Michael Bush FA Watch (1 Viewer)

[az_prof]

Where will Bush go and will it be good or bad for his fantasy production? It looks highly unlikely he stays in Oakland as the team is now saying they won't Franchise him.

These are the teams with cap space to play in FA:

Teams that have the cap space to make big moves in free agency.

Cincinnati Bengals $80,641,237

Tennessee Titans $92,739,765

Washington Redskins $94,351,284

Kansas City Chiefs $95,844,195

Tampa Bay Buccaneers $98,899,458

Atlanta Falcons $100,227,174

Denver Broncos $101,389,121

New England Patriots $101,827,381

Chicago Bears $101,887,741

San Francisco 49ers $102,938,980

Cleveland Browns $103,789,162

Looking at this list, I could see the following as looking for a HB possibly.

Cinn--Bush would be a good replacement for Benson

KC: maybe. Depends on how Charles' recovery is going. It is always nice to steal a player from a division rival...

Tampa: Yes. Could definitely use him

Falcons: Maybe. He would be good to use in RBBC with Turner if you think Turner is starting to slow down.

Broncos: Yes. I loved McGahee, but anyone want to take bets on the odds of him staying healthy another season? Not sure that Bush would fit that option offense though.

Browns: Yes.

Cincinnati and Cleveland look the most likely to me.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Where will Bush go and will it be good or bad for his fantasy production? It looks highly unlikely he stays in Oakland as the team is now saying they won't Franchise him.These are the teams with cap space to play in FA:Teams that have the cap space to make big moves in free agency.Cincinnati Bengals $80,641,237Tennessee Titans $92,739,765Washington Redskins $94,351,284Kansas City Chiefs $95,844,195Tampa Bay Buccaneers $98,899,458Atlanta Falcons $100,227,174Denver Broncos $101,389,121New England Patriots $101,827,381Chicago Bears $101,887,741San Francisco 49ers $102,938,980Cleveland Browns $103,789,162Looking at this list, I could see the following as looking for a HB possibly.Cinn--Bush would be a good replacement for BensonKC: maybe. Depends on how Charles' recovery is going. It is always nice to steal a player from a division rival...Tampa: Yes. Could definitely use himFalcons: Maybe. He would be good to use in RBBC with Turner if you think Turner is starting to slow down.Broncos: Yes. I loved McGahee, but anyone want to take bets on the odds of him staying healthy another season? Not sure that Bush would fit that option offense though.Browns: Yes.Cincinnati and Cleveland look the most likely to me.

ATL is an interesting situation. Turner put up pretty good numbers overall in 2011, but really struggled for the last half of the season upon closer inspection. He's already 30 years old, and is due to make 5 million. The team doesn't have a 1st round pick, and needs to find a way to improve to climb the NFC ladder. Bush would seem to be a younger version of the same back. Would they be better off with Turner in 2012 at 5 million or Bush for 6-7 million? If he lands in ATL, Bush could really thrive, and would likely be a RB1 for fantasy purposes. Same thing in Cincinnati, and possibly Cleveland given what Hillis did in 2010. Obviously, landing in KC or Tennessee would put a damper on expectations.

 

[_lurker_]

If I may go on a tangent... if Bush leaves, does Lonyae Miller or Marcel Reece take his role? If and when McFadden goes down, does the Bush replacement get the start or does it go to Taiwan Jones?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The Raiders won't franchise Bush, but they may offer him a low ball or incentive laden deal as insurance to McFadden. Bush wants to be a starter, so it's not very likely he wants to do this, but it's not a given that he'll be given the keys to the starting role anywhere else. The league is RBBC now more than ever, and there are only so many feature back roles. If Bush decides that the risk of leaving for an undetermined role isn't worth the paycheck, he may decide to come back after testing the FA waters. Regardless, I think he's an average NFL back and certainly capable but not the special talent that is DMC. I want him back, but only at a thrifty price. The Raiders have higher priority needs and need salary cap relief. If he lands somewhere gaining nice money, I wish him well.

I think that Reggie McKenzie has a backup plan in place and has a history of being able to cobble together some late round RB draft picks in Green Bay that gave decent production for the money they were paid/invested in. Bush is no great loss if he leaves, which I expect. He can be replaced. DMC can't. DMC makes $5M, Bush would make $7M+ if franchised. Who is going to seriously pay more money to the backup RB?

I think (and pray) DMC comes back strong and healthy as ever, but it remains to be seen if Taiwan can be that instant starter should DMC go down to injury. The strategy is to run DMC till the wheels fall off, then go to a full blown RBBC with Jones/? taking up the slack till DMC heals.

 

[Casting Couch]

If I may go on a tangent... if Bush leaves, does Lonyae Miller or Marcel Reece take his role? If and when McFadden goes down, does the Bush replacement get the start or does it go to Taiwan Jones?

If Taiwan is healthy, I think he's the next star of last year's rookie RB crop.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

If Bush leaves and DMC goes down then I like Reece as the guy to get the start and Jones as COP. Just a gut call, but Reece has the size, speed and receiving ability to handle the load.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Where will Bush go and will it be good or bad for his fantasy production? It looks highly unlikely he stays in Oakland as the team is now saying they won't Franchise him.

