll come to learn. Right or Wrong.

What would Martin have done on the chiefs the last few years? What would Charles have done with TB last year? We'll never know, but when you have both players ranked similarly the same, and with the same upgrades on offense.....who is better?

That is what the thread is about.

Some argue Martin, some argue Charles. If you think they are the same, I'd go with whomever you think has the better SOS (another argument on its own).

I wouldn't say Charles supporters are questioning his talent. Just people in general. I have multiple issues with the 2013 hype and assumptions for Doug Martin.

#1: Why is he a consensus #1 pick but Alfred Morris barely cracked the Top 10 on some people's lists? Morris scored more TDs than him, rushed for more yards, had a higher YPC and was significantly more consistent. Sure Martin added an extra 300 total yards on his receptions over Morris. But I also don't think it's logical to expect Martin to average 9.6 yards per reception again this season. That's better than Sproles, Forte, Foster and Peterson averaged last year by about 2 ypc. It's insane to think he'll do that again, be he'll probably have about the same amount of receptions at about 50.

#2: The lack of information we have on him and the small amount we do have showing some level of inconsistency. Yes, Charles also appears inconsistent on paper but it's kind of hard to match 300 yards and 4 TDs on 5 carries which isn't Charles fault it's Romeo Crennel's. Which won't be a problem this season.

#3: Just the typical sophomore slump. Honestly, I wasn't that high on Martin going into the draft or going into last season. I'd personally be surprised if he ever has a better season then he had last year. I don't understand how everyone just assumes he'll improve on last season. That is almost the complete opposite of what history tells us of off the charts rookie seasons. Typically these rookies that end their campaign at the top of their respective position they have a rather steep drop off the next year. Some good examples of this include: Michael Clayton, Rashaan Salaam, Matt Ryan, Mike Williams etc. There are a million and one examples of players who had extraordinary rookie seasons and terrible second years. And very few examples of extraordinary rookie seasons with improved second years. Typically the only people who do that end up being Hall of Fame players who happen to be among the top of their position for their entire career. Examples would be people like: Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, etc. I just think it's a bad assumption that he'll improve on his amazing rookie season. I'd say it's probably like 90% more likely that he has a decent drop off from last year.

Matt Ryan went from 246 points as a rookie to...239 points his second year. Steep dropoff what?

I'm not just talking fantasy here... I'm just talking players and stats in general with this statement. Ryan went from 61% Comp, 3440 yards, 7.9 ypa, 16 TDs/11 INTs to 58% Comp, 2916 yards, 6.5 ypa, 22 TDs and 14 INTs. That's a pretty steep drop off in quality of play. I'm not too sure how you can argue that? Besides TDs he dropped off in every single passing statistic by a fair margin. Fair enough to be considered one of the worst sophomore slumps in recent memory. Obviously he's come into his own now but you cannot deny he had a rather bad sophomore slump.

 

[Warrior]

Not posting their stuff for free, but Rotoviz has several articles defending Martin at #1 also, including their RB app (which is mostly based on comparing prior year info to other historical RBs and looking at their year+1).

When is the last time the consensus pre-season #1 RB actually WAS the #1 RB? This is a sincere question. I don't know the answer but it seems like every year, all the community experts start slobbering over the most recent memory they have of a RB and talk them up all off-season, to the point that they just get penciled in as "ADP and everyone else", "Ray Rice and everyone else", "Arian Foster and everyone else".

Yet, it seems like it has been 11-12 years since "the guy" actually was "the guy". Probably not as long as that. I was thinking Faulk but LT probably backed it up a few years.

Point being, if anything, I think if someone plugs my guys heavily as the #1, that is telling me to go in another direction.

I hear this faulty logic all the time. Sure, #1 doesn't often repeat as #1. How often do you think the #2 projected RB ends up at #1 the following year? How about #3 projected ending up as #1? I guarantee it's less often.

For some reason, people take the #1 RB vs the field approach when saying "#1 never repeats as #1". The problem is that you can't draft EVERY RB other than Peterson. Maybe the #1 ranked RB only has a 20% chance of finish as #1 next season (80% chance he doesn't). That's still at least a few % points higher probability than any other RB you pick our prior to the season.

