Mendenhall (2 Viewers)

[Concept Coop]

This. By and large, the people who are down on him after the signing are the people who were down on him before the signing. And the people who still think he has value are the people who were fans before the signing. Both sides can come up with plenty of reasons to explain why he's going to flop/succeed. Rehashing the same arguments again and again is just a waste of time and energy. At this point I'm content to let it play out and see what happens. As for the Arizona landing spot, the one year contract and poor performance of their 2011 RBs means it's less than ideal. On the other hand, it's far from catastrophic either. He could've gone to a team with a solid starter or he could still be sitting on the couch like Beanie Wells and Ahmad Bradshaw. The people painting this as a disaster likely weren't very high on Mendenhall all along and probably needed a great outcome (like him signing a big deal with Denver or Detroit) to get excited.

I think this is fair. The pros are likely to feel that his talent will shine through in AZ, at least enough to be relevant. And the cons feel the opposite, and likely needed a better landing spot.

 

[Ernol]

What is your point about this list? EBF indicated that ALL of these spots, including AZ, would have been good ones (or so I thought). The fact that AZ may have been at the bottom of this list (which I dont believe to be the case) doesn't matter.

He said "Some of the obvious potential destinations:", so I don't take that to mean good landing spots. But I don't won't to put words in his mouth, since he didn't specify. My point is that I don't think it's a good landing spot. Like you, I'm simply sharing my opinion and reasoning behind it. As for the list, it is teams likely to have been in the market for Mendenhall, of which Arizona is one of the worst, in terms of his fantas value.

At a certain point, bad is bad. If there were only 4-5 good landing spots, and Arizona wasn't one of them, it's still a bad landing spot, regardless of it's rank among the junk.

He also said that he could emerge as the starter on any of those teams on the list. I asked what your point was (regarding the list) because you are comparing AZ only versus the teams that happen to have weak starting RBs (in a way, the top 10 best destinations). So yes, when comparing AZ only to other teams where the starting RB is weak to very weak, AZ may be near the bottom. I don't see that as supporting your overall point that AZ is not a good landing spot (not discounting the other points you have made in other posts regarding the landing spot and his situation though).

 

[Concept Coop]

He also said that he could emerge as the starter on any of those teams on the list. I asked what your point was because you are comparing AZ only versus the teams that happen to have weak starting RBs. So yes, as compared other teams where the starting RB is weak to very weak, AZ may be near the bottom. I don't see that as supporting your overall point that AZ is not a good landing spot.

This is my point: "At a certain point, bad is bad. If there were only 4-5 good landing spots, and Arizona wasn't one of them, it's still a bad landing spot, regardless of it's rank among the junk."He's not likely to provide RB2 numbers even if he wins the job, which I don't think is a given. To me that qualifies as a bad landing spot. Again, bad is bad, it doesn't matter to me if that's in NO, MINN, or AZ.

 

[Ernol]

He also said that he could emerge as the starter on any of those teams on the list. I asked what your point was because you are comparing AZ only versus the teams that happen to have weak starting RBs. So yes, as compared other teams where the starting RB is weak to very weak, AZ may be near the bottom. I don't see that as supporting your overall point that AZ is not a good landing spot.

This is my point: "At a certain point, bad is bad. If there were only 4-5 good landing spots, and Arizona wasn't one of them, it's still a bad landing spot, regardless of it's rank among the junk."He's not likely to provide RB2 numbers even if he wins the job, which I don't think is a given. To me that qualifies as a bad landing spot. Again, bad is bad, it doesn't matter to me if that's in NO, MINN, or AZ.

Ok, I see the merit of this point. I just didn't see how your several references to EBF's list of potential landing spots, all in which he said Mendenhall could emerge as the starter, supported that point.

 

[EBF]

Really don't want to get dragged into this thread any further, but as far as the situation goes, I'd caution against assuming that Arizona can't yield a productive RB just because they didn't last year. That's the kind of thing that can change overnight in the NFL. San Diego's leading rusher the year before LT arrived had 384 yards. Tomlinson rushed for 1200+ the next year. Washington's leading rusher had 640 yards in 2011. Morris rushed for 1600+ the next year. Tampa Bay's leading rusher had 781 yards in 2011. Doug Martin doubled that the next year.

Sometimes it's just a matter of introducing a legitimate starting caliber talent into a situation that lacked one. Other times it's a new quarterback or coaching staff that makes a difference. I'm sure that RG3 played a big role in Morris's success and that part of the reason why Lynch's YPC skyrocketed to a career high last year is because it was the first time that he's ever played with a great (or even above average) quarterback.

None of this means that Mendenhall = Martin or Tomlinson. I'm just pointing out that "bad" situations can flip very quickly in the NFL. And since Arizona was literally almost as bad as it could possibly be last year in terms of RB talent (starting guys like Stephens-Howling) and QB talent (had some of the worst QB play in league history), I'd say there's nowhere to go but up. Draft Matt Barkley and upgrade from Wells to Mendenhall, and maybe this situation doesn't look so bad. Even getting Chad Henne type production from their QB stable would be a massive improvement, and that shouldn't be impossible to find.

 

[jonboltz]

Ultimately, he needs carries to have any value, and the easiest way to do that is by having the least amount of competition. Arizona provides this.

MiamiNew York JetsSteelersColtsBroncosRaidersLionsPackersFalconsRamsHere's the list, minus AZ. If we are so worried about him beating out teh guys on these rosters, why is it likely he'll beat out Williams?

Packers, Falcons, possibly the Jets. Those are the only three teams that I think had a worse RB situation than Arizona. I don't think anyone believed that he was resigning in Pittsburgh; and several of these teams have pretty strong internal options.(Note: Its also possible that you don't believe that Ryan Williams is completely and utterly terrible; so YMMV).

 

[jonboltz]

At a certain point, bad is bad. If there were only 4-5 good landing spots, and Arizona wasn't one of them, it's still a bad landing spot, regardless of it's rank among the junk.

I think, ultimately, the difference is that you think there were 4-5 better landing spots out there. I'm not sold on that.

 

[Shutout]

I think EBF is correct in his last paragraph: The Cardinals probably couldn't have been a worse FF producer than what it was last season. Every thinkable thing that could have went wrong, did. With absolutely no o-line, no health at RB, no competence/health at QB, I'm surprised the receivers got as much as they did and I'm not surprised at all at how bad the RBs reflected.

With any semblance of stability this year, I would think all those things have to improve.

 

[Concept Coop]

I think, ultimately, the difference is that you think there were 4-5 better landing spots out there. I'm not sold on that.