The team really hasn't said anything. It's been media speculation as to whether they will or will not franchise Bush throughout the process.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Where will Bush go and will it be good or bad for his fantasy production? It looks highly unlikely he stays in Oakland as the team is now saying they won't Franchise him.

The team really hasn't said anything. It's been media speculation as to whether they will or will not franchise Bush throughout the process.

Nothing is final until the Raiders confirm. But paying Bush close to $8M to be the backup RB is a ridiculous notion. One that requires a crazy belief that someone is going to offer a package for Darren McFadden that they can't refuse. All things are pointing to a strong probability that Bush tests the free agent waters.

 

[eaglezzz]

I would like to see the Falcons make a play for him. Turner is on the way out and I think Rodgers is more of a 3rd down specialty back. Bush on this team would make sense for me and would be a dream situation as a Michael Bush owner

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Bush is 27 years old. He averaged 3.8 ypc last year (McFadden was at 5.4). His career ypc is 4.2.

I don't think Bush is terrible but I don't believe he's going to even sniff a starting position. If a team really wants a bruiser they'll probably go for the younger Peyton Hillis. I doubt Oakland will franchise him but I wouldn't be shocked if he returned to be the backup. He's not getting starting money - best case scenario he's going to split significant carries somewhere. Most likely he's going to be what he was last year - a solid backup who can hold down the fort if the starter goes down.

Sorry to burst the dreams of his dynasty owners but imo last year was his upside. If there's a believer in your league, sell him before reality hits.

 

[massraider]

Bush is 27 years old. He averaged 3.8 ypc last year (McFadden was at 5.4). His career ypc is 4.2. I don't think Bush is terrible but I don't believe he's going to even sniff a starting position. If a team really wants a bruiser they'll probably go for the younger Peyton Hillis. I doubt Oakland will franchise him but I wouldn't be shocked if he returned to be the backup. He's not getting starting money - best case scenario he's going to split significant carries somewhere. Most likely he's going to be what he was last year - a solid backup who can hold down the fort if the starter goes down. Sorry to burst the dreams of his dynasty owners but imo last year was his upside. If there's a believer in your league, sell him before reality hits.

My opinion as well.

 

[az_prof]

I don't agree that he won't be offered good money to at least compete for a starting gig elsewhere. There are too many teams that could use a back like him. Oakland doesn't have the cap space to compete for him and he won't stay for table scraps.

I see that Hue Jackson ended up back in Cinn as an Asst, which may improve the odds of Bush going there to replace Benson. Right now, that seems the most logical to me.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Bush is 27 years old. He averaged 3.8 ypc last year (McFadden was at 5.4). His career ypc is 4.2. I don't think Bush is terrible but I don't believe he's going to even sniff a starting position. If a team really wants a bruiser they'll probably go for the younger Peyton Hillis. I doubt Oakland will franchise him but I wouldn't be shocked if he returned to be the backup. He's not getting starting money - best case scenario he's going to split significant carries somewhere. Most likely he's going to be what he was last year - a solid backup who can hold down the fort if the starter goes down. Sorry to burst the dreams of his dynasty owners but imo last year was his upside. If there's a believer in your league, sell him before reality hits.

My opinion as well.

I tend to agree that Bush likely won't be handed a job all to himself. I actually think there's probably only 3 RBs that will be true workhorse backs next year. (Rice, Foster and McCoy). Having said that, Bush has proven himself capable of playing in this league. He's a fine pass catcher and averages nearly 10ypc. A very impressive number for a RB. He's also a career 4.2 ypc guy. That's also a quality number. Don't really know what he'll command in FA, but I think it will be starter money. The only backs that could posses starter abilities that are likely to hit the market are Lynch, Hillis and Bush. Hillis averaged 3.6ypc last year, and is only a year younger than Bush. He also pouted about his contract and played poorly. Not likely to endear him to potential suitors. Lynch? Do you believe that he'll bring beast mode after he gets a contract? I sure don't.What I do see as likely for Bush is to be a "lead back" for another team. A back that gets 225 carries and 30 catches. i.e. about 15 touches a game, which I think is going to be the new normal for most lead backs in this league.

 

[az_prof]

Bush is 27 years old. He averaged 3.8 ypc last year (McFadden was at 5.4). His career ypc is 4.2. I don't think Bush is terrible but I don't believe he's going to even sniff a starting position. If a team really wants a bruiser they'll probably go for the younger Peyton Hillis. I doubt Oakland will franchise him but I wouldn't be shocked if he returned to be the backup. He's not getting starting money - best case scenario he's going to split significant carries somewhere. Most likely he's going to be what he was last year - a solid backup who can hold down the fort if the starter goes down. Sorry to burst the dreams of his dynasty owners but imo last year was his upside. If there's a believer in your league, sell him before reality hits.

My opinion as well.

I tend to agree that Bush likely won't be handed a job all to himself. I actually think there's probably only 3 RBs that will be true workhorse backs next year. (Rice, Foster and McCoy). Having said that, Bush has proven himself capable of playing in this league. He's a fine pass catcher and averages nearly 10ypc. A very impressive number for a RB. He's also a career 4.2 ypc guy. That's also a quality number. Don't really know what he'll command in FA, but I think it will be starter money. The only backs that could posses starter abilities that are likely to hit the market are Lynch, Hillis and Bush. Hillis averaged 3.6ypc last year, and is only a year younger than Bush. He also pouted about his contract and played poorly. Not likely to endear him to potential suitors. Lynch? Do you believe that he'll bring beast mode after he gets a contract? I sure don't.What I do see as likely for Bush is to be a "lead back" for another team. A back that gets 225 carries and 30 catches. i.e. about 15 touches a game, which I think is going to be the new normal for most lead backs in this league.

