Jamaal Charles, RB, Kansas City Chiefs (2 Viewers)

[Bayhawks]

"McCluster is 5'8", 170 lbs, Charles is 5'11", 199. Charles weighs 29 more lbs, spread out over 3 more inches. To me that doesn't indicate that either is more solidly built, especially McCluster."I dont buy much into the size argument other than with the guys who are extreme outliers but I wish folks would stop with just the height weight thing. First off we have no idea where these guys are currently at, if you put a lot of stock into just height and weight, then 3-5 pounds should be important to you and I guarantee these guys have their weight fluctuate that much if not more for some other rb's. Secondly, again if you really want to get into body type and all that, listing height/weight is just one data point and perhaps not the most important one. Where the rb carries the weight would seem to be important too no? Two guys both 5'11ish 199ish can have very different bodies. If you wanna use the size argument, really go into it, listing heights and weights that are probably a little off to begin with doesnt seem to mean much. Charles is big enough, hes more than fast enough. Ive seen all the stats put out on weight and injury probability but those only look back, not forward and dont account for a ton of things. Best of luck to everyone this year!

Maybe you should read the whole thread, or at least the posts to which you are responding?Another poster said McCluster is more solidly built than Charles. I merely showed their heights/weights to demonstrate that this isn't accurate. Charles being 3 inches taller, but almost 30 lbs heavier is an INDICATION of that. Sorry but I don't have both backs thigh, waist, chest, shoulder measurements available to me.If McCluster was 5'8", 185, and Charles was 5'11", 190, then yeah, I'd agree with the idea that McCluster was more solid. But the numbers don't bear that out.

 

[Rick James]

How the hell could Charles fall behind Forte?!?! Bears look awful. I'm drafting in just a few hours and want to take Charles in the early 2nd round. I'm considering taking him over SJax, Dwill, Mathews, Grant, Benson, Roddy White and Reggie Wayne. Am I nuts?

Are you nuts? No, but there's a very high chance Charles is there in the 3rd and 4th. I got him at 4.07 in a 12-team NON PPR.

 

[latrops]

"McCluster is 5'8", 170 lbs, Charles is 5'11", 199. Charles weighs 29 more lbs, spread out over 3 more inches. To me that doesn't indicate that either is more solidly built, especially McCluster."I dont buy much into the size argument other than with the guys who are extreme outliers but I wish folks would stop with just the height weight thing. First off we have no idea where these guys are currently at, if you put a lot of stock into just height and weight, then 3-5 pounds should be important to you and I guarantee these guys have their weight fluctuate that much if not more for some other rb's. Secondly, again if you really want to get into body type and all that, listing height/weight is just one data point and perhaps not the most important one. Where the rb carries the weight would seem to be important too no? Two guys both 5'11ish 199ish can have very different bodies. If you wanna use the size argument, really go into it, listing heights and weights that are probably a little off to begin with doesnt seem to mean much. Charles is big enough, hes more than fast enough. Ive seen all the stats put out on weight and injury probability but those only look back, not forward and dont account for a ton of things. Best of luck to everyone this year!

Maybe you should read the whole thread, or at least the posts to which you are responding?Another poster said McCluster is more solidly built than Charles. I merely showed their heights/weights to demonstrate that this isn't accurate. Charles being 3 inches taller, but almost 30 lbs heavier is an INDICATION of that. Sorry but I don't have both backs thigh, waist, chest, shoulder measurements available to me.If McCluster was 5'8", 185, and Charles was 5'11", 190, then yeah, I'd agree with the idea that McCluster was more solid. But the numbers don't bear that out.

What difference does it make? By NFL standards, both would be considered too small to have a heavy workload (over 300 touches?)...until they prove otherwise.

 

[Brady Gaga]

How the hell could Charles fall behind Forte?!?! Bears look awful. I'm drafting in just a few hours and want to take Charles in the early 2nd round. I'm considering taking him over SJax, Dwill, Mathews, Grant, Benson, Roddy White and Reggie Wayne. Am I nuts?

Are you nuts? No, but there's a very high chance Charles is there in the 3rd and 4th. I got him at 4.07 in a 12-team NON PPR.

I wish I could get in even in the 3rd but I know for sure he'd be gone by late round 2. Our league bonuses long distance TDs so Charles is appealing.

