This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Big fan of Spiller here, I would hold on to him and sell only if the offer is right for you/your team. I am in the minority among most here, but I think he is the back to have in Buffalo this season and the coming few seasons.
Agree. I have to imagine Ridley's value has taken a hit, even since I posted the question, as well. Vereen has looked good out of the backfield.
Reggie is still the lead back in this situation, which has been apparent in the preseason games and in Hard Knocks. Almost on queue, the announcer wondered who was going to be their GL runner as Daniel Thomas plunged in for the score. At the very least, I think he presents the most contrast to Reggie/Lamar to be the Thunder to their Lightning. Ultimately, though, I think you're right - it's a mess for dynasty purposes, and not one I'm personally trying to unravel.
I never really saw much of Vereen in college, but I do have to say I've been impressed at what I've seen so far. He seems to have the most spark of all the backs... and with that offense his pass-catching ability and being dynamic in the open field may translate to more.
agreed. Jackson looks ready to roll and he seems poised to have a storng year.
This.Bush is a RB2 in PPR formats, in my opinion. High upside, high risk. He is still young enough to string together 3 solid years, even though it feels like he has been around forever. Non-PPR formats, I would be trying desperately to sell to anyone that values him as a RB2. His role, if we use the end of last season, will have to be reduced or altered for Bush to stay healthy for a full season plus. The other two are fliers worth holding or acquiring at a discount, once their owners give up hope.
The key to getting the best value on a Pead purchase is timing. If you bought, holding. If you are buying, doing so after it is appartent Pead isn't ready for a 40/60 split, but before the end of the season, when Jackson is a year older and Pead a year deeper into the system. Pead has looked really bad in pre-season and I think he's a year away. That said, players that can rely on speed in high school/college sometimes need a year to adjust. David Wilson is going through it now, as well, LeSean McCoy went through it his rookie season.
Was thrilled to take Pead as a handcuff in a draft last night.
I don't think those are SSOG's rankings. They're Jason Kirshner's rankings (forget what his screen name is here). SSOG said in another thread that he probably won't post rankings there again but had other things in mind. I keep one of those "other things" is dynasty rankings
Thank you. Very solid, whose ever they are.I don't think those are SSOG's rankings. They're Jason Kirshner's rankings (forget what his screen name is here). SSOG said in another thread that he probably won't post rankings there again but had other things in mind. I keep one of those "other things" is dynasty rankings
problem is there is a more talented WR on the other side of the field, granted Dez has his own st of issues. miles is Romo's favorite it seems, but getting both of them on the field together has been a major chore these past two seasons
Good point. I think Bryant is a threat short-term. The offensive line isn't going to give Romo the time he needs for the Cowoys to be the dominant offense they can be. But I have to think that problem is addressed this coming off-season. Once it is, I think two 1,200 yard receivers from this offense will be likely, if not simply very possible.
McCoy wasn't bad as a rookie.The NFL is a copycat league and so is FF. I think a lot of people pumping up Pead and Hillman are looking for the next LeSean McCoy.IMO both of those guys are just mediocre talents though.
That seems a good hit rate, but you have to consider that over those 7 years you had another 32 picks that WEREN'T one of those guys. To me, that means that when weighing an actual player against a 2-7 pick, you have to value the pick at just under a 25% chance of becoming one of those guys.
He wasn't great either. There were plenty of people jumping ship on McCoy after his rookie year. The point is this: If you do believe in Pead writing him off for a bad or even average rookie season could be a costly mistake. And over reacting to a couple preseason games is even more short sighted (Not directed at you, I know you're just not a believer in his talent).Anyway, I don't have a problem with fantasy footballers looking for the next McCoy if the Rams or Broncos are doing the same thing. These guys are pretty high picks and they will get their chance. The fact that guys with their measurables have proven they can handle heavy work loads in the NFL is only icing on the cake.
McCoy didn't look great to me as a rookie. That's just me, but I believe that was close to the consensus. He hesitated a lot, and, in my opinion, took time to gain the discipline needed to be a great NFL RB. A lot of young RBs struggle picking their spots and waiting for opportunities to present themselves. They force things because they've always been able to. Shady was alway able to dance, even in the backfield, and make something out of nothing. You can't do that consistantly in the NFL. You see young players often try to reverse field, out of habit - another habit they have to break.The NFL is a copycat league, and teams are learning how to put smaller, faster RBs in a position to produce. These backs - once considered specialists - are being valued more, and the most recent NFL draft reflects that. Fantasy owners have to adjust to that as well. When talking about Pead, a lot of people I really respect have mentioned McCoy, Johnson, and Charles as comparisons (F&L, Fisher, Cosell). I'm not ready to give up on him, just think he needs a year.