Very good posting. Agree that he will not be a featured back in the old sense of the word, and you rightly point out that there are only 2 or 3 guys who fit that description anymore. And, YPC is only one stat; as you rightly observe, Bush is a good receiving back. And he is good at the goal line. And something people in fantasy overlook, but NFL coaches, won't, is that he is a very good blocker.

 

[Steed]

Bush is 27 years old. He averaged 3.8 ypc last year (McFadden was at 5.4). His career ypc is 4.2. I don't think Bush is terrible but I don't believe he's going to even sniff a starting position. If a team really wants a bruiser they'll probably go for the younger Peyton Hillis. I doubt Oakland will franchise him but I wouldn't be shocked if he returned to be the backup. He's not getting starting money - best case scenario he's going to split significant carries somewhere. Most likely he's going to be what he was last year - a solid backup who can hold down the fort if the starter goes down. Sorry to burst the dreams of his dynasty owners but imo last year was his upside. If there's a believer in your league, sell him before reality hits.

My opinion as well.

I'm sure hue Jackson will vouch for him in cinci. Seems like the most logical spot once benson leaves.

 

[menobrown]

Bush is 27 years old. He averaged 3.8 ypc last year (McFadden was at 5.4). His career ypc is 4.2. I don't think Bush is terrible but I don't believe he's going to even sniff a starting position. If a team really wants a bruiser they'll probably go for the younger Peyton Hillis. I doubt Oakland will franchise him but I wouldn't be shocked if he returned to be the backup. He's not getting starting money - best case scenario he's going to split significant carries somewhere. Most likely he's going to be what he was last year - a solid backup who can hold down the fort if the starter goes down. Sorry to burst the dreams of his dynasty owners but imo last year was his upside. If there's a believer in your league, sell him before reality hits.

My opinion as well.

Same here and I'll add one more thing. Mcfadden went down in week 7 and due to limited usage to that point Bush had fresh legs, certainly fresher than the defenses he was facing. He went for over 5 yards per carry is first 3 games filling in the feature role. Than when he no longer had the benefit of fresh legs he only passed 4 YPC one time total over his final 7 games. Suggestion here that he looked better than he really is when he was fresh and can't be counted as some kind of 20+ touch back over the course of a season like a pre-downhill Michael Turner.

 

[RavenLunatic]

No one would say he is in the caliber of Ray Rice or MJD, but Bush was the entire offense for several weeks while Ford and Moore were out. His YPC were down but he made up for it in receiving yards.

I think he'd be a great fit in Cincinatti and Hue landing there says a lot about the recruiting that is about to go down.

 

[Sarlakticacid]

Coming from an Oakland homer and Bush dynasty owner

looking at his stats last year he performed well as a situational back before (Dmcs injury) where he was punching in short yardage stuff for TDs and getting yards with his carries. The Den and Cle games he didnt do that well with his carries but the team won. Hou game wasnt involved but the team won.

Then JC and DMC went down so he was the offense for this team and the opposing teams knew this but got close to or over 100 combined yards with over 20 touches for the next 5 games (29 or more for 3 games in a row) against some decent run defences SD excluded.

The wheels fell off in Mia which happened to the rest of the team. then he put up close to 100 yds for 3 of the last 4 games.

He is a productive dual threat redzone weapon and can be the main guy of an offense and get in and close a game

It would be interesting to see what he could do in Atl with weaker run Ds in the division. Cincy would also be intersting with an improving O there already. But i would love to see him stay in Oak and have a more even touch distribution with DMC to keep them both chugging well deep into the season.

I thought he slowed down at the end of the season but his yardage totals were decent enough i thought. I wonder how some other backs would have done in his shoes looking at all that happened to Oak last season

 

[petenice15]

He's going to Washington just because it's Shanahan and he's a nightmare for owners of fantasy football RB's.

 

[Bayhawks]

I actually think there's probably only 3 RBs that will be true workhorse backs next year. (Rice, Foster and McCoy).

I don't necessarily agree that M Bush will be handed a starting job somewhere, but don't you think you're underestimating some other RBs here?MJD, Forte, SJax, Gore, Turner-all of these backfields should be dominated by the main guy; plus Minnesota when ADP gets back (likely after week 6-PUP, but it will be all Gerhart, IMO, until then) and maybe KC (we don't know what Romeo will do, but I'd imagine Charles is ready to go to start the season, and back to his old self by 6-8 games in.

 

[biju]

Lynch? Do you believe that he'll bring beast mode after he gets a contract? I sure don't.