 

[two_dollars]

"McCluster is 5'8", 170 lbs, Charles is 5'11", 199. Charles weighs 29 more lbs, spread out over 3 more inches. To me that doesn't indicate that either is more solidly built, especially McCluster."I dont buy much into the size argument other than with the guys who are extreme outliers but I wish folks would stop with just the height weight thing. First off we have no idea where these guys are currently at, if you put a lot of stock into just height and weight, then 3-5 pounds should be important to you and I guarantee these guys have their weight fluctuate that much if not more for some other rb's. Secondly, again if you really want to get into body type and all that, listing height/weight is just one data point and perhaps not the most important one. Where the rb carries the weight would seem to be important too no? Two guys both 5'11ish 199ish can have very different bodies. If you wanna use the size argument, really go into it, listing heights and weights that are probably a little off to begin with doesnt seem to mean much. Charles is big enough, hes more than fast enough. Ive seen all the stats put out on weight and injury probability but those only look back, not forward and dont account for a ton of things. Best of luck to everyone this year!

Maybe you should read the whole thread, or at least the posts to which you are responding?Another poster said McCluster is more solidly built than Charles. I merely showed their heights/weights to demonstrate that this isn't accurate. Charles being 3 inches taller, but almost 30 lbs heavier is an INDICATION of that. Sorry but I don't have both backs thigh, waist, chest, shoulder measurements available to me.If McCluster was 5'8", 185, and Charles was 5'11", 190, then yeah, I'd agree with the idea that McCluster was more solid. But the numbers don't bear that out.

What difference does it make? By NFL standards, both would be considered too small to have a heavy workload (over 300 touches?)...until they prove otherwise.

But it doesn't mean he won't. (See Chris Johnson). If you take Charles' average over the last 8 games, it was 20.125 carries a game, that's 322 for a 16 game projection. I don't expect that of course, but 225-250 is not out of the question. It actually very likely. 225 at 5.0 ypc (his low side imo) is 1125, add in some catches.. approx 40 as his low side, and you're around 1500 total yards. TD's are hard to predict, but 8 or 9 total is most likely. That's great numbers from where he's being drafted.

 

[Thomsen]

If Charles isn't taken by the start of the 3rd, you must be in a league without Sharks. That should never happen, I don't care what doubts you have about him. He wrote fantasy history for gods sake!

 

[BigDave]

I took Charles at pick #29 in a 10 team league and was very happy to get him behing Turner as my #2.

My league also has 5 bonus points for >100 yds., so I expect at least 4-5 of those games this year.

Even if T Jones vultures some tds., Charles will be a very good #2 for me that I start each week with confidence.

 

[dwyadog]

"Another poster said McCluster is more solidly built than Charles. I merely showed their heights/weights to demonstrate that this isn't accurate. Charles being 3 inches taller, but almost 30 lbs heavier is an INDICATION of that. Sorry but I don't have both backs thigh, waist, chest, shoulder measurements available to me.

If McCluster was 5'8", 185, and Charles was 5'11", 190, then yeah, I'd agree with the idea that McCluster was more solid. But the numbers don't bear that out."

Im saying the numbers arent the end all be all. Mccluster could be more solidly built at 5'8 175 then charles at 5'11 195, "solidly built" is pretty subjective, sure you think h/w is an indication, i think it means little. You have to look at the player in question. You dont need all the measurements you listed, you can look at video or even meet the guy in person if you get around enough. Sorry, saying that 5'11 195 is necessarily more solidly built than 5'8 175 just isnt true, look at other elite athletes, you can have two boxers at or near that level of listed height/weight discrepancy and theres a good chance the smaller one will look a lot more "solid".

 

[Keith1]

If Charles isn't taken by the start of the 3rd, you must be in a league without Sharks. That should never happen, I don't care what doubts you have about him. He wrote fantasy history for gods sake!

I draft tonight and am hoping against hope he falls to me in the 3rd round of my 12 team draft (at pick # 31 overall). Not likely I know.

 

[jurb26]

"Another poster said McCluster is more solidly built than Charles. I merely showed their heights/weights to demonstrate that this isn't accurate. Charles being 3 inches taller, but almost 30 lbs heavier is an INDICATION of that. Sorry but I don't have both backs thigh, waist, chest, shoulder measurements available to me.

