Jamaal Charles, RB, Kansas City Chiefs (1 Viewer)

[Tackling Dummies]

He might be capable of 320+ touches, but projecting him for it isn't wise, IMO. I think there will be a lot of Jamaal Charles owners yelling at their TVs this season when Thomas Jones comes in on 3rd/4th and short.

Jones had more 1st down carries than Charles did (140 to 108) and Charles DVOA was 54.8 to -4.1 for Jones on 1st downs. Charles had more 3rd down carries (30 to 19) than Jones.

 

[Terpman22]

He might be capable of 320+ touches, but projecting him for it isn't wise, IMO. I think there will be a lot of Jamaal Charles owners yelling at their TVs this season when Thomas Jones comes in on 3rd/4th and short. That being said, even if JC's touches increase, his numbers could still regress from last season. The ypc and ypr numbers JC was able to put up aren't easy to replicate.

The NFL is a RBBC league, and the KC Chiefs are a RBBC team. There are plenty of signs that have already been pointed out in this thread why JC and the Chiefs as a whole will regress on offense. Choose to ignore them if you wish.

His ypc will probably impossible to replicate, for any RB. Again. So yeah, those won't be reached BUT those numbers could easily be substituted by an increase in TD production, which I think at this point, is a given. I equate Charles' '10 season to Priest Holmes' '02 where he had 2100 yards and only 10tds to 2300/24. Get ready for the PPR monster.

 

[Grahamburn]

He might be capable of 320+ touches, but projecting him for it isn't wise, IMO. I think there will be a lot of Jamaal Charles owners yelling at their TVs this season when Thomas Jones comes in on 3rd/4th and short any down.

Jones had more 1st down carries than Charles did (140 to 108) and Charles DVOA was 54.8 to -4.1 for Jones on 1st downs. Charles had more 3rd down carries (30 to 19) than Jones.

Better?

 

[Grahamburn]

He might be capable of 320+ touches, but projecting him for it isn't wise, IMO. I think there will be a lot of Jamaal Charles owners yelling at their TVs this season when Thomas Jones comes in on 3rd/4th and short. That being said, even if JC's touches increase, his numbers could still regress from last season. The ypc and ypr numbers JC was able to put up aren't easy to replicate.

The NFL is a RBBC league, and the KC Chiefs are a RBBC team. There are plenty of signs that have already been pointed out in this thread why JC and the Chiefs as a whole will regress on offense. Choose to ignore them if you wish.

His ypc will probably impossible to replicate, for any RB. Again. So yeah, those won't be reached BUT those numbers could easily be substituted by an increase in TD production, which I think at this point, is a given. I equate Charles' '10 season to Priest Holmes' '02 where he had 2100 yards and only 10tds to 2300/24. Get ready for the PPR monster.

1675/16

58/650/2

2325 total yards/18 total tds.

How many carries do you expect Jamaal Charles to get?

 

[Grahamburn]

Thomas Jones had 9 games of 19 or more carries. Why?

We're gonna need Robert Stack for this one.

Considering some of the lofty projections in here, I'd want to know why the KC Chiefs' coaching staff decided to give the ball to a player other than Jamaal Charles so often.

Given Charles's lofty achievements when given the ball 20+ times it's a great question. What's not good, however, is to suggest that Charles can't 'handle the load' or that 'Charles is better with limited touches.' He's already proved beyond a reasonable doubt that those ideas are hogwash.

Again, it's more about whether or not JC will get the opportunity to "handle the load." If his current touch totals remain the same he won't duplicate his 2010 season, and he'll be overvalued at his ADP.

 

[Bayhawks]

Thomas Jones had 9 games of 19 or more carries. Why?

We're gonna need Robert Stack for this one.

Considering some of the lofty projections in here, I'd want to know why the KC Chiefs' coaching staff decided to give the ball to a player other than Jamaal Charles so often.

Given Charles's lofty achievements when given the ball 20+ times it's a great question. What's not good, however, is to suggest that Charles can't 'handle the load' or that 'Charles is better with limited touches.' He's already proved beyond a reasonable doubt that those ideas are hogwash.

Again, it's more about whether or not JC will get the opportunity to "handle the load." If his current touch totals remain the same he won't duplicate his 2010 season, and he'll be overvalued at his ADP.

Not necessarily. Charles had AT LEAST 5 instances when he made big runs/receptions that got the Chiefs down inside the 10, but he didn't get the TD. In 4 of those cases, he was stopped at the 1 yard line. Assuming he gets the same touches (230 rushes, 45 catches), but his production "regresses to the mean," (career averages prior to last season of 5.8 YPC and 8.5 YPR), that would give him yardage totals of 1334 rushing and 383 receiving. If you give him 4 more TDs (assuming he converts 2 of those instead of getting tackled at the 1 & give him 2 more short TDs), his FF points will be virtually identical to what he had in 2010, and his ADP would be justified.

I think this is a plausible scenario. It's bad luck that Charles had so many long runs/receptions stopped just short of the goal line; since he is quite capable of those big plays, it is likely that he will convert a few more of those chances in 2011 (not all of them, but a couple).

Also, it was apparent that Charles was better at goal-line situations in 2010. KC's coaches seemed to have got the message, as well. In the 1st half of 2010, Jones got 8 goal-line carries, Charles got 1. In the 2nd half, Jones got 7, while Charles got 4. Jones converted his opps at a 33% rate, while Charles converted his at an 80% clip. Furthermore, if you want to break it down even further, in the last quarte of the season, they both got 2 opportunities, with Jones converting 1, and Charles converting both. As the season went on, the coaches seemed to gain faith in Charles at the stripe, which could/should generate more opps there in 2011; and since Charles seems to be VERY effective there, 2 more TDs isn't a stretch at all.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I may be the biggest KC fan on this board......but I am really concerned about Charles production and the whole KC offense production...

If we are talking redraft head to head, non best ball, I would probably pass on him this year.....or if I did take him, I would look to unload him prior to week 10...

I don't normally let a shedule dictate my feelings on a player, but that stretch between weeks 11-15 is nothing to joke about....once again this is from a redraft, head to head, non best ball point of view, where you are having to either start him or not.....those could very easily be the 5 stingiest defenses this year and they all have a recent track record of being pretty tough....they ain't no joke....in addition, their offenses can put up some points meaning KC may not really be able to rely on the running game and they may need to throw to try and stay in it...and it's not like there is even a cupcake mixed in there somewhere....

so if you are playing to win your league.....which I assume we all are.....Charles may not be included in that recipe unless you ride him and then try to unload him.....but really, any other owner worth his salt, is going to also see that beast of a schedule down the stretch and into the first couple of weeks of the playoffs and probably not give you fair value back for him......so it might be best to just stay away all together and chose a safer option at the beginning of your drafts...

in addition to those 5 teams, KC also has to face a tougher DET D at Detroit, MIN, and at INDY....two matchups against SD....man I don't know

super talented player with potential to explode any week and even against some tougher defenses he could maybe bust some runs...

but if I am "in it to win it"...I am not sure how productive he would be for me during those very crucial weeks (11-15)....you want a guy like him to be a no brainer start for you that time of year, and I am not sure he will be....