Yeah, pretty easily. ATL, GB, NYJ, PITT, NYG, DEN, IND, off the top of my head. If the guy is not good enough to earn 15 carries/game on those current rosters (sans NYG), we're likely wasting our time talking about him, in my opinion.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I think, ultimately, the difference is that you think there were 4-5 better landing spots out there. I'm not sold on that.

Yeah, pretty easily. ATL, GB, NYJ, PITT, NYG, DEN, IND, off the top of my head.

If the guy is not good enough to earn 15 carries/game on those current rosters (sans NYG), we're likely wasting our time talking about him, in my opinion.

The bolded were likely never options.The Pitt bridge seemed to have been burned. The Jets had no cap space. Atlanta was too busy pursuing Jackson. NYG have in-house canidates in place and generally aren't big players on the free agent market (for that matter neither is GB).

Mendenhall never made his scheduled visit to Denver signing with Arizona before leaving.

I think the RB market was soft in general - look at what all other backs have signed for - only Shonn Greene's deal seems out of whack and even that deal isnt for all that much.

 

[eefflrat]

I think, ultimately, the difference is that you think there were 4-5 better landing spots out there. I'm not sold on that.

Yeah, pretty easily. ATL, GB, NYJ, PITT, NYG, DEN, IND, off the top of my head.

If the guy is not good enough to earn 15 carries/game on those current rosters (sans NYG), we're likely wasting our time talking about him, in my opinion.

The bolded were likely never options.The Pitt bridge seemed to have been burned. The Jets had no cap space. Atlanta was too busy pursuing Jackson. NYG have in-house canidates in place and generally aren't big players on the free agent market (for that matter neither is GB).

Mendenhall never made his scheduled visit to Denver signing with Arizona before leaving.

I think the RB market was soft in general - look at what all other backs have signed for - only Shonn Greene's deal seems out of whack and even that deal isnt for all that much.

this is the part that I am most curious about. Denver was rumored to have interest, but he signs a real crappy contract with Arizona before even visiting other teams. Sounds like there really wasn't much interest at all.

 

[Concept Coop]

I think, ultimately, the difference is that you think there were 4-5 better landing spots out there. I'm not sold on that.

Yeah, pretty easily. ATL, GB, NYJ, PITT, NYG, DEN, IND, off the top of my head.

If the guy is not good enough to earn 15 carries/game on those current rosters (sans NYG), we're likely wasting our time talking about him, in my opinion.

The bolded were likely never options.

I likely misunderstood Jonboltz then. I didn't mean to speculate on the likelihood of any option. Arizona very well could have been 1 of 2 or 3, in terms of his actual options.

 

[Warpig]

Arizona...

No QB

No OL

No thanks.

 

[jonboltz]

I think, ultimately, the difference is that you think there were 4-5 better landing spots out there. I'm not sold on that.

Yeah, pretty easily. ATL, GB, NYJ, PITT, NYG, DEN, IND, off the top of my head.

If the guy is not good enough to earn 15 carries/game on those current rosters (sans NYG), we're likely wasting our time talking about him, in my opinion.

The bolded were likely never options.

I likely misunderstood Jonboltz then. I didn't mean to speculate on the likelihood of any option. Arizona very well could have been 1 of 2 or 3, in terms of his options.

I felt that Pitt was never an option; and I think NYG is misguided to include with the RBs they already have on the roster.ATL, GB, and NYJ are the three that I believe were definitely ahead of Arizona.

I think once Arians went to ARI, that made Indy very unlikely (most of the people that speculated Indy was entirely due to Arians).

There is obviously a case that Denver is an easier way to carries, and I guess I could be convinced of that. I just think Hillman is much better than Williams, even if only a COP guy.

I do, however, think that his injury is what really scared away "competitive" teams -- more than anything (even pure talent), they want to have someone that is durable/reliable. Denver and GB saw what happened last year when injuries strike, so while I'm not making an excuse why Mendy didn't get an offer with them, I think it played a factor.

 

[Concept Coop]

I felt that Pitt was never an option; and I think NYG is misguided to include with the RBs they already have on the roster.

Yeah, I was kind of in the middle of two conversations. Ernol and I were talking Arizona's rank among all teams, regardless of how likely a destination they were. So I misunderstood your comment/question. I don't know what his options were, but feel that Arizona is a bad landing spot, whether it was the best available or not.

 

[jurb26]

I don't know what his options were, but feel that Arizona is a bad landing spot, whether it was the best available or not.

I'd have to agree. I just don't see much to get excited about with him landing in Arz. It's a bad team, with a bad oline, bad QB, and competition for touches. In order to overcome pitfalls like this you need either an elite talent or luck. Mendy is an average talent at best IMO, so now we're down to plan luck... Injuries to his competition (certainly possible) or significant improvement from what appears to be one of the worst offensive units in the NFL for some unforeseen reason at the moment.

 

[jonboltz]

I don't know what his options were, but feel that Arizona is a bad landing spot, whether it was the best available or not.

I'd have to agree. I just don't see much to get excited about with him landing in Arz. It's a bad team, with a bad oline, bad QB, and competition for touches. In order to overcome pitfalls like this you need either an elite talent or luck. Mendy is an average talent at best IMO, so now we're down to plan luck... Injuries to his competition (certainly possible) or significant improvement from what appears to be one of the worst offensive units in the NFL for some unforeseen reason at the moment.

Is the offensive line that much worse than it was in 2011? (honest question)

 

[Biabreakable]

I don't know what his options were, but feel that Arizona is a bad landing spot, whether it was the best available or not.

I'd have to agree. I just don't see much to get excited about with him landing in Arz. It's a bad team, with a bad oline, bad QB, and competition for touches. In order to overcome pitfalls like this you need either an elite talent or luck. Mendy is an average talent at best IMO, so now we're down to plan luck... Injuries to his competition (certainly possible) or significant improvement from what appears to be one of the worst offensive units in the NFL for some unforeseen reason at the moment.

Is the offensive line that much worse than it was in 2011? (honest question)

I do not see how it could be. Massie actually improved later on in the season after a pretty bad start. Levi Brown is healthy and will return to the lineup. That is some improvement right there even though Cardinal fans seem to think he is not good enough to play LT, that he might be better suited to play guard, however he is still the best option I think unless they draft a tackle better than him(possible). If the Cardinals do draft some linemen I think the unit could be much improved from last season. I am not sure how bad/good they were in 2011 but I am guessing it was not that good.