 

[Leonidas]

I can't think of a more worthless argument than to take away a player's best 2 games and compare his remaining 14 games to the 16 (including the top two) games of another RB.

You guys are smarter than that. I hope.

I disagree 100% as long as you are fair to the rest of the field. If you take the top 2 games away from say the Top 15 RBs. And the #2 RB drops from #2 to #5 in PPG then clearly there's something wrong. Doug Martin drops almost 4 PPG when you factor out his 2 largest scoring games. Which is astronomical. Bear in mind the drop for #2 to #5 is also in a PPR league. In a standard scoring league it's even more of a dramatic drop off. I feel like you would have to be completely stoned out of your mind to ignore that fact. The guy had a good season, don't get me wrong. All this does is point to this:

If Doug Martin doesn't have those two monster games and instead meets his average on the rest of the season (14.28ppg) he finishes at 228 points on the year instead of 288 somewhere around RB 6 if you do the same process with all the other RBs in the top 10. He had 33% of his production in 2 games about 8% more than the next closest player (Alfred Morris @ 25.5%) but bear in mind that Morris' best week came in Week 17 which isn't fantasy relevant.

I'm not trying to discredit what Martin did last season but if you are choosing to ignore this data then you are just blindly following the crowd. It's literally the only data we have on the guy I'm not sure how you can just ignore it by saying "that's stupid, you're smarter than that". Is it enough data to come to an accurate hypothetical conclusion? Absolutely not, but sometimes you have to work with what you have. And what we have shows some solid evidence that he may have a significant drop off from his rookie season. Because if he didn't have two enormous games and instead performed at his rough average the rest of the season we wouldn't be hyping him as a potential #1 pick this season. He's obviously a Top 5 draft pick this year you'd be insane to say he wasn't. I'm just saying to consider him a #1 overall is complete blasphemy.

Nobody is ignoring that fact.

But if you take away the two weeks where you most likely won solely on Martin's shoulders, he still finished as RB5 despite being a rookie. So you got RB5 production from the rest of the games and two almost-guaranteed wins in addition to that. And now all signs for this season point upwards. Sounds pretty damn good to me.

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

I think Charles' supporters question Martin's TALENT (at least compared to Charles), and that is something we'll come to learn. Right or Wrong.

What would Martin have done on the chiefs the last few years? What would Charles have done with TB last year? We'll never know, but when you have both players ranked similarly the same, and with the same upgrades on offense.....who is better?

That is what the thread is about.

Some argue Martin, some argue Charles. If you think they are the same, I'd go with whomever you think has the better SOS (another argument on its own).

I wouldn't say Charles supporters are questioning his talent. Just people in general. I have multiple issues with the 2013 hype and assumptions for Doug Martin.

#1: Why is he a consensus #1 pick but Alfred Morris barely cracked the Top 10 on some people's lists? Morris scored more TDs than him, rushed for more yards, had a higher YPC and was significantly more consistent. Sure Martin added an extra 300 total yards on his receptions over Morris. But I also don't think it's logical to expect Martin to average 9.6 yards per reception again this season. That's better than Sproles, Forte, Foster and Peterson averaged last year by about 2 ypc. It's insane to think he'll do that again, be he'll probably have about the same amount of receptions at about 50.

#2: The lack of information we have on him and the small amount we do have showing some level of inconsistency. Yes, Charles also appears inconsistent on paper but it's kind of hard to match 300 yards and 4 TDs on 5 carries which isn't Charles fault it's Romeo Crennel's. Which won't be a problem this season.

#3: Just the typical sophomore slump. Honestly, I wasn't that high on Martin going into the draft or going into last season. I'd personally be surprised if he ever has a better season then he had last year. I don't understand how everyone just assumes he'll improve on last season. That is almost the complete opposite of what history tells us of off the charts rookie seasons. Typically these rookies that end their campaign at the top of their respective position they have a rather steep drop off the next year. Some good examples of this include: Michael Clayton, Rashaan Salaam, Matt Ryan, Mike Williams etc. There are a million and one examples of players who had extraordinary rookie seasons and terrible second years. And very few examples of extraordinary rookie seasons with improved second years. Typically the only people who do that end up being Hall of Fame players who happen to be among the top of their position for their entire career. Examples would be people like: Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, etc. I just think it's a bad assumption that he'll improve on his amazing rookie season. I'd say it's probably like 90% more likely that he has a decent drop off from last year.