 

[T with T]

He might be capable of 320+ touches, but projecting him for it isn't wise, IMO. I think there will be a lot of Jamaal Charles owners yelling at their TVs this season when Thomas Jones comes in on 3rd/4th and short.

Jones had more 1st down carries than Charles did (140 to 108) and Charles DVOA was 54.8 to -4.1 for Jones on 1st downs. Charles had more 3rd down carries (30 to 19) than Jones.

More goalline carries, which he was easily better then Tjones and 300-320 touches 30-40 more touches then 2010 and he will be number 1 player in ffootball and worthy of 1.1 in 2011 start up dynasties... Im gonna take him 1.4 if he is avail in my start up that starts next week

 

[T with T]

2-3 more touches a game is no big deal... Its funny the people think that charles can have 230 carries and avg 6.4 but if he had 250-260 carries he would go down to 4.0 LOL... its only 2more carries a game peeps come on, and make one of them a goalline come on Haley get with it.

 

[Grahamburn]

at lobbying Haley. Like he cares about your fantasy team.

Come on peeps.

 

[xenith]

For those who didn't watch 2nd half of '09 when Jamaal had so many carries, you may have missed that he took a pain-riddled break every 3-4 carries. Seemed like he was gonna collapse every carry. Last year, he also had many occasions to get dinged up mid-game and needed some time. Now granted, most of these times he came back and gutted thru, so major props for this Jamaal. Fact is tho, he is a bit fragile, and I believe the staff recognizes the need to be very very careful with this dynamic, but delicate, asset for the organization.

 

[T with T]

at lobbying Haley. Like he cares about your fantasy team. Come on peeps.

this isn't just about fantasy football bud, its about winning games... I can tell you a couple times the chiefs lost games because they forgot about charles... Tjones is ineffective at the goaline, or at least he was in 2010, JC was way more effective and alot of the close games Kc would have came up on top... You can't tell me the Chiefs are not a different team with JC on the field.

 

[Grahamburn]

For those who didn't watch 2nd half of '09 when Jamaal had so many carries, you may have missed that he took a pain-riddled break every 3-4 carries. Seemed like he was gonna collapse every carry. Last year, he also had many occasions to get dinged up mid-game and needed some time. Now granted, most of these times he came back and gutted thru, so major props for this Jamaal. Fact is tho, he is a bit fragile, and I believe the staff recognizes the need to be very very careful with this dynamic, but delicate, asset for the organization.

 

[Bayhawks]

For those who didn't watch 2nd half of '09 when Jamaal had so many carries, you may have missed that he took a pain-riddled break every 3-4 carries. Seemed like he was gonna collapse every carry.

Well, here's the thing: I did watch most of those games, and I don't remember this happening, so I decided to look into it. Do you know why I don't remember that happening? Because it didn't happen.In 2009, Charles (from week 10-17) had 161 carries, and 23 receptions. That's 184 touches. ALL other KC RBs COMBINED had 32 rushes and 13 receptions. If Charles was taking himself out so frequently, how come no other RBs were accumulating touches?

Last year, he also had many occasions to get dinged up mid-game and needed some time. Now granted, most of these times he came back and gutted thru,

Most???? He played in EVERY SINGLE GAME last year, so if he was dealing with injuries (as ALL NFL RBs do, on a regular basis), he played through them EVERY TIME!

Fact is tho, he is a bit fragile

I think the fact that he has only missed ONE GAME in his entire NFL career (and that was a coaches decision, not an injury) demonstrates that this point of yours is absolutely, completely false. If Charles is "a bit fragile," then you must consider every NFL player fragile, because he has missed 0% of his games because of injury.

 

[Terpman22]

He might be capable of 320+ touches, but projecting him for it isn't wise, IMO. I think there will be a lot of Jamaal Charles owners yelling at their TVs this season when Thomas Jones comes in on 3rd/4th and short. That being said, even if JC's touches increase, his numbers could still regress from last season. The ypc and ypr numbers JC was able to put up aren't easy to replicate.

The NFL is a RBBC league, and the KC Chiefs are a RBBC team. There are plenty of signs that have already been pointed out in this thread why JC and the Chiefs as a whole will regress on offense. Choose to ignore them if you wish.

His ypc will probably impossible to replicate, for any RB. Again. So yeah, those won't be reached BUT those numbers could easily be substituted by an increase in TD production, which I think at this point, is a given. I equate Charles' '10 season to Priest Holmes' '02 where he had 2100 yards and only 10tds to 2300/24. Get ready for the PPR monster.

1675/16

58/650/2

2325 total yards/18 total tds.

How many carries do you expect Jamaal Charles to get?

Sorry. I'd say he is gonna get 275 due to TJ falling apart this year.

 

[Bayhawks]

He might be capable of 320+ touches, but projecting him for it isn't wise, IMO. I think there will be a lot of Jamaal Charles owners yelling at their TVs this season when Thomas Jones comes in on 3rd/4th and short. That being said, even if JC's touches increase, his numbers could still regress from last season. The ypc and ypr numbers JC was able to put up aren't easy to replicate.

The NFL is a RBBC league, and the KC Chiefs are a RBBC team. There are plenty of signs that have already been pointed out in this thread why JC and the Chiefs as a whole will regress on offense. Choose to ignore them if you wish.

His ypc will probably impossible to replicate, for any RB. Again. So yeah, those won't be reached BUT those numbers could easily be substituted by an increase in TD production, which I think at this point, is a given. I equate Charles' '10 season to Priest Holmes' '02 where he had 2100 yards and only 10tds to 2300/24. Get ready for the PPR monster.

1675/16

58/650/2

2325 total yards/18 total tds.

How many carries do you expect Jamaal Charles to get?

Sorry. I'd say he is gonna get 275 due to TJ falling apart this year.

That's 6.1 YPC. As much as I think Charles is an elite back, I highly doubt he's going to be able to post 6+YPC again.

 

[Terpman22]

275-310 amended. To get him under the 6 ypc. Thanks for the math.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Most???? He played in EVERY SINGLE GAME last year, so if he was dealing with injuries (as ALL NFL RBs do, on a regular basis), he played through them EVERY TIME!