New head coach Bruce Arians let it be known that there would be multiple people on his offensive staff that would work with offensive lineman, particularly on technique. The new offensive coordinator, Harold Goodwin, was the offensive line coach in Indianapolis. According to Darnell Dockett's recent interview, there will be two defensive line coaches and two offensive line coaches. We don't know who those coaches will be yet, but that will be more that can work with the line than in the past.As some of you may have noted in an article thread, Kent Somers gave his thoughts on Russ Grimm in his latest blog post:That was a problem under the Whisenhunt regime. Other than an intern or two during training camps, Grimm never had an assistant line coach. At camp, it wasn't uncommon to see 10 or 12 linemen standing around, watching one guy work on pass protection. It seemed players could have received considerably more practice snaps if there had been an additional coach, and the group divided in half.Grimm's strength, to me, seemed to be in X's and O's and scheming. He liked veteran linemen, and he didn't drill into their heads that there was one specific way to do things. Get the job done, use whatever works for you: that was his philosophy. And in fairness to Grimm, he worked under offensive coordinators that were infatuated with the pass. It's hard for linemen to pass block 40 to 50 times a game.Now, I don't think Grimm himself was terrible. Everybody you talk to, whether it is players or former players, they gush about Grimm and how he is a great coach. We also saw great strides in Bobby Massie and Nate Potter. The truth is the team never drafted much in the way of young talent.Perhaps he preferred veterans, and that is probably because they were easier to teach. If you have veterans, you can show one guy and the other catch on.However, while Massie made huge strides, a lot of that was self-motivated. He went to Grimm for extra work and focused help. Grimm did it, but it sounds like Massie was the instigator for such attention.On paper, the way Arians is going about it seems obviously better. The line has historically struggled, so why not put more resources into fixing things? Will it be more effective? You would think so, but then again, it simply could be the talent level and the depth that was the issue, and the amount of coaching might not have mattered.The good thing is that, on the surface, we all get at least the impression that the line play matters and that the team is really trying to do better.And, truth be told, I bet this isn't all from Arians. General manager Steve Keim is a former offensive lineman. He said in his introductory press conference that he wants the line to be more physical. i would imagine the increased staff to work on the line is every bit his idea as it is Arians'. Rod Graves and Ken Whisenhunt either felt it was unnecessary, or they felt that the Hall of Famer Grimm was enough, or maybe even they felt it would be disrespectful to Grimm to give him more staff, but that is pure speculation.A better offensive line in the end is always about talent. But if the talent is there and it has not reached its potential or even near it, coaching has to bring that out.

http://bleacherreport.com/arizona-cardinalsI did some reading about Williams. I guess he is still worried about his knee injury. I read an article quoting him saying that players with his injury seem to disappear from the Nfl. Of course he is determined to come back from the injury, but the fact that he is talking like this about the seriousness of it tells me he has doubt in his mind about his ability to return full strength. Some other things I read from fans suggested that Williams was running scared, afraid of injuring it again.There is some connection between Williams and Arians. Maybe I am reading this wrong and Williams will be fully healthy this season, but there are reasons to be concerned I think.Mendenhall is still recovering from an ACL and achilles injuries himself and we have not seen him return to former form yet. I do think Arians will give him a fair shot and one of the offensive line coaches is from Pittsburgh during the time that Mendenhall was playing well also. So I think that connection is a good indication that they will look to use Mendenhall in similar ways as they did with the Steelers. That is if Mendenhall is up to it. Arians has said that pass protection and running ability are the 2 main things he is looking for in RBs. He is not planning to throw to RBs often from what he said.I fully agree this is a wait and see. I am not sure if either of these RB will be healthy and capable enough to take a large role. If the Cards draft or sign another RB that will muddy the waters even further. However I do think the focus on improving the offensive line play will help whoever does win the job(if any of them do) or at least make the rushing attempts these players do get a bit more effective than it would have been last season.Did any team pick up Wells yet? These 2 RB with all their issues still seem like an upgrade from what Wells did for the Cards.

 

[FF Ninja]

These 2 RB with all their issues still seem like an upgrade from what Wells did for the Cards.

I don't own Wells in any leagues, but when healthy the guy was far and away better than either of these guys, although we haven't seen much of Williams. Let's face it, Mendenhall has had a few season with a lot of touches, but on a per touch basis, he's only had 1 good season and he appears to be a bit of a headcase (ridiculous tweets + dumb actions last year). Arians is giving his former bellcow a chance, but his sunk cost of $500k makes it very easy to move on if anything looks awry (attitude, conditioning, ability, durability, etc).

 

[TheFanatic]

Arizona...

No QB

No OL

No thanks.

Why is this always brought up. Even a TERRIBLE QB can hand the ball to a guy running past him. Sure, a terrible QB will get guys stacking the box to stop the run, but ADP had a terrible QB last year. How did that work out for him. Jamal Lewis ran for a coulpe thou with what, Dilfer as his QB? Ray Rice does pretty well with a guy who doesn't really light it up during the regular season. Jamaal Charles had 1500 yards with a mess at QB. Spiller had 1200 yards in limited starts with a guy who was just cut at QB. Shonn Greene somehow got 1K yards.In 2011:

Leading rusher was MJD. QB was the suck

Frank Gore was the 6th leading rusher with 1200 yards with a guy that everyone is ragging on in Alex Smith

Lynch had 1200 yards with a complete mess at QB

In 2010

Jamaal Charles had just under 1500 yards with terrible QB play

MJD was the 5th leading rusher

We can keep going on and on. Bad QB's often lead to more carries for RB's. Sure, their YPC usually sufferes, but for fantasy ownes, that's usually not a concern as we don't get points for that. We get points for yards and TD's and maybe catches..

 

[jurb26]

I don't know what his options were, but feel that Arizona is a bad landing spot, whether it was the best available or not.

I'd have to agree. I just don't see much to get excited about with him landing in Arz. It's a bad team, with a bad oline, bad QB, and competition for touches. In order to overcome pitfalls like this you need either an elite talent or luck. Mendy is an average talent at best IMO, so now we're down to plan luck... Injuries to his competition (certainly possible) or significant improvement from what appears to be one of the worst offensive units in the NFL for some unforeseen reason at the moment.

Is the offensive line that much worse than it was in 2011? (honest question)

I'd say it should be better than that group, but that isn't saying much.

 

[TheFanatic]

I don't know what his options were, but feel that Arizona is a bad landing spot, whether it was the best available or not.

I'd have to agree. I just don't see much to get excited about with him landing in Arz. It's a bad team, with a bad oline, bad QB, and competition for touches. In order to overcome pitfalls like this you need either an elite talent or luck. Mendy is an average talent at best IMO, so now we're down to plan luck... Injuries to his competition (certainly possible) or significant improvement from what appears to be one of the worst offensive units in the NFL for some unforeseen reason at the moment.

