JAMAAL CHARLES = THE TRUTH (1 Viewer)

[Dought Man]

Pffft.. take away 10 of his carries and he only had 1/1 and No TD's.

Consider me unimpressed with that.

 

[coachbobbyfinstock]

Full dislosure: I am a JC owner in a dynasty league.

Worst thing that happened last night for JC owners is that KC won. Totally bailed out Haley. He seems like a stubborn guy, it will take probably take a few L's (with TJ having more carries) for him to realize JC is the one he needs to roll with.

That said, I remember early last year in NY Leon Washington was getting a lot of touches and TJ wasn't doing much. It wasn't until Wash got hurt that TJ started to really turn it on.

I like TJ, seems like a tough guy and good dude, but i wish he would just go away.

 

[B. Nugget]

Jaded view points based on who you own on your dynasty team is pretty much the epitome of pissing in the shark pool, correct?

Incorrect. This is one of the most commonly stated fallacies here and I don't understand why that is.Explain to me which is more likely:1) I drafted/acquired Jamaal Charles without knowing much about him and THEN decided to like the guyor2) I like Jamaal Charles and THEN drafted/acquired the guy?The people we get on our fantasy teams are people we believe in. Feeling strongly about Charles and owning him on your team does not make you "biased". It makes you a competent owner. I'd be much less inclined to trust someone that is spouting how wonderful Charles is but doesn't actually work on getting him on their team. In other words, "put your money where your mouth is". I've been a Charles fan and have stated so pretty clearly on these boards for a while now and I actually backed that up by going out and acquiring him on as many teams as I could. If I somehow wasn't able to get him on my team, does that mean I'm more credible than if I was successful in doing so even though I still feel the same way? It's complete nonsense to think that just because a player is on one's team that it means an owner is biased because it ignores the most common sense reason of how he got there in the first place.Is your fantasy team comprised of players you like or dislike? If it's players you like, did you like them BEFORE or AFTER they made it on your team? Once you answer that question (honestly), then you might start to understand that if someone is a fan of Charles and also owns them on their team, they are no more biased than a non-Charles owner. In fact, it's the non-Charles owners that bash the guy that I'm a little less likely to pay attention to. Why is that? Because I follow players that I actually own more closely than players I don't and I can assure you that I probably have paid more attention to Charles than guys who don't own him on any of their teams with the exception of KC fans who follow their team closely.

Non-owners are just as biased as owners (unless they are fans of the team), because they would want to see someone they don't own do poorly.

And owners are slobbering all over the guy like he's the 2nd coming of Barry Sanders.

Well, I'm a current non-owner and fan of the team, so the hype-fest on these boards is comical to me at times...I just listened to sports radio in KC totally trash Weiss and his play calling and offense as a whole. Even though most fans want JC to get the bulk ( I'm talking 65-70+%) of the carries, it isn't happening anytime soon barring an injury. Quote from Haley regarding offense and Cassel's sucktitude "we have to play like that right now to win games". To me that means run the ball down your throat because they don't trust #7, and they need both of those guys to do it = no true workhorse RB numbers in KC.Gian, we can agree to disagree for the most part, to answer your question, sure I draft based on whether I like a player, but I would bet many of these JC lovers got him off of waivers last season and rode him down the stretch and are praying that he gets the chance to carry the load again because they invested in what they saw last year...which was undeniably impressive. This problem is that this is a different team than last year, JC isn't the only show in town anymore and even though he is the big play guy, there is a legit TE, a high-level WR that will eventually catch balls that hit him in the hands/chest to move the chains and another serviceable RB to take some carries and that doesn't take into consideration that McCluster is dynamite in a small package and can do many of the things that make JC so exciting.I can't wait for the threads when they pull JC inside the 5 and TJ vultures TDs...we are just getting warmed up on this topic, IMO.

 

[The Jacket]

Chill out. Haley said that BY FAR the No. 1 goal was "to not turn the ball over." It was a unique situation and likely won't happen again all year. They wanted to give the steady veteran the rock and not turn the football over. It was still a 50-50 split in pretty much the worst outcome possible for JC owners: Chiefs ahead, horrible conditions, etc.

I'm surprised by the amount of worrying. I expected to be more concerned than I am. After that game I've never been more confident that Charles will get upwards of 60% of the regular work. If you had told me before the game that there would be such a down pour and the Chiefs would be ahead by 2 TDs, I'd have gone at LEAST 70:30 in Jones' favor.

 

[coachbobbyfinstock]

Jaded view points based on who you own on your dynasty team is pretty much the epitome of pissing in the shark pool, correct?