If McCluster was 5'8", 185, and Charles was 5'11", 190, then yeah, I'd agree with the idea that McCluster was more solid. But the numbers don't bear that out."

Im saying the numbers arent the end all be all. Mccluster could be more solidly built at 5'8 175 then charles at 5'11 195, "solidly built" is pretty subjective, sure you think h/w is an indication, i think it means little. You have to look at the player in question. You dont need all the measurements you listed, you can look at video or even meet the guy in person if you get around enough. Sorry, saying that 5'11 195 is necessarily more solidly built than 5'8 175 just isnt true, look at other elite athletes, you can have two boxers at or near that level of listed height/weight discrepancy and theres a good chance the smaller one will look a lot more "solid".

Charles is built solid. Seriously these are elite human beings as far as conditioning is concerned. Both guys are built solid. They are NFL RB for crying out loud. Charles has the advantage of more mass. We know that Charles is still able to remain lightening fast and quick carrying his current mass as well. For McCluster to ever become NFL relevant carrying the ball more than occasional gimmick plays he would have to add some serious mass. We don't know if he would be able to maintain his speed and quickness if he does that. Moreover, I doubt the Chiefs want him too. He is a WR.

Charles

 

[bigmiiiiike]

FWIW I'm not a Charles guy by any means, but I had to take him at 3.10 in my 12 team nonPPR redraft league over the weekend. Should be a very nice RB2 to go with AP (we use 3RR).

 

[Bayhawks]

"Another poster said McCluster is more solidly built than Charles. I merely showed their heights/weights to demonstrate that this isn't accurate. Charles being 3 inches taller, but almost 30 lbs heavier is an INDICATION of that. Sorry but I don't have both backs thigh, waist, chest, shoulder measurements available to me.

If McCluster was 5'8", 185, and Charles was 5'11", 190, then yeah, I'd agree with the idea that McCluster was more solid. But the numbers don't bear that out."

Im saying the numbers arent the end all be all. Mccluster could be more solidly built at 5'8 175 then charles at 5'11 195, "solidly built" is pretty subjective, sure you think h/w is an indication, i think it means little. You have to look at the player in question. You dont need all the measurements you listed, you can look at video or even meet the guy in person if you get around enough. Sorry, saying that 5'11 195 is necessarily more solidly built than 5'8 175 just isnt true, look at other elite athletes, you can have two boxers at or near that level of listed height/weight discrepancy and theres a good chance the smaller one will look a lot more "solid".

Especially when you add 5 lbs to 1 guys' weight, and take 5 lbs away from another guy, right? McCluster is 170 lbs, not 175, and Charles is 199, not 195.Charles outweights McCluster by almost 30 lbs, not the 20 you are trying to suggest.

Charles is 3 inches taller.

I hate to bring BMI into this (especially b/c I think it has NOTHING to do with football ability, especially at RB), but Charles' BMI is 27.8, and McCluster's is 25.8.

I don't think the numbers are the end all and be all, but when someone else posted that McCluster is more solidly built than Charles, WITH NOTHING TO SUPPORT THAT ASSERTION, I used the only thing available (their heights/weights) to show that this isn't necessarily true.

If you have other evidence that will support/challenge that assertion, please feel free to share it. However, I think it would be helpful if you stick to the facts, and don't try to "fudge" anything like you tried to fudge the respective weights of Charles and McCluster in your previous post.

 

[Bayhawks]

"McCluster is 5'8", 170 lbs, Charles is 5'11", 199. Charles weighs 29 more lbs, spread out over 3 more inches. To me that doesn't indicate that either is more solidly built, especially McCluster."I dont buy much into the size argument other than with the guys who are extreme outliers but I wish folks would stop with just the height weight thing. First off we have no idea where these guys are currently at, if you put a lot of stock into just height and weight, then 3-5 pounds should be important to you and I guarantee these guys have their weight fluctuate that much if not more for some other rb's. Secondly, again if you really want to get into body type and all that, listing height/weight is just one data point and perhaps not the most important one. Where the rb carries the weight would seem to be important too no? Two guys both 5'11ish 199ish can have very different bodies. If you wanna use the size argument, really go into it, listing heights and weights that are probably a little off to begin with doesnt seem to mean much. Charles is big enough, hes more than fast enough. Ive seen all the stats put out on weight and injury probability but those only look back, not forward and dont account for a ton of things. Best of luck to everyone this year!