Is the offensive line that much worse than it was in 2011? (honest question)

I'd say it should be better than that group, but that isn't saying much.

It can only go up, right? And I expect it should. The story about no line coach under Wisenhunt and Arians bringing someone in to work with them should greatly improve things...

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I don't know what his options were, but feel that Arizona is a bad landing spot, whether it was the best available or not.

I'd have to agree. I just don't see much to get excited about with him landing in Arz. It's a bad team, with a bad oline, bad QB, and competition for touches. In order to overcome pitfalls like this you need either an elite talent or luck. Mendy is an average talent at best IMO, so now we're down to plan luck... Injuries to his competition (certainly possible) or significant improvement from what appears to be one of the worst offensive units in the NFL for some unforeseen reason at the moment.

Is the offensive line that much worse than it was in 2011? (honest question)

I'd say it should be better than that group, but that isn't saying much.

It can only go up, right? And I expect it should. The story about no line coach under Wisenhunt and Arians bringing someone in to work with them should greatly improve things...

Wasnt Russ Grimm Oline coach?

 

[FF Ninja]

Arizona...

No QB

No OL

No thanks.

Why is this always brought up. Even a TERRIBLE QB can hand the ball to a guy running past him. Sure, a terrible QB will get guys stacking the box to stop the run, but ADP had a terrible QB last year. How did that work out for him. Jamal Lewis ran for a coulpe thou with what, Dilfer as his QB? Ray Rice does pretty well with a guy who doesn't really light it up during the regular season. Jamaal Charles had 1500 yards with a mess at QB. Spiller had 1200 yards in limited starts with a guy who was just cut at QB. Shonn Greene somehow got 1K yards.In 2011:

Leading rusher was MJD. QB was the suck

Frank Gore was the 6th leading rusher with 1200 yards with a guy that everyone is ragging on in Alex Smith

Lynch had 1200 yards with a complete mess at QB

In 2010

Jamaal Charles had just under 1500 yards with terrible QB play

MJD was the 5th leading rusher

We can keep going on and on. Bad QB's often lead to more carries for RB's. Sure, their YPC usually sufferes, but for fantasy ownes, that's usually not a concern as we don't get points for that. We get points for yards and TD's and maybe catches..

There are exceptions for every scenario, but let's be honest here - having a bad QB makes things harder on the running back. The backs you listed are all much better than Mendenhall, plus they were probably running behind better o-lines. There really isn't much of a glimmer of hope for Mendenhall owners.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Arizona...

No QB

No OL

No thanks.

Why is this always brought up. Even a TERRIBLE QB can hand the ball to a guy running past him. Sure, a terrible QB will get guys stacking the box to stop the run, but ADP had a terrible QB last year. How did that work out for him. Jamal Lewis ran for a coulpe thou with what, Dilfer as his QB? Ray Rice does pretty well with a guy who doesn't really light it up during the regular season. Jamaal Charles had 1500 yards with a mess at QB. Spiller had 1200 yards in limited starts with a guy who was just cut at QB. Shonn Greene somehow got 1K yards.In 2011:

Leading rusher was MJD. QB was the suck

Frank Gore was the 6th leading rusher with 1200 yards with a guy that everyone is ragging on in Alex Smith

Lynch had 1200 yards with a complete mess at QB

In 2010

Jamaal Charles had just under 1500 yards with terrible QB play

MJD was the 5th leading rusher

We can keep going on and on. Bad QB's often lead to more carries for RB's. Sure, their YPC usually sufferes, but for fantasy ownes, that's usually not a concern as we don't get points for that. We get points for yards and TD's and maybe catches..

There are exceptions for every scenario, but let's be honest here - having a bad QB makes things harder on the running back. The backs you listed are all much better than Mendenhall, plus they were probably running behind better o-lines. There really isn't much of a glimmer of hope for Mendenhall owners.

Except those aren't the "exceptions", those are the "rules". Truth be told most of the top fantasy backs over the past few years came from teams ranked at the bottom of the league in passing yards. Many times there's actually an inverse correlation that works both ways (i.e. great passing attacks, diminish rushing yards). Just from last year: Richardson, Martin, McCoy/Brown, Peterson, Spiller/Jackson, Rice, Lynch, and Jackson all were top fantasy RBs with very poor to mediocre passing attacks.

Go back and look at previous years, you'll find more of the same.

This of course doesn't mean that Mendenhall will be productive (the o-line is terrible) but it does't mean that he, or Ryan Williams can't be productive.

The whole "stack the box" fantasy football rhetoric has been one of those things that just keep getting repeated until people start taking it as fact.

 

[Concept Coop]

Except those aren't the "exceptions", those are the "rules". Truth be told most of the top fantasy backs over the past few years came from teams ranked at the bottom of the league in passing yards. Many times there's actually an inverse correlation that works both ways (i.e. great passing attacks, diminish rushing yards). Just from last year: Richardson, Martin, McCoy/Brown, Peterson, Spiller/Jackson, Rice, Lynch, and Jackson all were top fantasy RBs with very poor to mediocre passing attacks.Go back and look at previous years, you'll find more of the same.This of course doesn't mean that Mendenhall will be productive (the o-line is terrible) but it does't mean that he, or Ryan Williams can't be productive.The whole "stack the box" fantasy football rhetoric has been one of those things that just keep getting repeated until people start taking it as fact.

I think the truth is in between your claim and it's opposition. I think we could shorten your list by removing backs with average QBs, I don't think anyone is making that claim; these offenses can threaten with the pass. There goes Martin, McCoy, Rice, Lynch, and Jackson. Who's left? Peterson, Richardson, Charles, Spiller. I think there is a trend here and I don't think Mendenhall meets the criteria. Especially when considering his likely low reception total.

 

[FF Ninja]

Except those aren't the "exceptions", those are the "rules". Truth be told most of the top fantasy backs over the past few years came from teams ranked at the bottom of the league in passing yards. Many times there's actually an inverse correlation that works both ways (i.e. great passing attacks, diminish rushing yards). Just from last year: Richardson, Martin, McCoy/Brown, Peterson, Spiller/Jackson, Rice, Lynch, and Jackson all were top fantasy RBs with very poor to mediocre passing attacks.Go back and look at previous years, you'll find more of the same.This of course doesn't mean that Mendenhall will be productive (the o-line is terrible) but it does't mean that he, or Ryan Williams can't be productive.The whole "stack the box" fantasy football rhetoric has been one of those things that just keep getting repeated until people start taking it as fact.