The fact that he's missed one game in three years and put up completely sick numbers when he's been given a lot of carries is completely irrelevant. There are people who just know that Charles is fragile and can't handle a lot of carries.Clearly we need to be listening to them instead of relying on facts and statistics and stuff.

 

[Grahamburn]

275-310 amended. To get him under the 6 ypc. Thanks for the math.

So you just bumped him up to 310 carries, in addition to the 58 receptions you have him projected for?If Jamaal Charles touches the ball 368 times this season I'll eat my hat.

 

[Grahamburn]

For those who didn't watch 2nd half of '09 when Jamaal had so many carries, you may have missed that he took a pain-riddled break every 3-4 carries. Seemed like he was gonna collapse every carry. Last year, he also had many occasions to get dinged up mid-game and needed some time. Now granted, most of these times he came back and gutted thru, so major props for this Jamaal. Fact is tho, he is a bit fragile, and I believe the staff recognizes the need to be very very careful with this dynamic, but delicate, asset for the organization.

Interesting that the bolded was the part of his post you decided to cut out. The KC Chiefs have had Jamaal Charles on their team for 3 seasons now. They see him way more than we do.

At the end of 2009 they had no other option than to give Charles the bulk of the RB work. He was exceptional. There's no denying that. The Chiefs staff obviously saw this, yet they decided to bring in another RB to take some of the load.

In 2010, Jamaal Charles continued to be exceptional, and Thomas Jones still received a large portion of the workload in spite of his ineffectiveness (in comparison to Jamaal Charles).

Why do some of you think 2011 is going to be different?

I realize he was awesome last season. 4th overall with only 275 touches. That's amazing.

We all think, "wow, if only he got three more touches a game and goalline carries, he'd easily be the #1 RB in fantasy football," but that's not how it works in real NFL football. The Chiefs want to win. JC helps them win, and if they wear him down with excessive touches, then he can't play. It's as simple as that.

 

[Bayhawks]

For those who didn't watch 2nd half of '09 when Jamaal had so many carries, you may have missed that he took a pain-riddled break every 3-4 carries. Seemed like he was gonna collapse every carry. Last year, he also had many occasions to get dinged up mid-game and needed some time. Now granted, most of these times he came back and gutted thru, so major props for this Jamaal. Fact is tho, he is a bit fragile, and I believe the staff recognizes the need to be very very careful with this dynamic, but delicate, asset for the organization.

Interesting that the bolded was the part of his post you decided to cut out.

I left it out because it's pure speculation on his part. I prefer to deal with facts. Nothing I post is going to convince him that the staff doesn't feel that way, even though there are no statements, quotes, announcements, etc that would support his opinion. He believes it, and even though there's no facts to support him, the coaches haven't come out and said that they don't feel that way, either.However, you are factually incorrect when you post this:

In 2010, Jamaal Charles continued to be exceptional, and Thomas Jones still received a large portion of the workload in spite of his ineffectiveness (in comparison to Jamaal Charles).

Thomas Jones didn't continue to receive a large portion of the workload in spite of his ineffectiveness. In the 1st half of the season (weeks 1-8), Jones received 51% of the carries/receptions between the two RBs. Charles had 49%. In the 2nd half of the season (weeks 9-17), Jones received only 46% of the touches, while Charles got 54%. So, (to use your words) "in comparison to Jamaal Charles," Jones received a smaller workload as the season wore on (due to his ineffectiveness AND Charles' excellence).

Why do YOU think 2011 is going to be different? The stats show that as the season wore on, the KC coaches realized that Charles was the better RB than Jones, and they used him more. It stands to reason that this trend will continue in 2011, but you want to pretend that it will not.

You go on to post this:

The Chiefs want to win. JC helps them win, and if they wear him down with excessive touches, then he can't play. It's as simple as that.

If it's as "simple as that," show some proof for this simple statement. Show us when Charles wore down because of excessive touches. If it's really simple, you should be able to provide some snippet of support that demonstrates him wearing down from excessive touches. Did he wear down when he received an average of 23 touches/game over the last 1/2 of '09? When he averaged over 6 YPC and didn't miss a game?

Did he wear down when he played EVERY SINGLE GAME in 2010, averaging 6.4 YPC?

Did he wear down when he was relied on more in the last 8 games of 2010, receiving 20 touches/game (up from his 1st half average of 15/game), and STILL averaged 6.3 YPC?

Does he wear down when he gets over 20 touches a game (9 times in his career), and averages 169 rushing/receiving yards a game?

To me, those aren't indications that he wears down from "excessive" touches, so please provide some support for your "wear down" theory.

 

[hotboyz]

Didnt Haley say that they want Jamaal to be ready to handle more touches? Here's the link http://www.kffl.com/player/18224/nfl/jamaal-charles

 

[Grahamburn]

I guess it's speculation on my part, other than the modest 275 touches he had in 2010.

They don't/didn't want to wear him down, hence the comment above from Haley. Haley saying they want him to be ready to handle more in 2011 leads me to believe they didn't think he was ready to handle it in 2010. Will Jamaal meet Haley's expectations for more carries? That remains to be seen.

Until I hear something different from Haley I still expect the KC staff to limit Jamaal's touches in 2011 to keep him fresh. Even if JC sees an increase in touches his ypc and ypr will decrease some this season due to the significant change in his strength of schedule.

He's still a top back, but I wouldn't take him ahead of Ray Rice or Rashard Mendenhall.

eta: Just to clarify. I never said he wears down or wore down at any point. My observation, from the lack of touches he receives, is that the KC coaches worry about him wearing down, and limit him for that reason.

 

[Bayhawks]

I guess it's speculation on my part, other than the modest 275 touches he had in 2010.

They don't/didn't want to wear him down, hence the comment above from Haley. Haley saying they want him to be ready to handle more in 2011 leads me to believe they didn't think he was ready to handle it in 2010. Will Jamaal meet Haley's expectations for more carries? That remains to be seen.

Until I hear something different from Haley I still expect the KC staff to limit Jamaal's touches in 2011 to keep him fresh. Even if JC sees an increase in touches his ypc and ypr will decrease some this season due to the significant change in his strength of schedule.

He's still a top back, but I wouldn't take him ahead of Ray Rice or Rashard Mendenhall.

eta: Just to clarify. I never said he wears down or wore down at any point. My observation, from the lack of touches he receives, is that the KC coaches worry about him wearing down, and limit him for that reason.

Interesting logic. He only had 275 touches, so they must be worried that he's fragile. Let's ignore the fact that RBBC has become the norm in the NFL. So does that mean that most NFL teams are worried about their RBs wearing down?BTW-you did realize that his "modest" 275 touches was 13th most by RBs in 2010?