McCoy averaged 4.1 YPC and I think the figure was higher in games where he had 10+ carries. So regardless of how he looked, his results weren't bad. The thing people often discover when chasing trends is that it's hard to duplicate the original's success. Most grunge bands signed in the wake of Nirvana's success didn't sell as many albums. You know why? Because they weren't as good. In my view Pead and McCoy are like the cheap "made in China" knockoffs of guys like McCoy, Johnson, and Charles. The teams who drafted them are like the record executives who thought every band from Seattle with long hair could sell tickets like Nirvana. What I think they'll find is that being small and productive in college doesn't automatically mean you can do it in the NFL. McCoy was a prodigious runner ranked as one of the best in his high school class. He instantly dominated at Pitt. Charles and Johnson have rare athletic gifts (like 4.3 speed) that Pead and Hillman can only dream of. In terms of profile, LaMichael James is actually closer to that trio. I like Hillman more than Pead, but overall I'd say they're b-movie versions of the players they're often compared to. Heck, in terms of value per cost, Pead's rookie teammate Daryl Richardson is a more interesting proposition.
YPC is worthless in such a small sample size. Too many variables. And McCoy was no more productive in college than Pead, per touch. If you are right about Pead and Hillman, you will be right on the players themselves, not the thinking of the teams that drafted them. Smaller backs are doing more than they have in the past - there is a major niche that NFL teams are taking advantage of. Charles, Johnson, McCoy, Sproles, Best (when healthy) have all been productve very recently. Spiller had a very solid stretch. David Wilson was drafted in the first. Pead, Hilman, and James shortly after. Times are changing. Owners should too.
Weird example. I'd be fine getting the equivalent of Sound Garden or Alice in Chains with a late first rounder. It's not like these guys are being drafted in the top half of drafts (Wesseling's rankings not withstanding).As far as McCoy's history goes, for being such a dominant player he had to wait until pick 53 to hear his name. Pead went 50th, Hillman went 63rd. Charles was picked 67th overall. I just hate when people say "These guys have gifts these other guys could only dream of". What? Really? They were 2nd and 3rd rounders. The entire NFL missed the boat on them? Or you think maybe they just needed to develop and grow?
I'm not arguing that small backs can't be successful in today's NFL. That's obviously not the case. What I'm saying is this: Just because a player fits a rough "type" does not make him as good as the best from that type. Pead and Hillman are undersized jitterbug types. That doesn't automatically mean they are as good as the best undersized jitterbug types in the NFL. Most of the successful guys you named have special qualities. Sproles is a unique animal. He was an absolutely insane college player, but his severe lack of height had him pigeon-holed into a gadget player role for most of his pro career. His cutting ability and vision are off the charts. It's evident in his college highlights. And the production suggests rare talent as well. He rushed for 1300+ yards for three years in a row in college, averaging over 6.0 YPC during that stretch and nearly topping 2000 rushing yards as a junior. The guy was a first round talent downgraded for one simple reason: he was extremely short. Pead and Hillman are average height for a pro RB. Not parallel cases. Best, Johnson, Charles, and Spiller are sprinters with rare burst. You're talking about guys with 4.2-4.3 type of speed. The kind that makes your jaw drop. Apart from being on the light side, Pead and Hillman really don't stack up with these guys from a physical standpoint. They run in the mid-high 4.4 range and lack special athletic qualities. That's probably why they slipped to the 2nd-3rd round while Best/Johnson/Spiller were all recognized as first round talents. The same more or less applies to David Wilson. Athletic freak of nature. The closest comparison is McCoy. On paper, Pead and Hillman are pretty similar to him. They were very productive in college, they were drafted in about the same spot, and they have approximately the same dimensions and measurables (McCoy was a disaster in pre-draft workouts). I understand why so many people make this comparison, but it doesn't really jive with my own subjective observations. Hillman and Pead don't really pop off the screen for me in the same way that McCoy did. I know some people won't agree with that. It's just my opinion and I don't expect everyone to find it convincing.Without the special athletic qualities and without the eye-popping highlights, Pead and Hillman are just productive college players with good draft pedigrees. Getting that 2nd-3rd round stamp of approval from at least one pro scouting department is a big feather in their cap and the main reason why I still take them seriously as draft prospects, but for me they aren't guys who belong in the top 10 of a rookie draft, and certainly not over first round talents like Floyd and Wright. I think they're more likely to be the next Lorenzo Booker than the next LeSean McCoy.