I know what you're talking about and to some extent I agree. Obviously, if you're passing the ball 600+ times, you aren't feeding your RBs and vice versa. But that doesn't mean that a completely crappy QB and/or O-line situation is the best friend of a running back. That was the logic behind people hyping up Beanie Wells when Kurt Warner left. It's just not so simple. Just because you can't throw the ball doesn't mean you can run it.Richardson put up like 3.6 ypc - so he's hardly an endorsement. Martin put up like 4.0 ypc in 15 games last year (the Oakland game greatly skews his numbers). Lynch was struggling earlier in the season when they were sticking with the run, run, short pass, punt method. Steven Jackson's best year came when Bulger and Holt were still serviceable. When they left/dropped off his numbers did, too.The best situation for a running back is when he has a quality QB, but the coach is committed to the run - see Holmes/Green or LT/Brees. A guy needs a really stout defense, a stud offensive line, and a huge workload to pull a Jamaal Lewis.So I don't disagree with you that you don't need a good QB to have a good fantasy RB, but you do need a team that is built to perform that way. Or else you end up with the post-Warner Cardinals. While the defense looked to be making strides last year, I'm not sure that wasn't a mirage. But even if it was, they still need to improve the o-line AND the running backs. So far, they haven't done either. I'm pretty sure that at this point Mendenhall = JAG. However, if you put him on the team that Jamaal Lewis rushed for 2000 yards on, you just might have yourself a 1400 yard rusher. But even that might be a stretch.

 

[FF Ninja]

Except those aren't the "exceptions", those are the "rules". Truth be told most of the top fantasy backs over the past few years came from teams ranked at the bottom of the league in passing yards. Many times there's actually an inverse correlation that works both ways (i.e. great passing attacks, diminish rushing yards). Just from last year: Richardson, Martin, McCoy/Brown, Peterson, Spiller/Jackson, Rice, Lynch, and Jackson all were top fantasy RBs with very poor to mediocre passing attacks.Go back and look at previous years, you'll find more of the same.This of course doesn't mean that Mendenhall will be productive (the o-line is terrible) but it does't mean that he, or Ryan Williams can't be productive.The whole "stack the box" fantasy football rhetoric has been one of those things that just keep getting repeated until people start taking it as fact.

I think the truth is in between your claim and it's opposition. I think we could shorten your list by removing backs with average QBs, I don't think anyone is making that claim; these offenses can threaten with the pass. There goes Martin, McCoy, Rice, Lynch, and Jackson. Who's left? Peterson, Richardson, Charles, Spiller. I think there is a trend here and I don't think Mendenhall meets the criteria. Especially when considering his likely low reception total.

If you're referring to me as the opposition, I'd like to point out that I never said it was impossible to have a good fantasy RB on a team with a bad QB. I just said that a bad QB makes things harder on the RB. And in my opinion it takes two of the following three items to make that work for a fantasy RB: a great defense, a great o-line, a great RB.

 

[TheFanatic]

Steven Jackson's best year came when Bulger and Holt were still serviceable. When they left/dropped off his numbers did, too.

That's not quite right. Stephen Jack's best year was 2006 where he got 1528 yards and 13 TD and a 4.4 YPCHolt in 2006 had 93 catches and 1188 yards and 10 TD'sThe following year, Holt had 93 catches again and 1189 yards and 7 TD's. Darn similar numbers.In 2007 SJ39 had 1,002 yards in 12 games and 5 TD'sIn 2008, Holt had 64 catches and 796 yards and was with Jacksonville in 2009In 2009, SJ39 did not have his best year, but he still has 1400 yards and but only 4 TD's and again 4.4 ypcThere is no real mystery to SJ39. He's a workhorse back. Any time he got more than 300 carries, he got mroe than 1200 yards (1241 in 2010 on 330 carries). But other than his rookie season, he has gotten 1,000 yards every year and for many of those years, he had crappy QB play, no WR's to speak of and TERRIBLE O-Line play. Feed the guy and he gets his 4.2 yards, and as long as he has about 250 carries he gets 1,000 yards. But he still has 1400 yards rushing after Holt left. It's more play calling than it is he had a successful QB and a good WR. They years he was healthy and they fed him the ball, he did well whether he had good QB's or not.

 

[Shutout]

The 900lb gorilla in this room, no matter how you slice it, is the lack of an o-line in Arizona.

Way back in the day, the old conversation used to be "If Barry Sanders ran behind Emmitt Smith's line he would have been other-wordly." It's worth thinking about that statement just because, as FF players, we don't use O-lines in hardly any leagues and, therefore, we overlook them.

A no-name player like Montell Owens could have a solid fantasy season behind a good line. A great runner will be hindered by a poor line. Arizona is an exceptionally poor line. No matter what the new coaching changes are, the quality of Mendy at this point, or the philosophy of the team in regards to running, the answer will still be the same: really bad line =less than desired production from Mendy.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The 900lb gorilla in this room, no matter how you slice it, is the lack of an o-line in Arizona.

Way back in the day, the old conversation used to be "If Barry Sanders ran behind Emmitt Smith's line he would have been other-wordly." It's worth thinking about that statement just because, as FF players, we don't use O-lines in hardly any leagues and, therefore, we overlook them.

A no-name player like Montell Owens could have a solid fantasy season behind a good line. A great runner will be hindered by a poor line. Arizona is an exceptionally poor line. No matter what the new coaching changes are, the quality of Mendy at this point, or the philosophy of the team in regards to running, the answer will still be the same: really bad line =less than desired production from Mendy.

I don't think there's been one post that hasn't mentioned the o-line.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Except those aren't the "exceptions", those are the "rules". Truth be told most of the top fantasy backs over the past few years came from teams ranked at the bottom of the league in passing yards. Many times there's actually an inverse correlation that works both ways (i.e. great passing attacks, diminish rushing yards). Just from last year: Richardson, Martin, McCoy/Brown, Peterson, Spiller/Jackson, Rice, Lynch, and Jackson all were top fantasy RBs with very poor to mediocre passing attacks.Go back and look at previous years, you'll find more of the same.This of course doesn't mean that Mendenhall will be productive (the o-line is terrible) but it does't mean that he, or Ryan Williams can't be productive.The whole "stack the box" fantasy football rhetoric has been one of those things that just keep getting repeated until people start taking it as fact.

I think the truth is in between your claim and it's opposition. I think we could shorten your list by removing backs with average QBs, I don't think anyone is making that claim; these offenses can threaten with the pass. There goes Martin, McCoy, Rice, Lynch, and Jackson. Who's left? Peterson, Richardson, Charles, Spiller. I think there is a trend here and I don't think Mendenhall meets the criteria. Especially when considering his likely low reception total.