More interesting logic, when you twist Haley saying "we want Charles to be ready to handle more touches" as an indication that they thought he couldn't handle them in 2010. Again, isn't it more likely that since RBBC is the norm in today's NFL that they tried to utilize that gameplan, and his comment indicates they realized that Charles needs a bigger workload, and not that Charles couldn't handle more of a workload.

Furthermore, your "interesting" logic is seen again when you say "Until I hear something different from Haley I still expect the KC staff to limit Jamaal's touches in 2011 to keep him fresh." As just noted (& seen in the post just previous to yours) Haley says he wants Charles to be able to handle more touches, and that the team is looking for him to take the next step. So, even though the HC has stated that he wants Charles to get more carries, and take the next step, that still leads you to think the Chiefs staff is going to limit his carries.

 

[hotboyz]

I guess it's speculation on my part, other than the modest 275 touches he had in 2010.

They don't/didn't want to wear him down, hence the comment above from Haley. Haley saying they want him to be ready to handle more in 2011 leads me to believe they didn't think he was ready to handle it in 2010. Will Jamaal meet Haley's expectations for more carries? That remains to be seen.

Until I hear something different from Haley I still expect the KC staff to limit Jamaal's touches in 2011 to keep him fresh. Even if JC sees an increase in touches his ypc and ypr will decrease some this season due to the significant change in his strength of schedule.

He's still a top back, but I wouldn't take him ahead of Ray Rice or Rashard Mendenhall.

eta: Just to clarify. I never said he wears down or wore down at any point. My observation, from the lack of touches he receives, is that the KC coaches worry about him wearing down, and limit him for that reason.

Interesting logic. He only had 275 touches, so they must be worried that he's fragile. Let's ignore the fact that RBBC has become the norm in the NFL. So does that mean that most NFL teams are worried about their RBs wearing down?BTW-you did realize that his "modest" 275 touches was 13th most by RBs in 2010?

More interesting logic, when you twist Haley saying "we want Charles to be ready to handle more touches" as an indication that they thought he couldn't handle them in 2010. Again, isn't it more likely that since RBBC is the norm in today's NFL that they tried to utilize that gameplan, and his comment indicates they realized that Charles needs a bigger workload, and not that Charles couldn't handle more of a workload.

Furthermore, your "interesting" logic is seen again when you say "Until I hear something different from Haley I still expect the KC staff to limit Jamaal's touches in 2011 to keep him fresh." As just noted (& seen in the post just previous to yours) Haley says he wants Charles to be able to handle more touches, and that the team is looking for him to take the next step. So, even though the HC has stated that he wants Charles to get more carries, and take the next step, that still leads you to think the Chiefs staff is going to limit his carries.

EXACTLY! WELL PUT

 

[GridironMenace]

250 carries. 1,175 yards. 4.7 ypc. 6 TD's. Mark it.

 

[Grahamburn]

I guess it's speculation on my part, other than the modest 275 touches he had in 2010.

They don't/didn't want to wear him down, hence the comment above from Haley. Haley saying they want him to be ready to handle more in 2011 leads me to believe they didn't think he was ready to handle it in 2010. Will Jamaal meet Haley's expectations for more carries? That remains to be seen.

Until I hear something different from Haley I still expect the KC staff to limit Jamaal's touches in 2011 to keep him fresh. Even if JC sees an increase in touches his ypc and ypr will decrease some this season due to the significant change in his strength of schedule.

He's still a top back, but I wouldn't take him ahead of Ray Rice or Rashard Mendenhall.

eta: Just to clarify. I never said he wears down or wore down at any point. My observation, from the lack of touches he receives, is that the KC coaches worry about him wearing down, and limit him for that reason.

Interesting logic. He only had 275 touches, so they must be worried that he's fragile. Let's ignore the fact that RBBC has become the norm in the NFL. So does that mean that most NFL teams are worried about their RBs wearing down?BTW-you did realize that his "modest" 275 touches was 13th most by RBs in 2010?

More interesting logic, when you twist Haley saying "we want Charles to be ready to handle more touches" as an indication that they thought he couldn't handle them in 2010. Again, isn't it more likely that since RBBC is the norm in today's NFL that they tried to utilize that gameplan, and his comment indicates they realized that Charles needs a bigger workload, and not that Charles couldn't handle more of a workload.

What difference does it make?! I think they limited him because they were worried he'd wear down. You think they limited him because RBBC is the norm. The point is, they limited him. I don't really care why the KC coaches do it. I don't see Charles having the 13th most touches for RBs as a good thing. It stands to reason that if those touches don't increase he'll finish much closer to the 13th RB than the 4th in 2011. 275 touches is extremely modest considering the #1 overall RB hype and astronomical yardage totals being projected for Charles in this thread. He won't be approaching these numbers without his touches increasing significantly. So, that's the big question.. Will Jamaal Charles receive more touches in 2011? Based on the history of how he's been used in KC so far in his career the answer to that question is no.

My entire argument is that Charles is overvalued as the 4th running back off the board based on my assertion that he'll have less than 300 touches, face a tougher schedule than last season, and see a decrease in his yards per carry and yards per reception.

Furthermore, your "interesting" logic is seen again when you say "Until I hear something different from Haley I still expect the KC staff to limit Jamaal's touches in 2011 to keep him fresh." As just noted (& seen in the post just previous to yours) Haley says he wants Charles to be able to handle more touches, and that the team is looking for him to take the next step. So, even though the HC has stated that he wants Charles to get more carries, and take the next step, that still leads you to think the Chiefs staff is going to limit his carries.

Why would you be confused about that statement? Coaches want their players to be able to do all kinds of things. It doesn't mean said player will be able to accomplish what his coach wants. Haley saying he wants Charles to handle more doesn't indicate he's going to give him more. Does Haley want Charles to bulk up? Does he want him to put more muscle on his legs? Condition himself better? Something made Haley limit Charles in 2010 (as evidenced by the much less effective Thomas Jones receiving 259 touches). Again, it remains to be seen whether or not Jamaal Charles has convinced his coaches that he can change that something. It's ok to disagree. I see Charles much closer to the #10 RB than the #1 RB and would likely take 6 RBs ahead of him in a redraft for the many reasons already posted in this thread.

 

[Bayhawks]

What difference does it make?! I think they limited him because they were worried he'd wear down. You think they limited him because RBBC is the norm. The point is, they limited him. I don't really care why the KC coaches do it.