Maybe you should read the whole thread, or at least the posts to which you are responding?Another poster said McCluster is more solidly built than Charles. I merely showed their heights/weights to demonstrate that this isn't accurate. Charles being 3 inches taller, but almost 30 lbs heavier is an INDICATION of that. Sorry but I don't have both backs thigh, waist, chest, shoulder measurements available to me.If McCluster was 5'8", 185, and Charles was 5'11", 190, then yeah, I'd agree with the idea that McCluster was more solid. But the numbers don't bear that out.

What difference does it make? By NFL standards, both would be considered too small to have a heavy workload (over 300 touches?)...until they prove otherwise.

Seriously??? You don't think a RB that is right at 200 lbs is more likely to be able to handle more of a workload than a RB who is right at 170 lbs? I understand that neither is the "prototypical" NFL RB, but there have been many successful NFL RBs who were closer to Charles' build than to McCluster. That's a fact. ETA-I looked it up. There are 16 men listed as "RBs" (not halfbacks or fullbacks) in the NFL Hall of Fame. 5 of them are very similar in height/weight to Charles (around 6' & 200 lbs). NONE are McCluster's height/weight.So, I guess it does make a difference, doesn't it?

 

[The Jacket]

At our draft Charles fell to 4.06 (12 team) behind the likes of Forte, Best, Pierre, etc.He was the 20th RB taken.

Good league bro. -3 pts for every 100-yard game? And -5 for every 40+ yard TD?

 

[Babu Bhatt2]

First of all, I didn't realize KC was slotted to just 420 carries as a team. They bring in a RB like T. Jones. They bring in McCluster that everyone is convinced will be a part of the running game. And, they have a dynamic runner who proved his worth last year yet they are going to run fewer times than last year's 438 carries? That number is gonna go down, not up. The direction of this football team is changing.Secondly, you think 30-40 is more realistic when Charles ALREADY had 40 last year and the guy didn't become the starter until week 10? Really? You think he's going to average less than 2 catches/game? Even as a rookie in limited time, the guy had 27 receptions and you think he's only gonna get 30 or so catches this year when he's the main guy in town? You're more than entitled to your opinion on how it will shake out, but I hope you realize that you are actually bucking the current trends of what's already happened and the direction the team is moving.

I wasn't counting the 50 carries Matt Cassel had last year. The true number of carries the Chiefs had last year was 388, which includes WR carries. The 420 number is a 32 carry increase over a year ago.And yes, I do not think Charles' reception numbers will increase dramatically over last year. Charles' numbers as a whole will not go up appreciably over a year ago.

 

[Babu Bhatt2]

"McCluster is 5'8", 170 lbs, Charles is 5'11", 199. Charles weighs 29 more lbs, spread out over 3 more inches. To me that doesn't indicate that either is more solidly built, especially McCluster."I dont buy much into the size argument other than with the guys who are extreme outliers but I wish folks would stop with just the height weight thing. First off we have no idea where these guys are currently at, if you put a lot of stock into just height and weight, then 3-5 pounds should be important to you and I guarantee these guys have their weight fluctuate that much if not more for some other rb's. Secondly, again if you really want to get into body type and all that, listing height/weight is just one data point and perhaps not the most important one. Where the rb carries the weight would seem to be important too no? Two guys both 5'11ish 199ish can have very different bodies. If you wanna use the size argument, really go into it, listing heights and weights that are probably a little off to begin with doesnt seem to mean much. Charles is big enough, hes more than fast enough. Ive seen all the stats put out on weight and injury probability but those only look back, not forward and dont account for a ton of things. Best of luck to everyone this year!

Maybe you should read the whole thread, or at least the posts to which you are responding?Another poster said McCluster is more solidly built than Charles. I merely showed their heights/weights to demonstrate that this isn't accurate. Charles being 3 inches taller, but almost 30 lbs heavier is an INDICATION of that. Sorry but I don't have both backs thigh, waist, chest, shoulder measurements available to me.If McCluster was 5'8", 185, and Charles was 5'11", 190, then yeah, I'd agree with the idea that McCluster was more solid. But the numbers don't bear that out.

As another poster said, "solidity" is a subjective assessment. Just from watching the two run, I think McCluster is the better built player. I'm not arguing that McCluster can be a feature back anyway, I don't think he can be.