I was addressing a broader point, and I understand your implication that only the "elite" backs can survive an atrocious passing game. I'm certainly not going to claim Mendenhall is elite, but to be completely fair we also really don't know how bad the Arizona passing game is going to be this season.Bruce Arians is one of the most successful passing game coordinators of the last decade and Arizona has a future Hall of Famer (Fitzgerald) and two young talented receivers (Floyd and Roberts) as their top 3 WRs. Drew Stanton may be competant enough to be "average" while throwing to Larry Fitzgerlad, Floyd and Roberts. Afterall Fitzgerald has made other poor QBs look adequate with last year being the outlier (and those QBs after Kolb went down were beyond horrible). Don't forget Arizona was 4-0 under Kevin Kolb who is average at best. Arizona may also draft a rookie QB and while there are no elite prospects in this class many beleive Geno Smith will be a legit starter.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Obviously this is offseason fluff and doesn't mean anything substantial - but I think it gives some insight as to why Arians brought Mendenhall into the fold and perhaps sheds some light as to who he sees as the feature back:

Cardinals coach Bruce Arians believes Rashard Mendenhall is a "legitimate big-time threat every time he touches the ball."Arians knows Mendenhall well from their time together in Pittsburgh. "He’s a big back who never has to come out of the game," Arians said. "He has a 230-pound body with 180-pound feet." Arians has lavished praise on both Mendenhall and Ryan Williams this offseason, but Mendenhall's history with his former coordinator is going to give him a big leg up in camp. Arians favors a feature-back approach, so the No. 2 runner isn't going to be in line for a lot of snaps.

 

[TheFanatic]

The 900lb gorilla in this room, no matter how you slice it, is the lack of an o-line in Arizona.

Way back in the day, the old conversation used to be "If Barry Sanders ran behind Emmitt Smith's line he would have been other-wordly." It's worth thinking about that statement just because, as FF players, we don't use O-lines in hardly any leagues and, therefore, we overlook them.

A no-name player like Montell Owens could have a solid fantasy season behind a good line. A great runner will be hindered by a poor line. Arizona is an exceptionally poor line. No matter what the new coaching changes are, the quality of Mendy at this point, or the philosophy of the team in regards to running, the answer will still be the same: really bad line =less than desired production from Mendy.

I don't think there's been one post that hasn't mentioned the o-line.

I agree with both posters above. The line has more to do with it than anything, but the line is mentioned in just about every post including discussions of not having a line coach last year to Arians emphasizing it this year. In fact, I would bet that the line is considerably better in 2013, but I'm not sure Mendenhall is the guy that benefits from that. $500K guaranteed money is ridiculous. He gets dinged and misses a minicamp and he's gone. That might cause him to play with injuries and hurt something bad. All around bad situaiton other than the fact that there is nobody on the roster right now to really fight off. The draft might produce a guy in the early (non 1st) rounds that could change that...

 

[Chachi]

With Arizona Oline issues Mendenhall may be joining his buddy Bin Laden.

 

[FF Ninja]

Steven Jackson's best year came when Bulger and Holt were still serviceable. When they left/dropped off his numbers did, too.

That's not quite right. Stephen Jack's best year was 2006 where he got 1528 yards and 13 TD and a 4.4 YPCHolt in 2006 had 93 catches and 1188 yards and 10 TD'sThe following year, Holt had 93 catches again and 1189 yards and 7 TD's. Darn similar numbers.In 2007 SJ39 had 1,002 yards in 12 games and 5 TD'sIn 2008, Holt had 64 catches and 796 yards and was with Jacksonville in 2009In 2009, SJ39 did not have his best year, but he still has 1400 yards and but only 4 TD's and again 4.4 ypcThere is no real mystery to SJ39. He's a workhorse back. Any time he got more than 300 carries, he got mroe than 1200 yards (1241 in 2010 on 330 carries). But other than his rookie season, he has gotten 1,000 yards every year and for many of those years, he had crappy QB play, no WR's to speak of and TERRIBLE O-Line play. Feed the guy and he gets his 4.2 yards, and as long as he has about 250 carries he gets 1,000 yards. But he still has 1400 yards rushing after Holt left. It's more play calling than it is he had a successful QB and a good WR. They years he was healthy and they fed him the ball, he did well whether he had good QB's or not.

Holt was only half of that equation. What about the QB? You forgot to mention team passing yards went from 247 per game to 202 from 2006 to 2007. SJ39's touchdown production went from 16 in 16 games to 6 in 12 games. Passing production can help or hurt RB production.

 

[Biabreakable]

These 2 RB with all their issues still seem like an upgrade from what Wells did for the Cards.

I don't own Wells in any leagues, but when healthy the guy was far and away better than either of these guys, although we haven't seen much of Williams. Let's face it, Mendenhall has had a few season with a lot of touches, but on a per touch basis, he's only had 1 good season and he appears to be a bit of a headcase (ridiculous tweets + dumb actions last year). Arians is giving his former bellcow a chance, but his sunk cost of $500k makes it very easy to move on if anything looks awry (attitude, conditioning, ability, durability, etc).

I disagree. Wells sucks. He represents many of the qualities I do not want in a RB. If he was ever better than either of these guys he isn't right now.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Beanie Wells' knee situation is bad enough that it "would be a risk for the Steelers to sign him."

Wells' market has gone dead silent since his calamitous Steelers physical, and casts doubt on his ability to get a deal any time soon. Wells will either have to be willing to settle for no guaranteed money, or wait to resume visiting teams until he can prove he's healthy. With both the Steelers and Cardinals giving a vote of no confidence to Wells' knee, he could have trouble getting a contract before camp. Mar 18 - 11:34 AM

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5167/beanie-wells

 

[TheFanatic]

Steven Jackson's best year came when Bulger and Holt were still serviceable. When they left/dropped off his numbers did, too.

That's not quite right. Stephen Jack's best year was 2006 where he got 1528 yards and 13 TD and a 4.4 YPCHolt in 2006 had 93 catches and 1188 yards and 10 TD'sThe following year, Holt had 93 catches again and 1189 yards and 7 TD's. Darn similar numbers.In 2007 SJ39 had 1,002 yards in 12 games and 5 TD'sIn 2008, Holt had 64 catches and 796 yards and was with Jacksonville in 2009In 2009, SJ39 did not have his best year, but he still has 1400 yards and but only 4 TD's and again 4.4 ypcThere is no real mystery to SJ39. He's a workhorse back. Any time he got more than 300 carries, he got mroe than 1200 yards (1241 in 2010 on 330 carries). But other than his rookie season, he has gotten 1,000 yards every year and for many of those years, he had crappy QB play, no WR's to speak of and TERRIBLE O-Line play. Feed the guy and he gets his 4.2 yards, and as long as he has about 250 carries he gets 1,000 yards. But he still has 1400 yards rushing after Holt left. It's more play calling than it is he had a successful QB and a good WR. They years he was healthy and they fed him the ball, he did well whether he had good QB's or not.