What difference does it make? No offense, but that's a stupid question. Since this is a FF board, discussing a player's FF value, it makes a big difference. If they really limited him because they thought he was fragile, as you think, then there's little reason to think the "limitation" on his touches will end. If they limited his touches, because they thought a RBBC with Jones was their best chance to win, then there's several very good reasons to think the "limitation" on his touches will end. 1-In the second half of the year, after it became obvious Jones wasn't cutting it, the staff gave Charles 20 touches/game; 2-No RB was added (although they added a FB with their 7th round pick, and FA hasn't started; 3-Haley has said he wants Charles to get more touches and to take the next step. If a FFer chooses to believe your unlikely premise that the Chiefs limited him because of concerns about his durability, they might second-guess using a pick on Charles, when if they look at ALL the facts, they might realize that circumstances seem to indicate Charles should receive more touche sin 2011. That's what the difference is.

I don't see Charles having the 13th most touches for RBs as a good thing.

That's because you have a very obvious negative bias against him.

It stands to reason that if those touches don't increase he'll finish much closer to the 13th RB than the 4th in 2011.

Yes, it does, but since all indications (as previously noted) are that he will get more touches, it makes no sense to assume those touches won't increase.

My entire argument is that Charles is overvalued as the 4th running back off the board based on my assertion that he'll have less than 300 touches, face a tougher schedule than last season, and see a decrease in his yards per carry and yards per reception.

Then your argument is almost entirely without merit. All indications point to more touches for Charles in 2011 (& he would only need to average 1.5 more touches/game to get above 300), and the defenses he is facing in 2011 gave up an average of 19.0 ppg to RB in 2010 and prior to the 2010 season, the defenses he would face gave up an average of 17.9 ppg to RBs in 2009 (from FBG's Ultimate SOS from 8/2010 and 5/2011), so one could argue tha this schedule isn't any harder. As for the YPC and YPR dropping off, you do have a point. Charles, however, has produced a high YPC his entire career, so expecting a drop to 4.4 or 4.5 is probably too harsh. It's also likely that Charles will produce a few more TDs to offset a drop in YPC, since in 2010, he was tackled inside the 5 on 5 occasions AND he produced better in goal-line situations than Jones did (which the KC staff recognized, and started giving him a higher number of goal-line carries in the 2nd half of 2010).

Why would you be confused about that statement? Coaches want their players to be able to do all kinds of things. It doesn't mean said player will be able to accomplish what his coach wants. Haley saying he wants Charles to handle more doesn't indicate he's going to give him more. Does Haley want Charles to bulk up? Does he want him to put more muscle on his legs? Condition himself better? Something made Haley limit Charles in 2010 (as evidenced by the much less effective Thomas Jones receiving 259 tuches). Again, it remains to be seen whether or not Jamaal Charles has convinced his coaches that he can change that something.

In case you don't follow the NFL, Chiefs, or Haley all that closely, he is a stubborn SOB. He showed this with Boldin in Arizona, and with his dealings with players in KC. A number of people agree that one of the reasons he didn't give Charles more carries earlier is because he brought Jones in, he thought using Jones was important, and he was determined to prove that using Jones was the way to win. In the second half of 2010, he reluctantly utilized Charles more, and Charles responded with great play. Now Haley is saying he wants Charles to be ready for more carries, and "take the next step." Based on Haley's track record, it only makes sense that he is going to stick to his guns and give Charles those carries, and try to make him "take the next step." Your selective interpetation of this demonstrates your obvious bias against Charles.

It's ok to disagree. I see Charles much closer to the #10 RB than the #1 RB and would likely take 6 RBs ahead of him in a redraft for the many reasons already posted in this thread.

It is OK to disagree; however this is a FF message board, and many people read this board to help them in FF. Ignoring obvious bias and selective logic that you've chosen to utilize isn't doing them a service.

 

[matuski]

What difference does it make?! I think they limited him because they were worried he'd wear down. You think they limited him because RBBC is the norm. The point is, they limited him. I don't really care why the KC coaches do it.

What difference does it make? No offense, but that's a stupid question. Since this is a FF board, discussing a player's FF value, it makes a big difference. If they really limited him because they thought he was fragile, as you think, then there's little reason to think the "limitation" on his touches will end. If they limited his touches, because they thought a RBBC with Jones was their best chance to win, then there's several very good reasons to think the "limitation" on his touches will end. 1-In the second half of the year, after it became obvious Jones wasn't cutting it, the staff gave Charles 20 touches/game; 2-No RB was added (although they added a FB with their 7th round pick, and FA hasn't started; 3-Haley has said he wants Charles to get more touches and to take the next step. If a FFer chooses to believe your unlikely premise that the Chiefs limited him because of concerns about his durability, they might second-guess using a pick on Charles, when if they look at ALL the facts, they might realize that circumstances seem to indicate Charles should receive more touche sin 2011. That's what the difference is.

I don't see Charles having the 13th most touches for RBs as a good thing.

That's because you have a very obvious negative bias against him.

It stands to reason that if those touches don't increase he'll finish much closer to the 13th RB than the 4th in 2011.

Yes, it does, but since all indications (as previously noted) are that he will get more touches, it makes no sense to assume those touches won't increase.

My entire argument is that Charles is overvalued as the 4th running back off the board based on my assertion that he'll have less than 300 touches, face a tougher schedule than last season, and see a decrease in his yards per carry and yards per reception.

Then your argument is almost entirely without merit. All indications point to more touches for Charles in 2011 (& he would only need to average 1.5 more touches/game to get above 300), and the defenses he is facing in 2011 gave up an average of 19.0 ppg to RB in 2010 and prior to the 2010 season, the defenses he would face gave up an average of 17.9 ppg to RBs in 2009 (from FBG's Ultimate SOS from 8/2010 and 5/2011), so one could argue tha this schedule isn't any harder. As for the YPC and YPR dropping off, you do have a point. Charles, however, has produced a high YPC his entire career, so expecting a drop to 4.4 or 4.5 is probably too harsh. It's also likely that Charles will produce a few more TDs to offset a drop in YPC, since in 2010, he was tackled inside the 5 on 5 occasions AND he produced better in goal-line situations than Jones did (which the KC staff recognized, and started giving him a higher number of goal-line carries in the 2nd half of 2010).

Why would you be confused about that statement? Coaches want their players to be able to do all kinds of things. It doesn't mean said player will be able to accomplish what his coach wants. Haley saying he wants Charles to handle more doesn't indicate he's going to give him more. Does Haley want Charles to bulk up? Does he want him to put more muscle on his legs? Condition himself better? Something made Haley limit Charles in 2010 (as evidenced by the much less effective Thomas Jones receiving 259 tuches). Again, it remains to be seen whether or not Jamaal Charles has convinced his coaches that he can change that something.

