*OFFICIAL* Dexter McCluster (1 Viewer)

[elguapo07]

I liked him once he came into the league too. I think I recall reading that he's the only player in SEC history with 1000yds rush & 500yds rec in the same season.

I think he puts up decent numbers with the chance for a couple of big weeks. In a non-ppr where is he more valuable to play - wr or rb?

 

[Eminence]

I wouldn't waste a waiver pickup on this guy.

 

[Irish Chaos]

think im using him as wr3 this week...i dont see why people are writing this off...garbage points are going to be plentiful...lot of catch up to be played against sd...

 

[rocketsauce]

Traded Arrelious Benn and got McCluster last night. Owner pretty stacked at RB (And RB only eligibility, MFL league) so I guess they were willing to part.

And then flipped him today for Reggie Bush.

I like McCluster, and think in a PPR he's got about a 10 pt weekly value with the chance for 25. But Bush is the same, just with a higher ceiling for a big game.

They'll both probably be hurt within a month anyway

 

[PhantomJB]

I wouldn't waste a waiver pickup on this guy.

Guess it depends on how you use the waiver wire but I disagree completely. I keep at least one roster spot open for a revolving flavor-of-the-week WW pickup.McCluster fits the bill perfectly due to 1) sudden change giving him greatly increased oppty vs. previous situation and 2) talent to provide big upside (in PPR). The RB/WR designation is an added bonus. If he performs well this weekend, you've got great currency for trades (or keep), and if he doesn't you just dump him for next week's hot new pickup.

 

[RavenLunatic]

I think he will make the perfect bye week replacement due to his RB/WR designation. Assuming he doesn't blow up and just proves to be a nice RB3 or WR3 then I plan to hang onto him through the byes or unless someone blows me away with an offer.

 

[Corn Rocket]

Is Dex comparable to Harvin? Both play on teams in similar situations. I'm thinking of making preemptive strike and dropping Harvin for Dex. Who would you guys rather have Harvin or Dex? 1 pt PPR. I have plenty of other WR's on the bench all in the same tier as Harvin.

 

[Hugonel]

I wouldn't waste a waiver pickup on this guy.

Guess it depends on how you use the waiver wire but I disagree completely. I keep at least one roster spot open for a revolving flavor-of-the-week WW pickup.McCluster fits the bill perfectly due to 1) sudden change giving him greatly increased oppty vs. previous situation and 2) talent to provide big upside (in PPR). The RB/WR designation is an added bonus. If he performs well this weekend, you've got great currency for trades (or keep), and if he doesn't you just dump him for next week's hot new pickup.

Completely agree. If you aren't willing to burn a spot/some cash for the WW darlings in hopes of getting the next great find, then you are at the mercy of WW priority rank in your league if you hope to ever get a gem (in my league, you never get a top spot unless your team sucks). Right now I have McCluster and Bernard Scott on the pine to see if one is worth keeping.

 

[California]

Just curious if anyone had more feedback on him. I didn't get to watch this game and he's basically a roster stash for me. If he has any upside at all I'm willing to hold.

 

[azgroover]

I actually used him this past week and was OK with the results. My league is PPR and awards return points as well. He gave me about 4 points less than the Yahoo projection. Made a nice flex play for me.

He had 15 touches. I figure if he stays around that amount, he's going to break some here and there.

 

[Reepicheep]

I tried to ask about him in the KC - SD thread and it was all :crickets: If he's really going to be flirting with 15 touches a game, then it seems like he's a pretty safe play for 5-6 points a week with the chance for 15+ if he breaks off a long score. Seems like you could do worse for an RB3 or WR3. Considering sneaking him into the lineup this week.

 

[De Novo]

Here's my problem with McCluster, and it has nothing to do with the Chiefs. He is a very fast straight-line runner and he's low to the ground so he can cut-back reasonably well. But there's something about watching him run through traffic or make 2 or 3 moves/stuttersteps over a short period of time that bothers me. He looks slow at those times, and it takes him longer to get "up to speed" than a lot of other backs. His legs move quickly, but he doesn't cover a lot of ground.

I could be wrong and/or my eyes could be deceiving me, because he does look better to me than he did last year. But, he strikes me as a very very very poor man's Ryan Mathews (in that there isn't a single thing I think he does better than Mathews, and he's much smaller and less physical).

I think he's a decent flier in 12 teamers and I'm starting him as a WR in a league that only gives 1 pt / 20 yards receiving. But, I don't see the same talent and upside a lot of others do.

 

[rickyg]

I thought he played quite well in week 3 and CERTAINLY the best of ALL KC rb's by FAR. I think that he has cemented a permanent and significant role in that offense for the remainder of the year and has significant value in leagues where he can be used as a WR3. He has a floor of approx 5-6 pts in standard leagues and a very high cieling. You can do much worse in your WR3 spot. He is absolute GOLD in yahoo leagues where he can be used as a WR/RB. its 2 players in one. with high upside. I realize that the TD's wont be regular with him as he will need to break one to score, but I still think you can expect regular 7-12 pt weeks from him and higher in PPR, with the occasional 15-25 pt week when he breaks a few long ones for TD's

He looked great and ran hard on sunday. and NO fumbles. and TJ and mclain both looked like they were running in cement.

 

[flooredyas]

While unable to watch him play I may have to insert him into my WR3 slot in a CBS league (.5 pts/rec). There he is only available as a WR. Losing Britt definately causes a trickle down effect on ones team. Seeing that he caught 5 passes albeit for 17 yds., can someone offer insight as to why his yardage was so low? Was he catching behind the LOS and getting blown up or just bad playcalling?