Holt was only half of that equation. What about the QB? You forgot to mention team passing yards went from 247 per game to 202 from 2006 to 2007. SJ39's touchdown production went from 16 in 16 games to 6 in 12 games. Passing production can help or hurt RB production.

In 2006, SJ had 90 catches and close to 900 yards receiving. He never got more than about 50 catches after that. That's play calling. He can't throw it to himself. SJ gets his no matter who is on the field around him. He reached his career high YPC and 1400 yards without either Bulger or Holt on the team.

 

[FF Ninja]

His career high ypc was with Bulger and Holt in 2006. He did come close in 2009, but he never sniffed double digit touchdowns again after 2006.

I'm not sure what your angle is here. You've been kind of bickering about Steven Jackson, but I don't think you've actually taken a definite stance on the real topic - I think it is undeniable that a legitimate passing threat helps a running back and a bad QB hurts a running back. I've also stated that a bad QB does not preclude RB performance, but does require that the team in question possess at least two out of three aspects: great O-line, great defense, great RB.

If you have a counter argument for either of those lines of logic, let's hear it. Otherwise, let's move past the historical Steven Jackson discussion in the Mendenhall thread.

 

[TheFanatic]

His career high ypc was with Bulger and Holt in 2006.

He had 4.4 YPC three times, 2006, 09, and 11.

He did come close in 2009, but he never sniffed double digit touchdowns again after 2006.

TD's are hardly predictable from year to year. How many TD's did McCoy have a couple years ago?

I'm not sure what your angle is here. You've been kind of bickering about Steven Jackson, but I don't think you've actually taken a definite stance on the real topic - I think it is undeniable that a legitimate passing threat helps a running back and a bad QB hurts a running back.

I disagree. Lack of QB, line, whatever can be countered with more carries. Might impact his YPC, but carries will counter that every time.

If you have a counter argument for either of those lines of logic, let's hear it. Otherwise, let's move past the historical Steven Jackson discussion in the Mendenhall thread.

You brought up Jackson as support for your argument and I countered that it is not support for your argument, but actually I think SJ39 counters your argument.

 

[FF Ninja]

His career high ypc was with Bulger and Holt in 2006.

He had 4.4 YPC three times, 2006, 09, and 11.

He did come close in 2009, but he never sniffed double digit touchdowns again after 2006.

TD's are hardly predictable from year to year. How many TD's did McCoy have a couple years ago?

I'm not sure what your angle is here. You've been kind of bickering about Steven Jackson, but I don't think you've actually taken a definite stance on the real topic - I think it is undeniable that a legitimate passing threat helps a running back and a bad QB hurts a running back.

I disagree. Lack of QB, line, whatever can be countered with more carries. Might impact his YPC, but carries will counter that every time.

If you have a counter argument for either of those lines of logic, let's hear it. Otherwise, let's move past the historical Steven Jackson discussion in the Mendenhall thread.

You brought up Jackson as support for your argument and I countered that it is not support for your argument, but actually I think SJ39 counters your argument.

1. Might be splitting hairs, but 4.42, 4.38, 4.40. So technically, his best year was 2006. 2. Sure, TDs vary from year to year, but not when you're SJax playing on a bad team. He started 2 years on a good offense and scored double digits both years. His QB production sucked the next 6 years and never hit double digits again. So yeah, my point stands.

3. No s***. Of course it can be countered by more carries. By saying it impacts his ypc, you are agreeing with me. But you know what can't be countered by more carries? Goal line opportunities. Thus, the SJax example.

4. If you think SJax counters my argument then you are beyond help. If you think SJax would have single digit TDs each season and a career 4.2 ypc average with Drew Brees as his QB all those years then you're blind to the obvious.

Bottom line, Arizona appears to be headed into the season with a bad QB, average running back, bad o-line, average to maybe above average defense. This isn't Jamaal Lewis and Trent Dilfer or Thomas Jones and Mark Sanchez. Maybe Stanton surprises everyone and keeps the defenses honest, but I'd be willing to bet that Mendenhall is a dud if the Cardinals get less than 7.0 ypa out of the QB position.

 

[TheFanatic]

1. Might be splitting hairs, but 4.42, 4.38, 4.40. So technically, his best year was 2006.

Uh, yeah, you're splitting hairs. Unless of course you've done an analysis of variance to see if there is a statistical difference between those numbers.

2. Sure, TDs vary from year to year, but not when you're SJax playing on a bad team. He started 2 years on a good offense and scored double digits both years. His QB production sucked the next 6 years and never hit double digits again. So yeah, my point stands.

If you are making causation arguments based on TD totals, then you are the one beyond help.Oh, and, aren't you the guy that just made this suggestion?

Otherwise, let's move past the historical Steven Jackson discussion in the Mendenhall thread.

Bad QB can mean more carries for a RB. It may drop his YPC, but we don't score in FFB on YPC. We score on yards and TD's. It has been shown in this thread multiple times that quality QB play has little to do with RB performance. That's a fact.... But keep holding onto TD's as proof of your argument, or that miniscule difference in YPC. Considering the guy has a career 4.2, I'm guessing there is no statistical difference...

 

[Dr. Octopus]

1. Might be splitting hairs, but 4.42, 4.38, 4.40. So technically, his best year was 2006.

I'd say. Given 250 carries those averages would produce 1105 yards, 1095 yards, and 1100 yards over the course of the season, respectively.

 

[FF Ninja]

Bad QB can mean more carries for a RB. It may drop his YPC, but we don't score in FFB on YPC. We score on yards and TD's. It has been shown in this thread multiple times that quality QB play has little to do with RB performance. That's a fact.... But keep holding onto TD's as proof of your argument, or that miniscule difference in YPC. Considering the guy has a career 4.2, I'm guessing there is no statistical difference...

Bad QB can also mean 3 and outs and a low scoring offense. You are just as bad as the Beanie supporters after Warner left. You don't magically stumble upon 500 team RB rushes. You need a team built for it.