In case you don't follow the NFL, Chiefs, or Haley all that closely, he is a stubborn SOB. He showed this with Boldin in Arizona, and with his dealings with players in KC. A number of people agree that one of the reasons he didn't give Charles more carries earlier is because he brought Jones in, he thought using Jones was important, and he was determined to prove that using Jones was the way to win. In the second half of 2010, he reluctantly utilized Charles more, and Charles responded with great play. Now Haley is saying he wants Charles to be ready for more carries, and "take the next step." Based on Haley's track record, it only makes sense that he is going to stick to his guns and give Charles those carries, and try to make him "take the next step." Your selective interpetation of this demonstrates your obvious bias against Charles.

It's ok to disagree. I see Charles much closer to the #10 RB than the #1 RB and would likely take 6 RBs ahead of him in a redraft for the many reasons already posted in this thread.

It is OK to disagree; however this is a FF message board, and many people read this board to help them in FF. Ignoring obvious bias and selective logic that you've chosen to utilize isn't doing them a service.

Even when you have decent points to make.. you take this and yourself way too seriously. Lighten up.

 

[T with T]

What difference does it make?! I think they limited him because they were worried he'd wear down. You think they limited him because RBBC is the norm. The point is, they limited him. I don't really care why the KC coaches do it.

What difference does it make? No offense, but that's a stupid question. Since this is a FF board, discussing a player's FF value, it makes a big difference. If they really limited him because they thought he was fragile, as you think, then there's little reason to think the "limitation" on his touches will end. If they limited his touches, because they thought a RBBC with Jones was their best chance to win, then there's several very good reasons to think the "limitation" on his touches will end. 1-In the second half of the year, after it became obvious Jones wasn't cutting it, the staff gave Charles 20 touches/game; 2-No RB was added (although they added a FB with their 7th round pick, and FA hasn't started; 3-Haley has said he wants Charles to get more touches and to take the next step. If a FFer chooses to believe your unlikely premise that the Chiefs limited him because of concerns about his durability, they might second-guess using a pick on Charles, when if they look at ALL the facts, they might realize that circumstances seem to indicate Charles should receive more touche sin 2011. That's what the difference is.

I don't see Charles having the 13th most touches for RBs as a good thing.

That's because you have a very obvious negative bias against him.

It stands to reason that if those touches don't increase he'll finish much closer to the 13th RB than the 4th in 2011.

Yes, it does, but since all indications (as previously noted) are that he will get more touches, it makes no sense to assume those touches won't increase.

My entire argument is that Charles is overvalued as the 4th running back off the board based on my assertion that he'll have less than 300 touches, face a tougher schedule than last season, and see a decrease in his yards per carry and yards per reception.

Then your argument is almost entirely without merit. All indications point to more touches for Charles in 2011 (& he would only need to average 1.5 more touches/game to get above 300), and the defenses he is facing in 2011 gave up an average of 19.0 ppg to RB in 2010 and prior to the 2010 season, the defenses he would face gave up an average of 17.9 ppg to RBs in 2009 (from FBG's Ultimate SOS from 8/2010 and 5/2011), so one could argue tha this schedule isn't any harder. As for the YPC and YPR dropping off, you do have a point. Charles, however, has produced a high YPC his entire career, so expecting a drop to 4.4 or 4.5 is probably too harsh. It's also likely that Charles will produce a few more TDs to offset a drop in YPC, since in 2010, he was tackled inside the 5 on 5 occasions AND he produced better in goal-line situations than Jones did (which the KC staff recognized, and started giving him a higher number of goal-line carries in the 2nd half of 2010).

Why would you be confused about that statement? Coaches want their players to be able to do all kinds of things. It doesn't mean said player will be able to accomplish what his coach wants. Haley saying he wants Charles to handle more doesn't indicate he's going to give him more. Does Haley want Charles to bulk up? Does he want him to put more muscle on his legs? Condition himself better? Something made Haley limit Charles in 2010 (as evidenced by the much less effective Thomas Jones receiving 259 tuches). Again, it remains to be seen whether or not Jamaal Charles has convinced his coaches that he can change that something.

In case you don't follow the NFL, Chiefs, or Haley all that closely, he is a stubborn SOB. He showed this with Boldin in Arizona, and with his dealings with players in KC. A number of people agree that one of the reasons he didn't give Charles more carries earlier is because he brought Jones in, he thought using Jones was important, and he was determined to prove that using Jones was the way to win. In the second half of 2010, he reluctantly utilized Charles more, and Charles responded with great play. Now Haley is saying he wants Charles to be ready for more carries, and "take the next step." Based on Haley's track record, it only makes sense that he is going to stick to his guns and give Charles those carries, and try to make him "take the next step." Your selective interpetation of this demonstrates your obvious bias against Charles.

It's ok to disagree. I see Charles much closer to the #10 RB than the #1 RB and would likely take 6 RBs ahead of him in a redraft for the many reasons already posted in this thread.

It is OK to disagree; however this is a FF message board, and many people read this board to help them in FF. Ignoring obvious bias and selective logic that you've chosen to utilize isn't doing them a service.

I would take charles with the 1.1 in a ppr and if you can find 6 or 10 backs better You are sleeping on Charles Buddy....

 

[Grahamburn]

It's ok to disagree. I see Charles much closer to the #10 RB than the #1 RB and would likely take 6 RBs ahead of him in a redraft for the many reasons already posted in this thread.

It is OK to disagree; however this is a FF message board, and many people read this board to help them in FF. Ignoring obvious bias and selective logic that you've chosen to utilize isn't doing them a service.

This is the only part of your post I care to reply to. The rest has all been hashed out in here anyway.So, because I would take Jamaal Charles 7th in a redraft instead of 4th, I'm biased against him and doing a disservice to other posters? You can't be serious. I'm sure everyone who's been around this forum for a few years has been 100% wrong on a player before, you included.My entrance into this thread was simply to offer some suggestions on why some of the 2,200 total yard and 15 TD projections might want to be tempered. You're reacting like I said he shouldn't be drafted.Let's simplify this a little. I would project Charles for 245 carries at 5.4 ypc, 40 catches at 9.0 for a total of 1,683 yards and 9 TDs. That's 222 fantasy points, a great season, and usually good for a finish around RB7.

 

[T with T]

It's ok to disagree. I see Charles much closer to the #10 RB than the #1 RB and would likely take 6 RBs ahead of him in a redraft for the many reasons already posted in this thread.

It is OK to disagree; however this is a FF message board, and many people read this board to help them in FF. Ignoring obvious bias and selective logic that you've chosen to utilize isn't doing them a service.

This is the only part of your post I care to reply to. The rest has all been hashed out in here anyway.So, because I would take Jamaal Charles 7th in a redraft instead of 4th, I'm biased against him and doing a disservice to other posters? You can't be serious. I'm sure everyone who's been around this forum for a few years has been 100% wrong on a player before, you included.My entrance into this thread was simply to offer some suggestions on why some of the 2,200 total yard and 15 TD projections might want to be tempered. You're reacting like I said he shouldn't be drafted.Let's simplify this a little. I would project Charles for 245 carries at 5.4 ypc, 40 catches at 9.0 for a total of 1,683 yards and 9 TDs. That's 222 fantasy points, a great season, and usually good for a finish around RB7.