 

[Bad_Mo]

"McCluster is 5'8", 170 lbs, Charles is 5'11", 199. Charles weighs 29 more lbs, spread out over 3 more inches. To me that doesn't indicate that either is more solidly built, especially McCluster."I dont buy much into the size argument other than with the guys who are extreme outliers but I wish folks would stop with just the height weight thing. First off we have no idea where these guys are currently at, if you put a lot of stock into just height and weight, then 3-5 pounds should be important to you and I guarantee these guys have their weight fluctuate that much if not more for some other rb's. Secondly, again if you really want to get into body type and all that, listing height/weight is just one data point and perhaps not the most important one. Where the rb carries the weight would seem to be important too no? Two guys both 5'11ish 199ish can have very different bodies. If you wanna use the size argument, really go into it, listing heights and weights that are probably a little off to begin with doesnt seem to mean much. Charles is big enough, hes more than fast enough. Ive seen all the stats put out on weight and injury probability but those only look back, not forward and dont account for a ton of things. Best of luck to everyone this year!

Maybe you should read the whole thread, or at least the posts to which you are responding?Another poster said McCluster is more solidly built than Charles. I merely showed their heights/weights to demonstrate that this isn't accurate. Charles being 3 inches taller, but almost 30 lbs heavier is an INDICATION of that. Sorry but I don't have both backs thigh, waist, chest, shoulder measurements available to me.If McCluster was 5'8", 185, and Charles was 5'11", 190, then yeah, I'd agree with the idea that McCluster was more solid. But the numbers don't bear that out.

As another poster said, "solidity" is a subjective assessment. Just from watching the two run, I think McCluster is the better built player. I'm not arguing that McCluster can be a feature back anyway, I don't think he can be.

Don't we really need supporting evidence from Chatroullette?

 

[Bayhawks]

As another poster said, "solidity" is a subjective assessment. Just from watching the two run, I think McCluster is the better built player. I'm not arguing that McCluster can be a feature back anyway, I don't think he can be.

OK, then, maybe you wouldn't mind sharing a little more. What exactly about McCluster makes him the "better built" NFL RB?

 

[Otis]

What are their ankles like?

 

[Eviloutsider]

What are their ankles like?

Or their bubbles?

 

[jurrassic]

I am hesitant on Charles, but if the guy is still there at 4.1, I am taking him. Even if it means I open the draft with 3 rb's and a qb. He will return value on a 4th round pick. If I'm staring at both Steve Smiths, Desean Jackson, Crabtee, Best and Charles, I think I'm going Best and Charles every time.

 

[DoGdr]

Don't Know much about Charles...hope he is productive. I picked him 5.7 in 12 man league...21st RB taken.

 

[cvnpoka]

Thomas Jones has not looked good. I would see no reason why he would get half the carries. That's just silly. Jamaal Charles only had 190 carries last year and finished 11th in total points among RB's in my league. That was after only starting half the season. You say that you are crazy for drafting (in the 3rd round) a player who had the highest yards per carry in the NFL last year... along with being the first player in history to go over 1,100 yards in less than 200 carries?Even the Coach has said that he will run with the back that gives them the best chance to win. How do you interpret that as an even split? Charles will get the lion's share of the carries...and he will produce big. There is nothing that would lead us to believe otherwise. Not his outstanding job after starting last year... or his great job this preseason. Charles is a stud.

This sort of thinking is delusional. Let me explain why.Last year, the Chiefs' non-QBs had 388 carries over the course of the season. That number may increase somewhat, but probably not by much. For the purposes of this analysis I will assume that there are 420 non-QB carries to go around--a 30 carry increase from last year. (By comparison, the Jets have roughly 500 carries to go around, which is why LT is so valuable). Also, for the purposes of this analysis I am assuming all three runners remain healthy. This probably helps Charles, because out of Jones, Charles, and McCluster, Charles is the biggest injury risk.Thomas Jones has been atop the Chiefs' depth chart all offseason, and remains there going into week 1. Jones also possesses a different skillset than Charles, and will be in there on goalline and short yardage plays. At a minimum, these two factors (starting job, goal line carries) indicate that Jones will receive at least 35% of the team's RB carries (roughly 140). That's Jones' floor. His ceiling is probably around 200 carries.Dexter McCluster was drafted in the early second round and is a dynamic runner, like Charles. He will play some wide receiver, but will also undoubtedly receive some carries (he had 181 carries last year in the SEC). I think he gets at least 70 carries on the season, and probably also eats into Charles' receptions. His ceiling is around 100 carries.What does that leave for Charles? At best, if Jones only gets 140 carries, and McCluster only gets 70, Charles will be left with the remaining 210 carries. That's only 20 more than he had last year. At worst, if Jones gets, say, 170 carries and McCluster 100, Charles would only be left with 150 carries.150-210 carries simply isn't worth a second or third round pick in most leagues, especially when you consider that Jones will get the goal line carries. Charles is MAYBE worth a late third round pick as a flex option, IF you assume that his yards per carry stay around 6. That is unlikely, but if you draft him in the third round that is what you have to believe.