I see this quite a bit and I think this comes from a combination of bad information and no context. Lynch's first two seasons produced 1,000+ yards rushing and 1,300 total yards. He was suspended in 2009 for the first 3 games and then supplanted by Fred Jackson in November. He was traded to Seattle to run behind one of the worst lines in the NFL. Anyone who watched him that year knows he was consistently hit behind the LOS, often two or more yards behind, making that 3.5 YPC quite hard to believe. The line in 2011 was drawn before the Dallas game when Lynch reached out to OL coach Tom Cable and asked him how he could make decisions better with the line calls. After sitting down and working with Cable there was a distinct difference in yardage and TDs. (paragraphs 9 and 10 of this article).It's also worth mentioning that the Seattle OL was *the* youngest OL in the NFL last year (stats listed here) and that they progressed as a unit throughout the season, so maybe that is part of the difference as well. (It's hard to tell because three of those OL were put on IR at some point in the 2nd half of the season and backups were blocking for Lynch for the last quarter of the season.)

Am I homer hoping he wasn't simply in search of a contract? Yes.

Am I homer that believes his only reason for his productive season was a contract? No.

If this is the stance your dynasty league has on Lynch, I say buy low.

 

[Warpig]

Bush is 27 years old. He averaged 3.8 ypc last year (McFadden was at 5.4). His career ypc is 4.2. I don't think Bush is terrible but I don't believe he's going to even sniff a starting position. If a team really wants a bruiser they'll probably go for the younger Peyton Hillis. I doubt Oakland will franchise him but I wouldn't be shocked if he returned to be the backup. He's not getting starting money - best case scenario he's going to split significant carries somewhere. Most likely he's going to be what he was last year - a solid backup who can hold down the fort if the starter goes down. Sorry to burst the dreams of his dynasty owners but imo last year was his upside. If there's a believer in your league, sell him before reality hits.

My opinion as well.

 

[menobrown]

Lynch? Do you believe that he'll bring beast mode after he gets a contract? I sure don't.

I see this quite a bit and I think this comes from a combination of bad information and no context. Lynch's first two seasons produced 1,000+ yards rushing and 1,300 total yards. He was suspended in 2009 for the first 3 games and then supplanted by Fred Jackson in November. He was traded to Seattle to run behind one of the worst lines in the NFL. Anyone who watched him that year knows he was consistently hit behind the LOS, often two or more yards behind, making that 3.5 YPC quite hard to believe. The line in 2011 was drawn before the Dallas game when Lynch reached out to OL coach Tom Cable and asked him how he could make decisions better with the line calls. After sitting down and working with Cable there was a distinct difference in yardage and TDs. (paragraphs 9 and 10 of this article).It's also worth mentioning that the Seattle OL was *the* youngest OL in the NFL last year (stats listed here) and that they progressed as a unit throughout the season, so maybe that is part of the difference as well. (It's hard to tell because three of those OL were put on IR at some point in the 2nd half of the season and backups were blocking for Lynch for the last quarter of the season.)

Am I homer hoping he wasn't simply in search of a contract? Yes.

Am I homer that believes his only reason for his productive season was a contract? No.

If this is the stance your dynasty league has on Lynch, I say buy low.

Excellent post, especially the bolded part.

I'll add the following.

Pro Football Focus did a report for the 2010 season which they labeled their elusive rating. Report link here: http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/. The Seattle OL was horrendous in 2010 making production difficult for anyone but in terms of yards after contact and forced missed tackles Lynch was very good. This folks is a sign he was running hard in 2010 as well but was limited by poor OL play. So I don't put a lot of stock in the suggestion that he only ran hard in 2011 because it was his contract year when reports like this suggest he was running hard in 2010 as well.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Wouldn't mind seeing my Bengals snatch him up, especially as it'll free them up that much more in the first couple of rounds of the draft. I think they'd use him as a "primary" back but probably not to the extent that Benson was used (and tended to demand).

-QG

 

[PewterFan]

Lynch? Do you believe that he'll bring beast mode after he gets a contract? I sure don't.

I see this quite a bit and I think this comes from a combination of bad information and no context. Lynch's first two seasons produced 1,000+ yards rushing and 1,300 total yards. He was suspended in 2009 for the first 3 games and then supplanted by Fred Jackson in November. He was traded to Seattle to run behind one of the worst lines in the NFL. Anyone who watched him that year knows he was consistently hit behind the LOS, often two or more yards behind, making that 3.5 YPC quite hard to believe. The line in 2011 was drawn before the Dallas game when Lynch reached out to OL coach Tom Cable and asked him how he could make decisions better with the line calls. After sitting down and working with Cable there was a distinct difference in yardage and TDs. (paragraphs 9 and 10 of this article).It's also worth mentioning that the Seattle OL was *the* youngest OL in the NFL last year (stats listed here) and that they progressed as a unit throughout the season, so maybe that is part of the difference as well. (It's hard to tell because three of those OL were put on IR at some point in the 2nd half of the season and backups were blocking for Lynch for the last quarter of the season.)

Am I homer hoping he wasn't simply in search of a contract? Yes.

Am I homer that believes his only reason for his productive season was a contract? No.

If this is the stance your dynasty league has on Lynch, I say buy low.

This is a great post. Thank you.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Lynch? Do you believe that he'll bring beast mode after he gets a contract? I sure don't.