Jamaal Charles has put up huge numbers despite lack of carries, he is fresh.... Look at CJ2k.... he is a career 5.0 ypc and he only avg 5.1 ypc... Charles avg 6.4 ypc on 230 carries and 10.1 ypc... Charles can get 1900+ with 275 touches, I see your projections very conservative to say the least I think he can have 2000 yards from scrimmage around 50 catches and 10 tds.... that would put him at about 320 fpoints in ppr

 

[Bayhawks]

So, because I would take Jamaal Charles 7th in a redraft instead of 4th, I'm biased against him and doing a disservice to other posters?

No, ranking Charles 7th isn't doing anyone a disservice (and perhaps if that word offended you, I'll use mis-leading instead). Stating, AS IF IT WERE A FACT AND NOT YOUR OWN, PERSONAL, SPECULATIVE, OPINION, that Charles was limited by the KC coaches because they didn't think he could handle more carries, that he wasn't a bellcow RB, that his touches will be limited, etc IS mis-leading. It wasn't until the last few posts that you admitted that the idea that the coaches think Charles can't handle a larger load is based on nothing except for your un-supported opinion.

Someone casually reading this thread could read that, and it can impact their thinking. Since this is a FF message board, and a thread devoted to Charles 2011 FF prospects, I thought it was appropriate to discuss the questionable logic I read. I apologize if the phrase "wasn't doing them a service" offended you.

As for projections, I don't think I've actually posted any, since I haven't really finished my projections for the season. At first blush, considering the lack of RBs added to KC, Jones lack of success in 2010, the Chiefs relying on Charles more in the 2nd 1/2 of 2010, Haley's recent comments, I'll go with:

260 carries (less than 2 more carries/game), 1450 yards (5.6 YPC), 52 receptions, 450 yards, 10 total TDs. That would have made him a top-5 RB in each of the last few years.

 

[adrenaline]

Watching Charles weave through defenders reminds me a lot of a Tecmo runner, he has ridiculous talent. Why not project some ridiculous numbers that fit his talent?

300 1800 10

40 400 4

 

[T with T]

For those who didn't watch 2nd half of '09 when Jamaal had so many carries, you may have missed that he took a pain-riddled break every 3-4 carries. Seemed like he was gonna collapse every carry. Last year, he also had many occasions to get dinged up mid-game and needed some time. Now granted, most of these times he came back and gutted thru, so major props for this Jamaal. Fact is tho, he is a bit fragile, and I believe the staff recognizes the need to be very very careful with this dynamic, but delicate, asset for the organization.

:thanks

Umm I think you are way off base, fragile... he is bigger then CJ actually 8 pounds heavier and bigger then Bradshaw who had 276 carries... JC could easily handle 275 carries or so... we don't think he needs 400 guys come on lets get real. he could be a 1700 yard rusher with 280 carries at a 6.0 ypc clip which is his career mark.

 

[T with T]

For those who didn't watch 2nd half of '09 when Jamaal had so many carries, you may have missed that he took a pain-riddled break every 3-4 carries. Seemed like he was gonna collapse every carry.

Well, here's the thing: I did watch most of those games, and I don't remember this happening, so I decided to look into it. Do you know why I don't remember that happening? Because it didn't happen.In 2009, Charles (from week 10-17) had 161 carries, and 23 receptions. That's 184 touches. ALL other KC RBs COMBINED had 32 rushes and 13 receptions. If Charles was taking himself out so frequently, how come no other RBs were accumulating touches?

Last year, he also had many occasions to get dinged up mid-game and needed some time. Now granted, most of these times he came back and gutted thru,

Most???? He played in EVERY SINGLE GAME last year, so if he was dealing with injuries (as ALL NFL RBs do, on a regular basis), he played through them EVERY TIME! Probably because the guys a troll and is making up things... Charles fans and owners know he is a stud that was grossly underused... JONES should never have more carries... Breathers and breaks sure but it should be somewhere the lines of JC 280 Tjones 190 split not 245 jones 230 charles.. at a 6.4 ypc that in on way shows me that JC couldn't keep up with the pace or was wearing down. He seemed to get better with more carries... every time he had 20 carries or more he would have 90 plus yards... get real

Fact is tho, he is a bit fragile

I think the fact that he has only missed ONE GAME in his entire NFL career (and that was a coaches decision, not an injury) demonstrates that this point of yours is absolutely, completely false. If Charles is "a bit fragile," then you must consider every NFL player fragile, because he has missed 0% of his games because of injury.

 

[T with T]

For those who didn't watch 2nd half of '09 when Jamaal had so many carries, you may have missed that he took a pain-riddled break every 3-4 carries. Seemed like he was gonna collapse every carry.

Well, here's the thing: I did watch most of those games, and I don't remember this happening, so I decided to look into it. Do you know why I don't remember that happening? Because it didn't happen.In 2009, Charles (from week 10-17) had 161 carries, and 23 receptions. That's 184 touches. ALL other KC RBs COMBINED had 32 rushes and 13 receptions. If Charles was taking himself out so frequently, how come no other RBs were accumulating touches?

Last year, he also had many occasions to get dinged up mid-game and needed some time. Now granted, most of these times he came back and gutted thru,

Most???? He played in EVERY SINGLE GAME last year, so if he was dealing with injuries (as ALL NFL RBs do, on a regular basis), he played through them EVERY TIME!

Fact is tho, he is a bit fragile

I think the fact that he has only missed ONE GAME in his entire NFL career (and that was a coaches decision, not an injury) demonstrates that this point of yours is absolutely, completely false. If Charles is "a bit fragile," then you must consider every NFL player fragile, because he has missed 0% of his games because of injury.

Yea that was a boneheaded thing to say a bit fragile he missed 1 game on a coaches decision... haha sometimes the trolls will throw us fellow sharkers out some bones to see if we catch them good job bud that was funny you pretty much disarmed his whole argument... nice

 

[T with T]

275-310 amended. To get him under the 6 ypc. Thanks for the math.

So you just bumped him up to 310 carries, in addition to the 58 receptions you have him projected for?If Jamaal Charles touches the ball 368 times this season I'll eat my hat.

hope you have some barbecue sauce for that smelly old hat...haha why is that unthinkable CJ did it twice 400 plus carries in 09 and 360 plus in 10. You may eat your hat son.