Incorrect. This is one of the most commonly stated fallacies here and I don't understand why that is.Explain to me which is more likely:1) I drafted/acquired Jamaal Charles without knowing much about him and THEN decided to like the guyor2) I like Jamaal Charles and THEN drafted/acquired the guy?The people we get on our fantasy teams are people we believe in. Feeling strongly about Charles and owning him on your team does not make you "biased". It makes you a competent owner. I'd be much less inclined to trust someone that is spouting how wonderful Charles is but doesn't actually work on getting him on their team. In other words, "put your money where your mouth is". I've been a Charles fan and have stated so pretty clearly on these boards for a while now and I actually backed that up by going out and acquiring him on as many teams as I could. If I somehow wasn't able to get him on my team, does that mean I'm more credible than if I was successful in doing so even though I still feel the same way? It's complete nonsense to think that just because a player is on one's team that it means an owner is biased because it ignores the most common sense reason of how he got there in the first place.Is your fantasy team comprised of players you like or dislike? If it's players you like, did you like them BEFORE or AFTER they made it on your team? Once you answer that question (honestly), then you might start to understand that if someone is a fan of Charles and also owns them on their team, they are no more biased than a non-Charles owner. In fact, it's the non-Charles owners that bash the guy that I'm a little less likely to pay attention to. Why is that? Because I follow players that I actually own more closely than players I don't and I can assure you that I probably have paid more attention to Charles than guys who don't own him on any of their teams with the exception of KC fans who follow their team closely.

Non-owners are just as biased as owners (unless they are fans of the team), because they would want to see someone they don't own do poorly.

And owners are slobbering all over the guy like he's the 2nd coming of Barry Sanders.

Well, I'm a current non-owner and fan of the team, so the hype-fest on these boards is comical to me at times...I just listened to sports radio in KC totally trash Weiss and his play calling and offense as a whole. Even though most fans want JC to get the bulk of the carries, it isn't happening anytime soon barring an injury. Quote from Haley regarding offense and Cassel's sucktitude "we have to play like that right now to win games". To me that means run the ball down your throat because they don't trust #7, and they need both of those guys to do it = no true workhorse RB numbers in KC.Gian, we can agree to disagree for the most part, to answer your question, sure I draft based on whether I like a player, but I would bet many of these JC lovers got him off of waivers last season and rode him down the stretch and are praying that he gets the chance to carry the load again because they invested in what they saw last year...which was undeniably impressive. This problem is that this is a different team than last year, JC isn't the only show in town anymore and even though he is the big play guy, there is a legit TE, a high-level WR that will eventually catch balls that hit him in the hands/chest to move the chains and another serviceable RB to take some carries and that doesn't take into consideration that McCluster is dynamite in a small package and can do many of the things that make JC so exciting.I can't wait for the threads when they pull JC inside the 5 and TJ vultures TDs...we are just getting warmed up on this topic, IMO.

Most shocking part of that post is that KC has Sports talk radio.

 

[B. Nugget]

I didn't say it was riveting, but it passed the time while I was at lunch!

 

[coachbobbyfinstock]

I didn't say it was riveting, but it passed the time while I was at lunch!

nice

 

[Modog814]

Chill out. Haley said that BY FAR the No. 1 goal was "to not turn the ball over." It was a unique situation and likely won't happen again all year. They wanted to give the steady veteran the rock and not turn the football over. It was still a 50-50 split in pretty much the worst outcome possible for JC owners: Chiefs ahead, horrible conditions, etc. I'm surprised by the amount of worrying. I expected to be more concerned than I am. After that game I've never been more confident that Charles will get upwards of 60% of the regular work. If you had told me before the game that there would be such a down pour and the Chiefs would be ahead by 2 TDs, I'd have gone at LEAST 70:30 in Jones' favor.

 

[CaptainHook]

11 carries to t jones 22. Lmao.

 

[ponchsox]

11 carries to t jones 22. Lmao.

Thanks for your contribution.

 

[CaptainHook]

actually i did have good contributions in this thread.

lol...hes not gonna get enough touches to be relevant. enjoy starting him in his 8/35 weeks

trust me when i say i love his talent as much as anyone. unfortunately in fantasy football, touches are the deciding factor. Take a good hard look at jonathan stewart if u need another example.

perhaps youre the one deserving of a sarcastic "nice contribution"

Charles carries can only go up at this point, right? He should post #1 RB numbers even with 15 touches per game.

whens the last time an rb put up rb1 numbers on 15 touches a game. ill wait. maybe youre confusing completely blind manlove with analysis. westbrook sort of did it in '04 but thats because he had 73 catches to his 177 carries. charles is nowhere near that involved in the passing game.

 

[gigantor]

At least everyone is freaking out after a reasonable amount of time

 

[gigantor]

At least everyone is freaking out after a reasonable amount of time

 

[fruity pebbles]

actually i did have good contributions in this thread.

lol...hes not gonna get enough touches to be relevant. enjoy starting him in his 8/35 weeks

trust me when i say i love his talent as much as anyone. unfortunately in fantasy football, touches are the deciding factor. Take a good hard look at jonathan stewart if u need another example.

perhaps youre the one deserving of a sarcastic "nice contribution"

Charles carries can only go up at this point, right? He should post #1 RB numbers even with 15 touches per game.

whens the last time an rb put up rb1 numbers on 15 touches a game. ill wait. maybe youre confusing completely blind manlove with analysis. westbrook sort of did it in '04 but thats because he had 73 catches to his 177 carries. charles is nowhere near that involved in the passing game.

Well, hes 14th in my 16 team league right now so techinically hes putting up #1 RB numbers on only 12 touches a game.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I think the only thing charles owners can salvage from that game is that 11 of the 22 TJ carries were in the 4th quarter when KC was trying to strangle CLE --- I'm not sure they'll be in that position every week.

he got 30 yds on those 11 carries.

probably see it go back to more of a 50/50 split.