Matt Ryan went from 246 points as a rookie to...239 points his second year. Steep dropoff what?

I'm not just talking fantasy here... I'm just talking players and stats in general with this statement. Ryan went from 61% Comp, 3440 yards, 7.9 ypa, 16 TDs/11 INTs to 58% Comp, 2916 yards, 6.5 ypa, 22 TDs and 14 INTs. That's a pretty steep drop off in quality of play. I'm not too sure how you can argue that? Besides TDs he dropped off in every single passing statistic by a fair margin. Fair enough to be considered one of the worst sophomore slumps in recent memory. Obviously he's come into his own now but you cannot deny he had a rather bad sophomore slump.

What I'm arguing is that we draft players for their fantasy performance and Ryan's second year was only 0.44 points per game lower than his first. That's not a steep dropoff.

 

[Warrior]

I love how the Chiefs biggest acquisition is Alex Smith & some people are all hyped about how much better the team will be.

I think Charles' supporters question Martin's TALENT (at least compared to Charles), and that is something we'll come to learn. Right or Wrong.

What would Martin have done on the chiefs the last few years? What would Charles have done with TB last year? We'll never know, but when you have both players ranked similarly the same, and with the same upgrades on offense.....who is better?

That is what the thread is about.

Some argue Martin, some argue Charles. If you think they are the same, I'd go with whomever you think has the better SOS (another argument on its own).

I wouldn't say Charles supporters are questioning his talent. Just people in general. I have multiple issues with the 2013 hype and assumptions for Doug Martin.

#1: Why is he a consensus #1 pick but Alfred Morris barely cracked the Top 10 on some people's lists? Morris scored more TDs than him, rushed for more yards, had a higher YPC and was significantly more consistent. Sure Martin added an extra 300 total yards on his receptions over Morris. But I also don't think it's logical to expect Martin to average 9.6 yards per reception again this season. That's better than Sproles, Forte, Foster and Peterson averaged last year by about 2 ypc. It's insane to think he'll do that again, be he'll probably have about the same amount of receptions at about 50.

#2: The lack of information we have on him and the small amount we do have showing some level of inconsistency. Yes, Charles also appears inconsistent on paper but it's kind of hard to match 300 yards and 4 TDs on 5 carries which isn't Charles fault it's Romeo Crennel's. Which won't be a problem this season.

#3: Just the typical sophomore slump. Honestly, I wasn't that high on Martin going into the draft or going into last season. I'd personally be surprised if he ever has a better season then he had last year. I don't understand how everyone just assumes he'll improve on last season. That is almost the complete opposite of what history tells us of off the charts rookie seasons. Typically these rookies that end their campaign at the top of their respective position they have a rather steep drop off the next year. Some good examples of this include: Michael Clayton, Rashaan Salaam, Matt Ryan, Mike Williams etc. There are a million and one examples of players who had extraordinary rookie seasons and terrible second years. And very few examples of extraordinary rookie seasons with improved second years. Typically the only people who do that end up being Hall of Fame players who happen to be among the top of their position for their entire career. Examples would be people like: Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, etc. I just think it's a bad assumption that he'll improve on his amazing rookie season. I'd say it's probably like 90% more likely that he has a decent drop off from last year.

Matt Ryan went from 246 points as a rookie to...239 points his second year. Steep dropoff what?

I'm not just talking fantasy here... I'm just talking players and stats in general with this statement. Ryan went from 61% Comp, 3440 yards, 7.9 ypa, 16 TDs/11 INTs to 58% Comp, 2916 yards, 6.5 ypa, 22 TDs and 14 INTs. That's a pretty steep drop off in quality of play. I'm not too sure how you can argue that? Besides TDs he dropped off in every single passing statistic by a fair margin. Fair enough to be considered one of the worst sophomore slumps in recent memory. Obviously he's come into his own now but you cannot deny he had a rather bad sophomore slump.

If a 3% drop in comp % and +6 TD is "one of the worst slumps in recent memory", I'd say you have a VERY short memory.