DYNASTY: Miles Sanders or David Montgomery (1 Viewer)

[Jello_Biafra]

so can someone tell me which guy I'm supposed to take in my drafts? crap I seriously go back and forth every day, not kidding 

Montgomery easily. Slips right into Howard's role, plus he can catch. Sanders will be frustrating to own because you will be sick when you see Smallwood or Adams out there. Maybe down the road they go away from RBBC in Philly, but even then, it's no lock that Sanders>Motgomery.

 

[Bronco Billy]

so can someone tell me which guy I'm supposed to take in my drafts? crap I seriously go back and forth every day, not kidding 

I like Montgomery a lot better for reasons I’ve posted.  That said, I also see the Sanders side of the argument.  You’re going to have to go with your gut here, IMO.  No one is going to be able to give you surety either way.

 

[avina1]

Whatever dude. In 3 years this comment will be one of the biggest regrets of your whole life.

lol

your whole life man!

 

[King of the Jungle]

Whatever dude. In 3 years this comment will be one of the biggest regrets of your whole life.

That would be a pretty good life then! I agree with him 100%....I think the fact that it is a weak draft class helps Sanders obviously. IMO he just doesn’t have a lot of special traits and lands on a team who likes to use multiple backs. He is a good player but not special enough for me to pick in the top 5.

 

[smbkrypt24]

Whatever dude. In 3 years this comment will be one of the biggest regrets of your whole life.

While I agree with Clopp that Sanders is the superior player to Montgomery, this comment seems like a stretch.  

 

[avina1]

That would be a pretty good life then! I agree with him 100%....I think the fact that it is a weak draft class helps Sanders obviously. IMO he just doesn’t have a lot of special traits and lands on a team who likes to use multiple backs. He is a good player but not special enough for me to pick in the top 5.

outside of Howard how much do we see Clement contributing? At this point I see Smallwood and Adams out of the picture.

 

[EBF]

Montgomery easily. Slips right into Howard's role, plus he can catch. Sanders will be frustrating to own because you will be sick when you see Smallwood or Adams out there. Maybe down the road they go away from RBBC in Philly, but even then, it's no lock that Sanders>Motgomery.

I don't really see Smallwood or Adams keeping Sanders off the field in the long run. Definition of mediocre. That's why they spent a 2nd on Sanders.

 

[King of the Jungle]

outside of Howard how much do we see Clement contributing? At this point I see Smallwood and Adams out of the picture.

I think Sanders is a good football player, just not a special one. I think Clement will handle some passing downs and Howard will get some early carries and some goal line work. I just am surprised that people are taking Sanders in the top two picks as I just don’t see him being a FF force. I am no expert though and have been wrong before of course.

 

[foxco]

so can someone tell me which guy I'm supposed to take in my drafts? crap I seriously go back and forth every day, not kidding 

I had the 1.03 in a draft this week and went Sanders, though it was fairly close. Could easily be Montgomery who ends up the better player down the road, so glad I could clear that up for you...

 

[Jello_Biafra]

I don't really see Smallwood or Adams keeping Sanders off the field in the long run. Definition of mediocre. That's why they spent a 2nd on Sanders.

Also why they acquired Howard. I just don't think Sanders is good enough to stop Phi from using a RBBC. It works for them, why change things? Now if Sanders comes out and blows everyone away, then it's a different story, but I don't see that happening this year, at least.

 

[EBF]

By the same logic, Montgomery isn't good enough to stop RBBC in Chicago since Cohen is much more explosive and a weapon as a receiver.

I favor Montgomery over Sanders in redraft due to opportunity, but Sanders is a better athlete, was a higher pick, and plays on a better offense.

If you are drafting for their whole career and not just for the instant points then I think you have to take whoever you think is the better overall back.

If that's Montgomery then fine, but if you think Sanders is any good then JAGs like Smallwood and Adams shouldn't factor into your thinking.

Even Howard is a two down plodder who's been exposed after a flukey rookie season. They took Sanders as the #2 back in the draft AFTER they already had Howard on the roster, which indicates they see a big potential role for him despite whatever they already had on the books.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

By the same logic, Montgomery isn't good enough to stop RBBC in Chicago since Cohen is much more explosive and a weapon as a receiver.

I favor Montgomery over Sanders in redraft due to opportunity, but Sanders is a better athlete, was a higher pick, and plays on a better offense.

If you are drafting for their whole career and not just for the instant points then I think you have to take whoever you think is the better overall back.

If that's Montgomery then fine, but if you think Sanders is any good then JAGs like Smallwood and Adams shouldn't factor into your thinking.

Even Howard is a two down plodder who's been exposed after a flukey rookie season. They took Sanders as the #2 back in the draft AFTER they already had Howard on the roster, which indicates they see a big potential role for him despite whatever they already had on the books.