It's easy in hindsight to label all those who have made it in the NFL as special at the time. But, as the above poster pointed out - all of these guys were drafted in close range to the successful NFL players. As for Pead - he is special fast. I am not sure what his 40 time was, but, watching as a fan, and watching the Sr. Bowl - Pead is special fast.
Not that this is particularly relevant to this conversation, but I would have sworn that you were adamant that McCoy would fail in the NFL due to his measurables - particularly (if I remember correctly) his lower leg burst. I only remember this because I value your opinion as one of the best on this board when it comes to the rookies, and I stayed away from McCoy after reading and buying into your analysis. Not trying to call you out here, but just clarifying that I do in fact remember this correctly.
I had him as the #1 overall player in one of my rookie lists from that year, but chickened out after his horrible workouts. Lesson learned there. I still value combine numbers, college production, and draft position, but the eyeball test might be the most important variable. It's why I've remained high on Kendall Wright despite his poor 40 times. The eyes don't lie.
Like I'm sure most of you, I spend a lot of time each year with my rookie rankings, research etc. And one thing I've really noticed in a lot of my leagues - maybe it's just the owners I play with, I don't know - but they tend to give up on guys quickly. One of my favorite moves is trying to acquire players I was high on, who have upside, but that others have given up on for the next new shiny thing. Sell the current rookies for last year's rookies, who for one reason or another haven't quite put it together and don't look totally outmatched, etc.
Shady and Arian, yeah, but not Rice. Many were high on him before his rookie season and before his breakout, only concern I had was the lack of TD's year 1.
Yea, that can be a really good way to go. Even some guys who are immediately written off as massive busts like Gabbert and DHB have come back from the dead to varying degrees. If you like a player and he struggles and/or doesn't get on the field much as a rookie, it might present a good buy low window.
Exactly. I traded for Gabbert in one 16 team, 6 pt per passing TD league for a 4th round pick. DHB came for a 3rd (which is actually less valuable since not taxi squad eligible). Sure, I've been burned at times with guys like Jamarcus Russell, but in general, acquiring low on the-guys-we-once-thought-would-be-studs like Donald Brown, Gabbert, DHB, McCoy, etc has worked out. I think sometimes expectations are so high for rookies that if they're not immediate studs people are willing to move on from them... and you can pay much less especially if you're trading today's shiney new things
The problem with Austin is the repeat injury, one hamstring injury isn't too much to fret over, two is worrisome, and more is bad. Austin's had at least 4 (2010, preseason 2011, in-season 2011, and now), and I think more. Each hamstring pull is more damaging to the muscle than the one before. Anyone who has had hammy problems can relate, it's not a muscle to f around with. There's no denying his special abilities when he's on the field, but he can't be relied on as an every week starter anymore. He's a great option on a team that's 4 or 5 deep, but not reliable enough to be in a starting 3.
Is there an example of a hamstring pulls damaging a player's career, long-term? I am sure there are, but none are coming to mind. Austin has only missed games one season, and should be back by the start of this season.'MAC_32 said:
Probably, I don't want to cite Donte Stallworth because I've heard enough rumors of his lazy offseason work to believe that had as much to do with it than anything, but Eric Byrnes' baseball career is another one that immediately comes to mind. Medically, this is just what happens when you have repeat hamstring injuries. Each one builds up more and more scar tissue damaging the muscle fibers making re-aggrevation more and more likely. Eventually, it isn't repairable. Shouldn't effect your quality of life, but you cannot generate the force needed to sprint at elite speeds and cut on a dime repeatedly.
I was at KSU the same time Sproles was and talk about being robbed of the Heisman. He was in a class of his own.
He "got over it" by specially designed shoes.
Richardson looked great against the Cowboys' first team defense. Pead looked, again, pretty bad. Good call here, EBF. I think you mentioned him before his pre-season success.