I see this quite a bit and I think this comes from a combination of bad information and no context. Lynch's first two seasons produced 1,000+ yards rushing and 1,300 total yards. He was suspended in 2009 for the first 3 games and then supplanted by Fred Jackson in November. He was traded to Seattle to run behind one of the worst lines in the NFL. Anyone who watched him that year knows he was consistently hit behind the LOS, often two or more yards behind, making that 3.5 YPC quite hard to believe. The line in 2011 was drawn before the Dallas game when Lynch reached out to OL coach Tom Cable and asked him how he could make decisions better with the line calls. After sitting down and working with Cable there was a distinct difference in yardage and TDs. (paragraphs 9 and 10 of this article).It's also worth mentioning that the Seattle OL was *the* youngest OL in the NFL last year (stats listed here) and that they progressed as a unit throughout the season, so maybe that is part of the difference as well. (It's hard to tell because three of those OL were put on IR at some point in the 2nd half of the season and backups were blocking for Lynch for the last quarter of the season.)

Am I homer hoping he wasn't simply in search of a contract? Yes.

Am I homer that believes his only reason for his productive season was a contract? No.

If this is the stance your dynasty league has on Lynch, I say buy low.

This is a great post. Thank you.

Agreed - gotta bump Lynch up my list.-QG

 

[djmich]

Wouldn't mind seeing my Bengals snatch him up, especially as it'll free them up that much more in the first couple of rounds of the draft. I think they'd use him as a "primary" back but probably not to the extent that Benson was used (and tended to demand).-QG

Bush to the Bengals does seem like a high probability.

 

[Tau837]

I actually think there's probably only 3 RBs that will be true workhorse backs next year. (Rice, Foster and McCoy).

I don't necessarily agree that M Bush will be handed a starting job somewhere, but don't you think you're underestimating some other RBs here?MJD, Forte, SJax, Gore, Turner-all of these backfields should be dominated by the main guy; plus Minnesota when ADP gets back (likely after week 6-PUP, but it will be all Gerhart, IMO, until then) and maybe KC (we don't know what Romeo will do, but I'd imagine Charles is ready to go to start the season, and back to his old self by 6-8 games in.

And Chris Johnson also. And Mathews, if Tolbert isn't back (and maybe if he is).

 

[QuizGuy66]

Question for those who've followed Bush a little more closely - has he generally been a "team first" guy? Has he ever groused about carries? Just tired of Benson constantly doing this.

-QG

 

[biju]

Question for those who've followed Bush a little more closely - has he generally been a "team first" guy? Has he ever groused about carries? Just tired of Benson constantly doing this.

-QG

I couldn't find anything specific about him asking for more carries (which is probably a good thing). It's worth mentioning in 2008 when the Raiders lost fullback Oren O'Neal to a knee injury in the preseason it was Michael Bush who was used as the fullback. From this article it sounds like he wasn't happy about it but had this to say:[QUOTE='Michael Bush]I've always been a team player, so it's one of those things. You just suck it up, go about your business and try to have some fun with it.
[/QUOTE]I know that saying you're a team player is much different than being a team player, but if he wasn't happy about the move he certainly did the best he could with the situation by (a) doing the job and (b) not openly complaining about it. Sure, he made it known he wasn't happy about it, but did it in a much more positive way (by not saying anything) rather than using the media as his sounding board. Not sure many would have done the same.

 

[massraider]

He has been a really good soldier. Never complained, and probably could have every year of his career, if he was one of those guys.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Bush is 27 years old. He averaged 3.8 ypc last year (McFadden was at 5.4). His career ypc is 4.2. I don't think Bush is terrible but I don't believe he's going to even sniff a starting position. If a team really wants a bruiser they'll probably go for the younger Peyton Hillis. I doubt Oakland will franchise him but I wouldn't be shocked if he returned to be the backup. He's not getting starting money - best case scenario he's going to split significant carries somewhere. Most likely he's going to be what he was last year - a solid backup who can hold down the fort if the starter goes down. Sorry to burst the dreams of his dynasty owners but imo last year was his upside. If there's a believer in your league, sell him before reality hits.

disagree about not sniffing starter money....the shelf life for RB's seems to be getting lower and lower every year.....whats a good career for RB's these days in terms of years...?...this is basically Bush's last chance for a big pay day....if he is not tagged, he will test the free agent market and I believe there are plenty of teams that would love to have his services and give him the starter type money he will be looking for....dude runs hard...can catch and is pretty solid around the goaline....type of back that could carry 20+ times if the game plan calls for it, or still be effective with 13-15 touches and a few catches if need be....Cincy makes too much sense at this point.....

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Lynch? Do you believe that he'll bring beast mode after he gets a contract? I sure don't.

I see this quite a bit and I think this comes from a combination of bad information and no context. Lynch's first two seasons produced 1,000+ yards rushing and 1,300 total yards. He was suspended in 2009 for the first 3 games and then supplanted by Fred Jackson in November. He was traded to Seattle to run behind one of the worst lines in the NFL. Anyone who watched him that year knows he was consistently hit behind the LOS, often two or more yards behind, making that 3.5 YPC quite hard to believe. The line in 2011 was drawn before the Dallas game when Lynch reached out to OL coach Tom Cable and asked him how he could make decisions better with the line calls. After sitting down and working with Cable there was a distinct difference in yardage and TDs. (paragraphs 9 and 10 of this article).It's also worth mentioning that the Seattle OL was *the* youngest OL in the NFL last year (stats listed here) and that they progressed as a unit throughout the season, so maybe that is part of the difference as well. (It's hard to tell because three of those OL were put on IR at some point in the 2nd half of the season and backups were blocking for Lynch for the last quarter of the season.)