The Pats did the same thing drafting Michel in the 1st, but ultimately team philosophy wins out and they didn't use Michel like a workhorse, they integrated White and Burkhead disregarding draft capital. Now they have Harris, who could beat out Michel, but still will be in some kind of rotation. The Eagles have shown no indication they like using a workhorse. They traded for Ajayi then used him sparingly. They use their backs like the Pats and I don't see that changing. 

 

[SayWhat?]

Montgomery also had 700 touches over three seasons, which isn’t an insignificant amount for a college back.  Sanders had something like 300.  

I think Montgomery feels a bit safer than Sanders, but I’ve been gambling on Sanders’ upside over Montgomery when faced with that decision.

 

[barackdhouse]

outside of Howard how much do we see Clement contributing? At this point I see Smallwood and Adams out of the picture.

I agree Adams and Smallwood are likely gone. And Clement has no tackle breaking ability whatsoever, but can catch passes and presumably pass protect well enough to be on the field. I am loosely projecting Sanders as the primary back with Howard his main backup and Clement as an occasional change of pace 3rd down type. I wouldn't be surprised if Howard was the week 1 starter and then Sanders took over from him. I think only one of Adams, Smallwood and Clement make the team, and will be 3rd RB at best. As for Howard, though, they really didn't invest much into him at all, compared to the 2nd they invested in Sanders. It is a significant difference of value, if not in dollar terms (I don't know the difference between Sanders contract and Howards), in terms of draft and franchise capital. The FA signing doesn't mean jack. If Sanders is good enough to start, he will be doing so. 

I've argued that this was a bad spot for Sanders, but have more or less come around on it. *If* he is any good that is. But I do believe the Eagles drafted him with the intention of making him the primary back in a bigger share than what they've been doing (with some really bad RBs).

I've come around on Montgomery as well. People have said it before but now that I've had a chance to really watch him a bit, his contact balance and footwork is elite to me. I know people hate his athletic measurables, but I don't think they are deal breakers. He looks really good to me. I am taking him before Sanders but I like them both a lot. I think the odds of Montgomery taking over the backfield that is expected by some to be a RBBC outweigh the odds of Sanders taking over an RBBC that is seemingly more entrenched, even though I think they both take over. 

 

[EBF]

The Pats did the same thing drafting Michel in the 1st, but ultimately team philosophy wins out and they didn't use Michel like a workhorse, they integrated White and Burkhead disregarding draft capital. Now they have Harris, who could beat out Michel, but still will be in some kind of rotation. The Eagles have shown no indication they like using a workhorse. They traded for Ajayi then used him sparingly. They use their backs like the Pats and I don't see that changing. 

Is that a function of team philosophy or personnel? Do you really think the Eagles and Pats would rigidly stick to a RBBC if they had Saquon Barkley or Joe Mixon on their roster? There's an old Bill Parcells quote where he says something like, "If you have two quarterbacks, you really have no quarterbacks." Likewise, there's a good argument that RBBC only prevails when teams have no one worthy of being a bell cow back, and not because the team wants a committee.

Go down a list of the elite backs of the past 10-15 years and you won't find them sharing a lot of work. Once they showed what they could do, people like Forte, Rice, McCoy, Charles, S Jackson, Peterson, Lynch, Zeke, Bell, MJD, LT, and Gurley were fed the ball. The Patriots haven't had a back of this caliber since Corey Dillon, so it makes sense that they've relied on a committee approach. LeSean McCoy and Brian Westbrook handled a lot of work when they played in Philly. The Eagles haven't had an elite back since trading McCoy, so of course they've used a revolving door. What else would they have done? Feed Smallwood 300 touches?

I just think you are making excuses to favor Montgomery over Sanders when what you're really saying is that you just don't think Sanders is anything special. That's fine, but let's not pretend that the situation itself is some kind of permanent RBBC lock based on recent history. If last year's Eagles team had a prime Westbrook or McCoy on the roster then I'm guessing they would've fed him 250-300 touches. That's what you do when you find a back that good. When you have a bunch of garbage, you fall back on a committee approach. So what I'm saying is that IF you think Sanders has a chance to approach the level of McCoy/Westbrook, the presence of scrubs like Adams and Smallwood is absolutely irrelevant.

Put another way, you can look at the population of the NFL's RBs as a tiered pyramid.

GROUP A - Elite backs who will start for any team and have virtually no vulnerability to draft picks/free agent signings (Ex: Peterson, SJax, LT, Barkley).

GROUP B - Good backs who can be effective starters, but aren't elite options (Ex: Benson, L Miller, D Murray).

GROUP C - Backs who have enough talent to thrive in spurts, but are extremely vulnerable to being replaced by better talent (Ex: Z Stacy, J Howard, CJ Anderson).

GROUP D - JAGs who are eminently replaceable and only have value in the event of injuries.