2. Sure, TDs vary from year to year, but not when you're SJax playing on a bad team. He started 2 years on a good offense and scored double digits both years. His QB production sucked the next 6 years and never hit double digits again. So yeah, my point stands.

If you are making causation arguments based on TD totals, then you are the one beyond help.

Sure, so there was no relation between the passing attack and his TD totals. Total fluke. LT would've rushed for 27 TDs with Skelton instead of Brees. And you keep yammering about bad QB = more carries. Did SJax ever eclipse his 346 carries from 2006 while he had bad QBs?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

When my two year old can't take something for another second he bangs both eyes with the back of his fist and yells 'stop, stop, stop.' It's hysterical!

But it turns out that it actually kind of hurts if you try it as an adult, so I went and got some data instead.

Using every season between 2002 and 2012, I ran a simple regressions between a team's FF points from passing vs its FF points from running.

And each passing point is worth +.27 rushing points (ppr), or +.20 rushing points (standard). IOW, as a team's passing gets better so does its rushing. (very high t-stat, low AR^2)

I did the same thing with Yards/Attempt and the relationship is stronger. For every one yard improvement in Y/A a team's FF points from rushing go up by 35 on the season. (shockingly high t-stat, stronger AR^2)

Those are team numbers, so you can't just apply them to a single RB.

ETA: IMO there's no reason to be optimistic that replacing Kolb with Stanton is going to improve on the 5.56 Y/A the Cards had last year.

But any sort of half-competent QB (even a rookie like Barkley or Smith) ought to see those numbers go up by a yard or so. Add in a slight improvement to the O-line and an upgrade at RB over the 2012 crew (YMMV) and I could see the backs materially improving on last year's numbers. But the ceiling would still be mid/low RB2 numbers IMO.

 

[TheFanatic]

When my two year old can't take something for another second he bangs both eyes with the back of his fist and yells 'stop, stop, stop.' It's hysterical!But it turns out that it actually kind of hurts if you try it as an adult, so I went and got some data instead.Using every season between 2002 and 2012, I ran a simple regressions between a team's FF points from passing vs its FF points from running.And each passing point is worth +.27 rushing points (ppr), or +.20 rushing points (standard). IOW, as a team's passing gets better so does its rushing. (very high t-stat, low AR^2)I did the same thing with Yards/Attempt and the relationship is stronger. For every one yard improvement in Y/A a team's FF points from rushing go up by 35 on the season. (shockingly high t-stat, stronger AR^2)Those are team numbers, so you can't just apply them to a single RB.ETA: IMO there's no reason to be optimistic that replacing Kolb with Stanton is going to improve on the 5.56 Y/A the Cards had last year. But any sort of half-competent QB (even a rookie like Barkley or Smith) ought to see those numbers go up by a yard or so. Add in a slight improvement to the O-line and an upgrade at RB over the 2012 crew (YMMV) and I could see the backs materially improving on last year's numbers. But the ceiling would still be mid/low RB2 numbers IMO.

Why did you have to go use statistics and facts? When Warner left Beanie didn't do all that well. When Holt and Bulger left, SJ39 didn't do well, other than the seasons he did of course, so that is all we need to see here. By what I've seen in this thread, by one poster in particular, I think it's time to start carving out the Christian Ponder Bust for Canton.

 

[TheFanatic]

Sure, so there was no relation between the passing attack and his TD totals. Total fluke. LT would've rushed for 27 TDs with Skelton instead of Brees.

Uh, LT ran for 28 TD's once in his career. That was in 2006. That was Brees' first year with the Saints. In 2006, the Chargers QGB was Phillip Rivers who had less passes, less yards, lower completion percentage and lower TD's than Brees had in 2005 and LT's rushing TD's went up from 18 to 28.

 

[Concept Coop]

Sure, so there was no relation between the passing attack and his TD totals. Total fluke. LT would've rushed for 27 TDs with Skelton instead of Brees.

Uh, LT ran for 28 TD's once in his career. That was in 2006. That was Brees' first year with the Saints. In 2006, the Chargers QGB was Phillip Rivers who had less passes, less yards, lower completion percentage and lower TD's than Brees had in 2005 and LT's rushing TD's went up from 18 to 28.

This isn't an LT situation, here, though.We're talking about a guy who won't get many receptions, and whose per touch numbers aren't likely to be above average. He'd need 250 carries to get 1,000 yards, at 4 a pop. That's 6.25 points/game. The rest of his value is going to come from TDs. He's not LT/ADP and is not going to create many TDs out of nothing. The Cardinals are going to have to move the ball in the redzone for him to get TDs. That's where the passing game comes into play. That's why the NE offense has turned Stevan Ridley and BJGE into TD machines - it isn't their offensive line and commitment to the run; it's Tom Brady and Company moving the ball all over the field. We understand that MJD, ADP, LT2, etc have produced while lacking quality QB play. But you're talking about Hall-of-Famers. Where are our 4YPC, 2.5/yr guys who score top 10 fantasy numbers without at least average QB play?

 

[CokeZero]

Sure, so there was no relation between the passing attack and his TD totals. Total fluke. LT would've rushed for 27 TDs with Skelton instead of Brees.

Uh, LT ran for 28 TD's once in his career. That was in 2006. That was Brees' first year with the Saints. In 2006, the Chargers QGB was Phillip Rivers who had less passes, less yards, lower completion percentage and lower TD's than Brees had in 2005 and LT's rushing TD's went up from 18 to 28.

This isn't an LT situation, here, though.We're talking about a guy who won't get many receptions, and whose per touch numbers aren't likely to be above average. He'd need 250 carries to get 1,000 yards, at 4 a pop. That's 6.25 points/game. The rest of his value is going to come from TDs. He's not LT/ADP and is not going to create many TDs out of nothing. The Cardinals are going to have to move the ball in the redzone for him to get TDs. That's where the passing game comes into play. That's why the NE offense has turned Stevan Ridley and BJGE into TD machines - it isn't their offensive line and commitment to the run; it's Tom Brady and Company moving the ball all over the field. We understand that MJD, ADP, LT2, etc have produced while lacking quality QB play. But you're talking about Hall-of-Famers. Where are our 4YPC, 2.5/yr guys who score top 10 fantasy numbers without at least average QB play?

So what's the consensus? Who cares about Beanie and LT2, is Mendy gonna be golden or what?

 

[Concept Coop]

So what's the consensus? Who cares about Beanie and LT2, is Mendy gonna be golden or what?

In my opinion, not so golden. I think we're looking at a 6-8 PPG filler, with an upside of 10 or so. I think the consensus - if there is one - is a little higher than that, going by this thread.