Am I homer hoping he wasn't simply in search of a contract? Yes.

Am I homer that believes his only reason for his productive season was a contract? No.

If this is the stance your dynasty league has on Lynch, I say buy low.

This is a great post. Thank you.

That's is a very rosy picture of Lynch. Here's a few facts.

The Bills traded him as a 24 year old former 1st round pick for a 2011 4th rounder, and a conditional 5th or 6th in 2012. At the time, he still had 1.5 years remaining on his reasonable rookie contract. They knew him better than anyone else, and gave up on him.

He's missed multiple games in 4 of his 5 years in the league.

He's had multiple run-ins with the law since being in the NFL.

Here's his annual rushing averages:

2007: 4.0

2008: 4.1

2009: 3.8

2010: 3.6

2011: 4.2

He's never finished in the top 25 in yards per attempt even when using Pro Football reference's minimum of 6.25 carries per game to qualify.

I just took part in a 14 man dynasty start up with a lot of very knowledgeable posters from FBGs. Lynch was taken 63rd overall, and was the 20th RB off the board. He's still 25 years old, and just came off a career year. Yet no one in that league was willing to commit to him until half way through the 5th round. I think that goes a long way in saying how many just don't trust the guy to come to play after he gets a contract.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

I actually think there's probably only 3 RBs that will be true workhorse backs next year. (Rice, Foster and McCoy).

I don't necessarily agree that M Bush will be handed a starting job somewhere, but don't you think you're underestimating some other RBs here?MJD, Forte, SJax, Gore, Turner-all of these backfields should be dominated by the main guy; plus Minnesota when ADP gets back (likely after week 6-PUP, but it will be all Gerhart, IMO, until then) and maybe KC (we don't know what Romeo will do, but I'd imagine Charles is ready to go to start the season, and back to his old self by 6-8 games in.

I'd bet good money that MJD loses 100+ carries to Rashad Jennings in 2012. They gave Deji Karim 63 carries last year, and he averaged 2.1 yards/carry. Jennings has a career 5.4ypc. My best guess is MJD goes from 386 touches last year to less than 300 this year. SJax and Gore are going into their age 29 seasons. Both are still very talented backs, but are nearing the end. Both of them came in about 300 touches last season. I think its way more likely than not that you can shave 15% off all their numbers from last year. Turner is entering his age 30 season. There's a new OC in Atlanta. They cut his workload back by about 10% last year to 318 touches, and he still struggled in the last half of the season. Counting on him for more than 250-275 touches next year is not a good bet. I should have probably included Forte in the list of guys likely to be workhorse backs. However, Forte does have a new OC in Chicago, and Kahlil Bell showed some decent ability after Forte got hurt. Still he's a good bet for 300 plus touches. Charles will probably never exceed his 275 touches in 2010.

 

[_lurker_]

The Bills traded him as a 24 year old former 1st round pick for a 2011 4th rounder, and a conditional 5th or 6th in 2012. At the time, he still had 1.5 years remaining on his reasonable rookie contract. They knew him better than anyone else, and gave up on him.

Sounds like more of an indictment on BUF? Makes me wonder how well or not they'll develop Spiller and/or White.

 

[Shutout]

Bush is 27 years old. He averaged 3.8 ypc last year (McFadden was at 5.4). His career ypc is 4.2. I don't think Bush is terrible but I don't believe he's going to even sniff a starting position. If a team really wants a bruiser they'll probably go for the younger Peyton Hillis. I doubt Oakland will franchise him but I wouldn't be shocked if he returned to be the backup. He's not getting starting money - best case scenario he's going to split significant carries somewhere. Most likely he's going to be what he was last year - a solid backup who can hold down the fort if the starter goes down. Sorry to burst the dreams of his dynasty owners but imo last year was his upside. If there's a believer in your league, sell him before reality hits.

My opinion as well.

Same here and I'll add one more thing. Mcfadden went down in week 7 and due to limited usage to that point Bush had fresh legs, certainly fresher than the defenses he was facing. He went for over 5 yards per carry is first 3 games filling in the feature role. Than when he no longer had the benefit of fresh legs he only passed 4 YPC one time total over his final 7 games. Suggestion here that he looked better than he really is when he was fresh and can't be counted as some kind of 20+ touch back over the course of a season like a pre-downhill Michael Turner.

I agree with that look at it. It makes sense and is often overlooked. I would put Demarco Murray and CJ Spiller in that same assessment. All three may be great but for Bush and Murray, there definitely was a lower YPC after the first few games. With CJ, I don't know; didn't check. But I think its worth considering.Bush in Cincy as a lead back with Scott being the other guy seems very logical.

 

[biju]

Lynch? Do you believe that he'll bring beast mode after he gets a contract? I sure don't.