this is a good breakdown and methodology. i think you are overrating the workload mccluster will get. highly doubt he gets over 40 carries. also, you are neglecting how many catches charles will get. he has good hands and is phenomenal in the open field so it seems highly likely they will throw to him quite a bit. last yr he had 40 catches in half a season.anyway, i project charles to have 220 carries and 50 catches and that should put him right in line with a 3rd round pick.

 

[cvnpoka]

You realize if they use him like Harvin then his floor is about 15 carries? You know, the # of carries Harvin actually got last year despite so many predicting 40+ carries. I mean, that's only 2-3 carries/game, right? McCluster is essentially 0 threat to Charles in terms of carries. While I love Charles and think he will be the primary ball carrier, I'm quite sure T. Jones is still going to get his share and I think 140 is easily a floor for him and he'll probably get in the 170-180 range. I don't think Charles gets more than 225 carries and most likely a little less. But, I also think Charles is going to get a boatload of targets in the passing game and he's easily going to be a 250+ touch RB when you combine them. If he continues his current rate of production, which I think he will, that is more than enough touches to make him fantasy relevant. I think he's going to have a minimum of 1400 combined yards with 50+ catches. The TDs will be interesting and difficult to predict with Jones in the mix, but at that point, it's just gravy. In PPR leagues, Charles is going to help carry some teams for sure.

pretty much exactly what my projections are. 220 and 50 for jc. 180 and 20 for charles. and for mccluster who cares.

 

[The Jacket]

Don't Know much about Charles...hope he is productive. I picked him 5.7 in 12 man league...21st RB taken.

You people can't be serious. There's simply no way there are this many dumbaschit leagues around. Are there?

 

[[icon]]

What are their ankles like?

You people are really missing out on the important details that hawks like Otis zero in on. Take notes.

 

[FallenHero32]

Don't Know much about Charles...hope he is productive. I picked him 5.7 in 12 man league...21st RB taken.

You people can't be serious. There's simply no way there are this many dumbaschit leagues around. Are there?

I've seen some of these leagues first hand. Bunch of "fantasy football expert" that my g/f is friends with drafted the big names first...then at around round 5-6 had no idea who anyone was. I had to point out the fact that Charles was a beast at the end of the year, that Floyd is currently the #1 in SD, ect. Reggie Wayne lasted until round 3! Andre till the end of round 2. Nothing was making sense.

 

[[icon]]

Don't Know much about Charles...hope he is productive. I picked him 5.7 in 12 man league...21st RB taken.

You people can't be serious. There's simply no way there are this many dumbaschit leagues around. Are there?

6.7 in my 10 man PPR office money league as my RB3 behind Rice/Gore.

 

[thekidd2009]

I got charles at pick 29, 14th rb of the board.

 

[WiDDoW_MaKeR]

Don't Know much about Charles...hope he is productive. I picked him 5.7 in 12 man league...21st RB taken.

You people can't be serious. There's simply no way there are this many dumbaschit leagues around. Are there?

6.7 in my 10 man PPR office money league as my RB3 behind Rice/Gore.

The fact that you also have Rice and Gore shows exactly how weak that league is.

 

[munygon2]

I got JC in round 4, 4th pick. He definitely went kind of late for a group of veteran FF players that have a tendency to take many RB's up front.