 

[T with T]

thing is who cares if he doesn't touch ball 368 times. JC can touch it 300-320 times and do more damage then CJ with 370

 

[Grahamburn]

Someone casually reading this thread could read that, and it can impact their thinking. Since this is a FF message board, and a thread devoted to Charles 2011 FF prospects, I thought it was appropriate to discuss the questionable logic I read. I apologize if the phrase "wasn't doing them a service" offended you.

Not offended in the least. My opinion has been based on how Charles has been used to this point in his career. I don't find my logic to be questionable. As I expected, our projections are pretty similar.Obviously I'm not the first person to question Todd Haley's thought process on his usage of Jamaal Charles. If I was the head coach I'd have Charles in the backfield for every play possible. He's clearly the most talented player on that team, yet he hasn't been used exclusively in the KC Chiefs backfield. I find it interesting that so many posters are ignoring that fact, projecting #1 RB overall numbers, and aren't curious why the KC coaches have held him back to date.

It took Arian Foster 392 touches to accumulate his numbers last season. He had 2,228 total yards and 18 TDs. People are posting those numbers in here for Charles like it's a drop in the bucket.

 

[T with T]

250 carries. 1,175 yards. 4.7 ypc. 6 TD's. Mark it.

its funny how JC only played half snaps last year yet you think he is gonna have 20 more carries only and go from 6.4 to 4.7. thats a 2 yard a carry drop, I think your projections are off a bit dudly275 carries 1600 yards rushing 600 rec 60 catches 12-14 tds

 

[T with T]

Someone casually reading this thread could read that, and it can impact their thinking. Since this is a FF message board, and a thread devoted to Charles 2011 FF prospects, I thought it was appropriate to discuss the questionable logic I read. I apologize if the phrase "wasn't doing them a service" offended you.

Not offended in the least. My opinion has been based on how Charles has been used to this point in his career. I don't find my logic to be questionable. As I expected, our projections are pretty similar.Obviously I'm not the first person to question Todd Haley's thought process on his usage of Jamaal Charles. If I was the head coach I'd have Charles in the backfield for every play possible. He's clearly the most talented player on that team, yet he hasn't been used exclusively in the KC Chiefs backfield. I find it interesting that so many posters are ignoring that fact, projecting #1 RB overall numbers, and aren't curious why the KC coaches have held him back to date.

It took Arian Foster 392 touches to accumulate his numbers last season. He had 2,228 total yards and 18 TDs. People are posting those numbers in here for Charles like it's a drop in the bucket.

The only other thing I can think of is Jamaal was young and only had half a season to prove himself in 09 on'plus he had Shoulder Surgery in the offseason, so maybe, just maybe they didn't give him a full 280-300 carries to make sure the shoulder is healed, that makes a bit of sense, not fact but just doin speculation, since nothing has come out of Haley's mouth to date to show why he wasn't out there more. I do find it interesting that he does want JC to take the next step car so maybe this year he will get more carries, it sure seems like it and seems like the KC chiefs realize that finally.. Its just a shame they took that long to realize it, guy only had 50 carries as a rook u kiddin me

 

[Grahamburn]

Me to I have been projecting him to be a top 3 back and before the start of last season got lots of FLAK from FBGers telling me TJONES was the man and charles was a back up.. hahahaa year sorry he is no back up... 1500 rushing 500 rec 15 tds 50 catches

its funny how JC only played half snaps last year yet you think he is gonna have 20 more carries only and go from 6.4 to 4.7. thats a 2 yard a carry drop, I think your projections are off a bit dudly275 carries 1600 yards rushing 600 rec 60 catches 12-14 tds

I've been doing my best to ignore you, but it's very difficult when you tell someone else their projections are off. So, which one is it? 2,200 and 14, 2,000 and 16, 50 catches, 60 catches?

 

[T with T]

Me to I have been projecting him to be a top 3 back and before the start of last season got lots of FLAK from FBGers telling me TJONES was the man and charles was a back up.. hahahaa year sorry he is no back up... 1500 rushing 500 rec 15 tds 50 catches

its funny how JC only played half snaps last year yet you think he is gonna have 20 more carries only and go from 6.4 to 4.7. thats a 2 yard a carry drop, I think your projections are off a bit dudly275 carries 1600 yards rushing 600 rec 60 catches 12-14 tds

I've been doing my best to ignore you, but it's very difficult when you tell someone else their projections are off. So, which one is it? 2,200 and 14, 2,000 and 16, 50 catches, 60 catches?

well with the new light that Haley plans to give him more carries which is evident by him saying he wants charles to be able to handle more of a load I think he could be 2200 yard and 10-14 tds and 60 catches.. I should temper my expectations a little bit but this guy is amazing.. You have been doing your best to ignore me because I have been pointing out all the false things you are saying and you don't like that.

 

[T with T]

how about this graham cracker. 1500-1600 yards 500-600 rec and 50-60 catches does that fit better with you buddy

 

[Grahamburn]

Out.

 

[T with T]

good go back to your chris johnson forum troller

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

good go back to your chris johnson forum troller

I don't understand the hate for Grahamburn; he has presented his argument logically and non-confrontationally. He is the one person coming off as respectful and level-headed. I, for one, appreciate that, regardless of whether I agree with him or not.He is basically saying Charles will approximately repeat last season's numbers... What is the controversy? Charles' numbers were great last year...It is very reasonable to predict a dip in per touch efficiency when that efficiency was so incredibly high last season. There is plenty of downside, at least from the lofty projections here, especially with Haley at the helm. I would expect a healthy Charles' floor to be 85-90% of what he did last year, while his ceiling is very high, possibly #1 overall. I would draft him with the expectation that he gets 1900 total yards and 12 TDs.

 

[T with T]

good go back to your chris johnson forum troller

I don't understand the hate for Grahamburn; he has presented his argument logically and non-confrontationally. He is the one person coming off as respectful and level-headed. I, for one, appreciate that, regardless of whether I agree with him or not.He is basically saying Charles will approximately repeat last season's numbers... What is the controversy? Charles' numbers were great last year...It is very reasonable to predict a dip in per touch efficiency when that efficiency was so incredibly high last season. There is plenty of downside, at least from the lofty projections here, especially with Haley at the helm. I would expect a healthy Charles' floor to be 85-90% of what he did last year, while his ceiling is very high, possibly #1 overall. I would draft him with the expectation that he gets 1900 total yards and 12 TDs.

Yea but he should be able to get double digit tds... 12 is 4 more then he had last year so you are basically predicting top 2 if you are saying 1900 yards and im assuming around 50 catches 12 tds that would be about 25 more points on to what he had last year and would put him around 300 fpoints... thats pretty darn good I will take that any day.

 

[finito]

In the Bowe thread people are bringing up strength of schedule as a reason Bowe has no shot to repeat his great year - do people think the SOS will effect Charlie's production?