I see this quite a bit and I think this comes from a combination of bad information and no context. Lynch's first two seasons produced 1,000+ yards rushing and 1,300 total yards. He was suspended in 2009 for the first 3 games and then supplanted by Fred Jackson in November. He was traded to Seattle to run behind one of the worst lines in the NFL. Anyone who watched him that year knows he was consistently hit behind the LOS, often two or more yards behind, making that 3.5 YPC quite hard to believe. The line in 2011 was drawn before the Dallas game when Lynch reached out to OL coach Tom Cable and asked him how he could make decisions better with the line calls. After sitting down and working with Cable there was a distinct difference in yardage and TDs. (paragraphs 9 and 10 of this article).It's also worth mentioning that the Seattle OL was *the* youngest OL in the NFL last year (stats listed here) and that they progressed as a unit throughout the season, so maybe that is part of the difference as well. (It's hard to tell because three of those OL were put on IR at some point in the 2nd half of the season and backups were blocking for Lynch for the last quarter of the season.)

Am I homer hoping he wasn't simply in search of a contract? Yes.

Am I homer that believes his only reason for his productive season was a contract? No.

If this is the stance your dynasty league has on Lynch, I say buy low.

This is a great post. Thank you.

That's is a very rosy picture of Lynch. Here's a few facts.

The Bills traded him as a 24 year old former 1st round pick for a 2011 4th rounder, and a conditional 5th or 6th in 2012. At the time, he still had 1.5 years remaining on his reasonable rookie contract. They knew him better than anyone else, and gave up on him.

The Bills are...the Bills for a reason. I'm fairly certain that most of the analysts believed the Bills had better pieces to draft than Spiller in 2010. It's worth mentioning that Fred Jackson has held off Spiller for two years now as well. The Bills have a history of drafting a RB earlier than expected and trading away their former starter (Willis McGahee/Marshawn Lynch and Travis Henry/McGahee before).

He's missed multiple games in 4 of his 5 years in the league.

2007: 13 of 162008: 15 of 16

2009: 13 of 16 (3 suspended)

2010: 16 of 16

2011: 15 of 16

The connotation of missing multiple games makes it sound like he's an injury concern but he's really only missed multiple games due to injury once--his rookie season. On average in the NFL 50% of starting RBs miss at least one game due to injury (I can't find the link to the study). Lynch is currently 2 for 5 from playing injury free. His missed game from 2011 was a fluke back spasm minutes before the game started, otherwise he'd be 3 for 5 and above the 50% mark. And just so we're clear here, he's missed just one game more than Adrian Peterson through the same number of possible games.

He's had multiple run-ins with the law since being in the NFL.

And none since he left Buffalo. The two run-ins he's had were the time he hit some drunk lady dancing in the street and the misdemeanor gun charge, right? Eh, fine, it's not good. And if the Seahawks let Justin Forsett go this off season (who some claim is the reason Lynch has stayed out of trouble) it will be interesting to see if he slips back into his old ways. (Just my own opinion: I think this is just what happens when you get drafted at age 20. I know I wasn't mature when I was young, but we constantly expect they young kids to act more mature than we did when we were young. I guess I shouldn't say "we" since I can only say that for myself.)

Here's his annual rushing averages:

2007: 4.0

2008: 4.1

2009: 3.8

2010: 3.6

2011: 4.2

He's never finished in the top 25 in yards per attempt even when using Pro Football reference's minimum of 6.25 carries per game to qualify.

Isn't this more an indictment of the O-lines he's played behind?

I just took part in a 14 man dynasty start up with a lot of very knowledgeable posters from FBGs. Lynch was taken 63rd overall, and was the 20th RB off the board. He's still 25 years old, and just came off a career year. Yet no one in that league was willing to commit to him until half way through the 5th round. I think that goes a long way in saying how many just don't trust the guy to come to play after he gets a contract.

Anecdotal evidence from one draft. Last year he was the 30-32 RB off the board with backups going before him in most cases so I suppose this is going in the right direction.Look, I'm certainly not saying he doesn't come with risk, especially being a current FA. I'm simply saying there are real reasons to believe he's not some one year wonder. Your comment indicated as such and I simply refuted and we suddenly are moving into subjective material.

 

[Eminence]

The Saints were also making a play for Lynch. Lynch was just the odd man out between Jackson and Spiller. They knew they weren't going to resign him and got value while they could.

He's a very good bell-cow.

 

[GoodLloydHaveMercy]

Lynch? Do you believe that he'll bring beast mode after he gets a contract? I sure don't.

I see this quite a bit and I think this comes from a combination of bad information and no context. Lynch's first two seasons produced 1,000+ yards rushing and 1,300 total yards. He was suspended in 2009 for the first 3 games and then supplanted by Fred Jackson in November. He was traded to Seattle to run behind one of the worst lines in the NFL. Anyone who watched him that year knows he was consistently hit behind the LOS, often two or more yards behind, making that 3.5 YPC quite hard to believe. The line in 2011 was drawn before the Dallas game when Lynch reached out to OL coach Tom Cable and asked him how he could make decisions better with the line calls. After sitting down and working with Cable there was a distinct difference in yardage and TDs. (paragraphs 9 and 10 of this article).It's also worth mentioning that the Seattle OL was *the* youngest OL in the NFL last year (stats listed here) and that they progressed as a unit throughout the season, so maybe that is part of the difference as well. (It's hard to tell because three of those OL were put on IR at some point in the 2nd half of the season and backups were blocking for Lynch for the last quarter of the season.)