Part of what I'm arguing is that when it comes to dynasty value where you're looking at performance over a player's entire career, your #1 priority should be trying to identify which bucket the player belongs in because that's ultimately going to be the biggest variable in his long-term success. Would I say Miles Sanders is a Group A guy? No, that would be a very dangerous assumption, but it's possible and if it turns out that he's even just a Group B guy and Montgomery is a Group C guy then you will regret passing on him just because the depth chart looks bad (and it's really not that bad, as nobody on Philly's roster has a good case for being more than a B, and are probably closer to C).

Personally, I'd have Sanders shaded towards Group B and Montgomery shaded more towards Group C. Maybe I have it backwards, but what we know from decades of data is that good talent creates opportunities whereas bad talent wastes opportunities. The Rams are a good example of this. They spent a 5th rounder on Zac Stacy and at the time he was the best back on the roster. He had a productive rookie year. Then they drafted Tre Mason in the third round and he stole a lot of Stacy's thunder. Then they drafted Gurley in the top 10 and all of those guys became irrelevant. If Montgomery or Sanders is just pretty good then nothing will stop their team from dipping back into the draft and supplanting them. It happens all the time. People took Bishop Sankey and Montee Ball with top 5 rookie picks because of their "great opportunity" and now both guys are out of the league. If Montgomery comes in and average 3.6 YPC as a rookie and the Bears are staring a franchise back in the face next year in the first round of the draft, are they really going to pass on that guy because they have David Montgomery?

At this point I'm repeating myself, but if you are worried about the likes of Josh Adams and Wendell Smallwood then you are maybe focusing on the wrong variable. The more talented a player is, the less it matters who else is on his roster. We can't assume either of these rookies is a Peterson or SJax who will have bulletproof job security, but their workload and long-term job security will mostly hinge on how good they are, and not much else. If you are really worried about people like Smallwood and Adams keeping Sanders off the field then to me that just translates to, "I don't think Sanders is very good."

 

[Biabreakable]

I like your description of groups or tiers of the RB talent level. I totally agree that this is what I try to do with all RB players. Which group does every RB belong to.

I call these tiers one, two and three, the JAG tier I dont bother with.

I think they are both tier two (or group B) players.

 

[cloppbeast]

I think Sanders is a good football player, just not a special one. I think Clement will handle some passing downs and Howard will get some early carries and some goal line work. I just am surprised that people are taking Sanders in the top two picks as I just don’t see him being a FF force. I am no expert though and have been wrong before of course.

You might be in the minority with your Sanders' take. Seems like most people think he's something of a boom/bust. I feel like he could be a special player based on his burst and open field ability. He makes defenders too often,  hard to tackle. The behind line of scrimmage stuff will worry you, which can make a running back a flat out bum in the NFL. Remember Trent Richardson?

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

You might be in the minority with your Sanders' take. Seems like most people think he's something of a boom/bust. I feel like he could be a special player based on his burst and open field ability. He makes defenders too often,  hard to tackle. The behind line of scrimmage stuff will worry you, which can make a running back a flat out bum in the NFL. Remember Trent Richardson?

This probably isn't the right place to bring this up - in fact I've been waiting to craft a new topic on this for a few months - but I'll tease it here.

The more I watch RBs and WRs, the more I become convinced that in order to be a stud WR in the NFL, you need to have one or more A-grade traits plus no gaping flaws. You can be an off-the-charts size / speed / agility freak a la Stephen Hill, but if you aren't a smooth pass-catcher, you're ... Stephen Hill. And you can be a first-round pick like Laquon Treadwell, but if you can't run precise routes, you're ... Laquon Treadwell.

On the other hand, you can go a long way towards being a stud RB with just one 99th-percentile, best-in-the-league trait: McCoy's shiftiness, Bell's vision, Freeman's burst. None of those guys were SPARQ freaks or put up video-game college stats, but they are or were perennial bellcow RB1s anyway.

Following this thesis to its conclusion, the RB I like most out of this class is actually Darrell Henderson. His elusiveness and YAC numbers basically broke the metrics, so whether it's one specific factor or a combination of a couple, it's likely to be of the 99th-percentile quality that puts him in that class of guys above. As between Montgomery and Sanders, though, gun to my head I'm taking Sanders. I'm not at all confident that he has that "something special", but he might - whereas I'm almost certain Montgomery doesn't.

 

[RC94]

Before the draft, I had Jacobs and Sanders ranked very close in terms of talent regardless of team situation and had Montgomery and the rest of the RBs ranked behind them.  In dynasty leagues I really favor talent over team situation unless the team situation is a huge factor like Henderson going to LA while they have Gurley.  That’s a huge roadblock for Henderson, unless Gurley is much more limited than we realize (IMO Henderson is insurance more than a replacement).  I agree with EBF that things like RBBC change when a clear top RB is on the team so when it comes to Sanders vs. Montgomery, I go with talent and IMO that means I’m taking Sanders