 

[goodoldalky]

Career statistics of top 50 RB's in NFL history, courtesy of ESPN:

Age/Carries/Rush Yards/YPC

23 / 242.3 / 1064.4 / 4.39

24 / 267.3 / 1187.8 / 4.44

25 / 297.4 / 1306.9 / 4.39

26-27 / 298.3 / 1282.7 / 4.30

28-29 / 279.2 / 1188.1 / 4.26

30 / 241.1 / 1000.2 / 4.15

31 / 206.4 / 858.8 / 4.16

32 / 176.6 / 682.0 / 3.86

33+ / 162.4 / 601.9 / 3.71

The list of great RB's who finally hit the wall is endless. And usually, it's a drop-off-a-cliff, not a gradual decline. There is a reason the Jets have moved on, and there is a reason that Thomas Jones did not get a call to be an every down back by another NFL squad despite being one of the most productive backs in the league. Worse yet, he had a career-high workload to the tune of 341 touches last year. Every number in the book suggests he's probably near the end of his production.

Ergo, for the timeless one, I will predict (430 rushing attempts last year, I'll go with 390 between Jones/Charles):

Thomas Jones BEST CASE HOLY COW go TJ scenario, absolute ceiling for TJ - 170 carries, 680 yards, 4 TD's, 5 receptions, 40 yards

Jamaal Charles WORST CASE HOLY COW go TJ scenario, absolute floor for JC - 220 carries, 880 yards, 6 TD's, 45 receptions, 325 yards, 1 TD

More likely, we will see TJ used in similar doses as Larry Johnson was last year by the same coaching staff:

Thomas Jones - 130 carries, 520 yards, 2 TD's, 3 receptions, 20 yards

Jamaal Charles - 260 carries, 1,040 yards, 8 TD's, 55 receptions, 397 yards, 1 TD

In reality I think Charles will get fewer carries than that but >4ypc so similar yardage. Regardless, I think Charles has a lot of value in PPR and Jones is extremely unlikely to bring Charles anywhere under 220 carries and 40 receptions, minimum.

 

[[icon]]

Don't Know much about Charles...hope he is productive. I picked him 5.7 in 12 man league...21st RB taken.

You people can't be serious. There's simply no way there are this many dumbaschit leagues around. Are there?

6.7 in my 10 man PPR office money league as my RB3 behind Rice/Gore.

The fact that you also have Rice and Gore shows exactly how weak that league is.

No way. This is the strongest league in the region.

 

[WiDDoW_MaKeR]

Don't Know much about Charles...hope he is productive. I picked him 5.7 in 12 man league...21st RB taken.

You people can't be serious. There's simply no way there are this many dumbaschit leagues around. Are there?

6.7 in my 10 man PPR office money league as my RB3 behind Rice/Gore.

The fact that you also have Rice and Gore shows exactly how weak that league is.

No way. This is the strongest league in the region.

Nobody... and I mean NOBODY ends up with Rice and Gore in a non-keeper league.... IF the league has strong players. Let alone getting Rice and Gore... then turning around and getting Jamaal Charles with the 67th pick! That's absurd and I will never be convinced that you are in a strong league. Sorry.

 

[-jb-]

Despite being a Charles detractor, I was prepared to draft him in a 12 teamer last night at 3.06 if he was there. He went 2.04.

If you want him, you better be prepared to pay.

 

[LC512]

Despite being a Charles detractor, I was prepared to draft him in a 12 teamer last night at 3.06 if he was there. He went 2.04.If you want him, you better be prepared to pay.

I got him at the 5th pick in the 6th round, in a relatively solid local league (about 2-3 really good players, 3-4 solid ones, and a couple of bad ones). A local league in Austin, TX where all but two people are Longhorns. Go figure... I'd be curious to see a stat on ADP based off of variance. I bet Charles would easily have the highest draft spot variance of anyone in the top 5-6 rounds this year.It seems to me that a lot of people, at least in the two leagues I'm in, have a growing aversion to "getting burned". They'd rather draft an unproven rookie (Spiller went well before Charles) over a guy who blew the doors off of people last year simply because if they get burned by the rookie, nobody can say they saw it coming.My team is full of guys who people were afraid to "get burned by" this year, whom I drafted well past their ADP. Romo (rd 5), Portis (rd 9), and Bowe (rd 8), and S. Moss late (Forget which round). Lee Evans literally fell to the 14th round and everyone was openly joking about who would be the one to take him and get burned by it. Brandon Jacobs went in the 16th because it was a well publicized and laughed-at event in my league last year that I hated Brandon Jacobs and was burned by him.Anyone else seeing this?