Am I homer hoping he wasn't simply in search of a contract? Yes.

Am I homer that believes his only reason for his productive season was a contract? No.

If this is the stance your dynasty league has on Lynch, I say buy low.

This is a great post. Thank you.

That's is a very rosy picture of Lynch. Here's a few facts.

The Bills traded him as a 24 year old former 1st round pick for a 2011 4th rounder, and a conditional 5th or 6th in 2012. At the time, he still had 1.5 years remaining on his reasonable rookie contract. They knew him better than anyone else, and gave up on him.

He's missed multiple games in 4 of his 5 years in the league.

He's had multiple run-ins with the law since being in the NFL.

Here's his annual rushing averages:

2007: 4.0

2008: 4.1

2009: 3.8

2010: 3.6

2011: 4.2

He's never finished in the top 25 in yards per attempt even when using Pro Football reference's minimum of 6.25 carries per game to qualify.

I just took part in a 14 man dynasty start up with a lot of very knowledgeable posters from FBGs. Lynch was taken 63rd overall, and was the 20th RB off the board. He's still 25 years old, and just came off a career year. Yet no one in that league was willing to commit to him until half way through the 5th round. I think that goes a long way in saying how many just don't trust the guy to come to play after he gets a contract.

My feeling on Lynch has always been that he runs really hard and often does better at the end of games because he wears defenses down. I remember his rookie season where it always seemed like every carry after #15 or so seemed to be more productive than his carries early on in the game. He can carry the load but most teams anymore have moved away from 1 guy carrying the ball 20 to 25 times except on rare occasions. This philosophy change in the NFL is one reason why my expectations for Mark Ingram are tempered quite a bit. I feel that he is another RB similar to Lynch that he gets stronger as the game goes on but in that system he may never get 20-25 carries.

I think Biju also brought up a really good point a few posts above this about the Bills willingness to trade away RBs that they've drafted high and then move forward with other RBs on the roster. Tom Cable has made a huge impact in Seattle and that O-Line is much improved from what they were in 2010 and early 2011.

I'm somebody who laughed at the guy in my dynasty league who traded for Lynch and I felt gave up way too much (can't recall who he gave up right now but I remember thinking he was really dumb). So now I feel I've got a significant amount of egg on my face and that Lynch should be pretty fantastic next year. We shall see.

 

[LawFitz]

 

[squistion]

Yeah - I thought for a second I clicked on a Lynch thread by mistake.

 

[bengalbuck]

Bush is 27 years old. He averaged 3.8 ypc last year (McFadden was at 5.4). His career ypc is 4.2. I don't think Bush is terrible but I don't believe he's going to even sniff a starting position. If a team really wants a bruiser they'll probably go for the younger Peyton Hillis. I doubt Oakland will franchise him but I wouldn't be shocked if he returned to be the backup. He's not getting starting money - best case scenario he's going to split significant carries somewhere. Most likely he's going to be what he was last year - a solid backup who can hold down the fort if the starter goes down. Sorry to burst the dreams of his dynasty owners but imo last year was his upside. If there's a believer in your league, sell him before reality hits.

My opinion as well.

I'm sure hue Jackson will vouch for him in cinci. Seems like the most logical spot once benson leaves.

I could definitely see him in Cincinnati. The Bengals will not overpay though as I think they'd be content with drafting a RB as well. But if they can get Bush on a reasonable contract, he makes a ton of sense. The main reasons they want to replace Cedric Benson are:1. His constant whining and poor attitude.2. His weakness as a pass catcher and pass blocker.3. His lack of big play ability.I think Michael Bush eases 2 of those concerns, but is lacking in the big play ability, which in my opinion is the thing that will keep him from getting anywhere near a big deal. I think something along the lines of what Ahmad Bradshaw got last year is probably about what Bush should expect.

 

[HPD]

Bush is 27 years old. He averaged 3.8 ypc last year (McFadden was at 5.4). His career ypc is 4.2. I don't think Bush is terrible but I don't believe he's going to even sniff a starting position. If a team really wants a bruiser they'll probably go for the younger Peyton Hillis. I doubt Oakland will franchise him but I wouldn't be shocked if he returned to be the backup. He's not getting starting money - best case scenario he's going to split significant carries somewhere. Most likely he's going to be what he was last year - a solid backup who can hold down the fort if the starter goes down. Sorry to burst the dreams of his dynasty owners but imo last year was his upside. If there's a believer in your league, sell him before reality hits.

My opinion as well.

I'm sure hue Jackson will vouch for him in cinci. Seems like the most logical spot once benson leaves.

I could definitely see him in Cincinnati. The Bengals will not overpay though as I think they'd be content with drafting a RB as well. But if they can get Bush on a reasonable contract, he makes a ton of sense. The main reasons they want to replace Cedric Benson are:1. His constant whining and poor attitude.2. His weakness as a pass catcher and pass blocker.3. His lack of big play ability.I think Michael Bush eases 2 of those concerns, but is lacking in the big play ability, which in my opinion is the thing that will keep him from getting anywhere near a big deal. I think something along the lines of what Ahmad Bradshaw got last year is probably about what Bush should expect.

Any consideration that Palmer had about 3 plays from the playbook working and defenses were able to crowd the line?