 

[emge]

Despite being a Charles detractor, I was prepared to draft him in a 12 teamer last night at 3.06 if he was there. He went 2.04.If you want him, you better be prepared to pay.

I got him at the 5th pick in the 6th round, in a relatively solid local league (about 2-3 really good players, 3-4 solid ones, and a couple of bad ones). A local league in Austin, TX where all but two people are Longhorns. Go figure... I'd be curious to see a stat on ADP based off of variance. I bet Charles would easily have the highest draft spot variance of anyone in the top 5-6 rounds this year.It seems to me that a lot of people, at least in the two leagues I'm in, have a growing aversion to "getting burned". They'd rather draft an unproven rookie (Spiller went well before Charles) over a guy who blew the doors off of people last year simply because if they get burned by the rookie, nobody can say they saw it coming.My team is full of guys who people were afraid to "get burned by" this year, whom I drafted well past their ADP. Romo (rd 5), Portis (rd 9), and Bowe (rd 8), and S. Moss late (Forget which round). Lee Evans literally fell to the 14th round and everyone was openly joking about who would be the one to take him and get burned by it. Brandon Jacobs went in the 16th because it was a well publicized and laughed-at event in my league last year that I hated Brandon Jacobs and was burned by him.Anyone else seeing this?

In a 10 team league with 9th pick, I got Romo in 3rd 29th, J.Charles in 5th (49th), Santana Moss (89th), Reggie Bush 92th, Lee Evans (12) 112th, Gaffney (14) 132nd.so pretty similar to yours

 

[emge]

would you bench J Charles for week 1 until we see his what his production is for week 1? I have other options with better match-ups, or who would u bench?

please see this post

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=553210

 

[HenryWinklerRulez]

Your signature is so annoyingly long and full of information I refuse to look at it.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Your signature is so annoyingly long and full of information I refuse to look at it.

Do not pee in the pool, you already posted on the Asst Coach, this thread is not WDIS.

 

[gianmarco]

Your signature is so annoyingly long and full of information I refuse to look at it.

Do not pee in the pool, you already posted on the Asst Coach, this thread is not WDIS.

The guy just joined a couple weeks ago so maybe doesn't know yet. But yes, it belongs in the ACF. And while I don't get to say it often due to mine, "man, that's a long sig"

 

[The Jacket]

Hell no. I wouldn't bench JCharles against a meh defense which he last year, and Larry Johnson before him, had no problem running all over.

To answer your Q.

 

[Joe Bryant]

would you bench J Charles for week 1 until we see his what his production is for week 1? I have other options with better match-ups, or who would u bench?

please see this post

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=553210

Please keep the sig to about 8 lines top with no special formatting or colors or bolding. And please ask the "who should I start / bench" questions in the Assistant Coach Forum. Thanks.

J

 

[urbanhack]

Your signature is so annoyingly long and full of information I refuse to look at it.

Do not pee in the pool, you already posted on the Asst Coach, this thread is not WDIS.

The guy just joined a couple weeks ago so maybe doesn't know yet. But yes, it belongs in the ACF. And while I don't get to say it often due to mine, "man, that's a long sig"

Please shorten your sig too while we are at it.

 

[nyy45]

At our draft Charles fell to 4.06 (12 team) behind the likes of Forte, Best, Pierre, etc.He was the 20th RB taken.

that's sickening

 

[ponchsox]

Charles fell to me at 3.14 as my #2 RB with SJax. I took Foster at 4.1. Needless to say I am pretty happy with that trio.

 

[Bad_Mo]

would you bench J Charles for week 1 until we see his what his production is for week 1? I have other options with better match-ups, or who would u bench?

please see this post

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=553210

32?

 

[cvnpoka]

i took charles in at 4.04 of a 12 teamer but it starts 2 qbs so that is inflated obv. he was the 18th rb off the board. it kinda threw my draft off bc i proly shoulda taken another qb but i am pretty high on charles.

also took him at 4.04 of a 10 teamer standard scoring and starters. 17th rb off the board.

did another standard league and he went 2.06 in a 12 teamer. 13th otb.

leagues were all different owners.

 

[urbanhack]

I assume most drafted Charles to be their RB2 and yet he's listed a a sleeper by FBG this week?

 

[ponchsox]

Any Charles predictions for tonight?