 

[Jackstraw]

I thought he was hitting holes hard in the SD game. He didn't get a lot of carries but he was definately productive in the second half. Only so much you can expect from a squad without a single first down in the first half.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

He is excellent in PPR for catches alone.

However, is it me, or does everytime that he catches the ball...he gets tackled just as quick?

 

[rickyg]

he is playing on a gawd awful team and that is a strike against him. look at what charles did in week 1...nothing to write home about. the problem is KC not mccluster. that said, it does limit his upside.

 

[FarEastKilla]

I'm dropping him if KC picks up Slaton, that will limit his 15 touches.

 

[Mark in Tennessee]

I am in a CBS league where he is WR only. To me that is an advantage over the RB since he is getting rushing touches and receptions. FBG rates him as RB only, if I use their projections in the WR slot he would go from about RB 22 to WR 17. Pretty big deal when you start 3 WR's.

Can keep him or D-WOW and I think Dexter is the way to go.

 

[VaTerp]

Here's my problem with McCluster, and it has nothing to do with the Chiefs. He is a very fast straight-line runner and he's low to the ground so he can cut-back reasonably well. But there's something about watching him run through traffic or make 2 or 3 moves/stuttersteps over a short period of time that bothers me. He looks slow at those times, and it takes him longer to get "up to speed" than a lot of other backs. His legs move quickly, but he doesn't cover a lot of ground.I could be wrong and/or my eyes could be deceiving me, because he does look better to me than he did last year. But, he strikes me as a very very very poor man's Ryan Mathews (in that there isn't a single thing I think he does better than Mathews, and he's much smaller and less physical).I think he's a decent flier in 12 teamers and I'm starting him as a WR in a league that only gives 1 pt / 20 yards receiving. But, I don't see the same talent and upside a lot of others do.

This may be the most nonsensical analysis of a RB I have ever seen.

 

[first round bust]

haha the post above me is so true.

any notion that mccluster isnt a ridiculous talent is utter nonsense. his vision and quickness make him a rare talent. his route running and receiving ability is very impressive. though smaller than average, hes physical and tough as nails. the people who say hes not physical have not watched him play.

mccluster got 0 carries in the first half. the chiefs got ZERO first downs in the first half. mccluster had 9 carries for 45 yards in the second half and the chiefs had a chance. if i were the coach, and i cared about losing my job as chiefs coach, mccluster would be getting the majority of touches out of any of my running backs.

the only things that can hold back mccluster this year are injury, fumbles and haley.

 

[solorca]

I have the guy, but I am surprised to see Dodds have him as a top 20 ppr rb the rest of the way. I will hold, but I can't imagine him sniffing my starting lineup (he is behind McCoy, F Jackson, Best, Felix, and D Thomas)

 

[qimqam]

What is the deal with McCluster's Yards per reception? 2.9 Yards per catch is pathetic.

He is the perfect example of why PPR leagues are for little girls.

 

[Breesisdaman]

Dodds is pretty high on him so I took a chance. He is presently in my lineup as a WR 3. I hope Dodds is right because he would be right behind Larry Fitzgerald in this weeks matchup. Thats the 7th ranked WR.

 

[Reepicheep]

I have the guy, but I am surprised to see Dodds have him as a top 20 ppr rb the rest of the way. I will hold, but I can't imagine him sniffing my starting lineup (he is behind McCoy, F Jackson, Best, Felix, and D Thomas)

If you take 65 yards from scrimmage per game and assume he'll get 4-5 TDs this year, you're already into top 30 RB territory in non-PPR, and I think you could argue that's his floor.

 

[AmosMoses]

What is the deal with McCluster's Yards per reception? 2.9 Yards per catch is pathetic.He is the perfect example of why PPR leagues are for little girls.

What?

 

[De Novo]

Here's my problem with McCluster, and it has nothing to do with the Chiefs. He is a very fast straight-line runner and he's low to the ground so he can cut-back reasonably well. But there's something about watching him run through traffic or make 2 or 3 moves/stuttersteps over a short period of time that bothers me. He looks slow at those times, and it takes him longer to get "up to speed" than a lot of other backs. His legs move quickly, but he doesn't cover a lot of ground.I could be wrong and/or my eyes could be deceiving me, because he does look better to me than he did last year. But, he strikes me as a very very very poor man's Ryan Mathews (in that there isn't a single thing I think he does better than Mathews, and he's much smaller and less physical).I think he's a decent flier in 12 teamers and I'm starting him as a WR in a league that only gives 1 pt / 20 yards receiving. But, I don't see the same talent and upside a lot of others do.

This may be the most nonsensical analysis of a RB I have ever seen.

I see - the entire thing is nonsensical? I suppose I'll crawl back into my hole and watch this week as Dexter McCluster shows he has the best skills of Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers. If he is such a dynamic player, and has the vision, top-end speed, explosiveness and lateral agility, I guess I would have expected his career long to be longer than 24 yards.

 

[VaTerp]

Here's my problem with McCluster, and it has nothing to do with the Chiefs. He is a very fast straight-line runner and he's low to the ground so he can cut-back reasonably well. But there's something about watching him run through traffic or make 2 or 3 moves/stuttersteps over a short period of time that bothers me. He looks slow at those times, and it takes him longer to get "up to speed" than a lot of other backs. His legs move quickly, but he doesn't cover a lot of ground.I could be wrong and/or my eyes could be deceiving me, because he does look better to me than he did last year. But, he strikes me as a very very very poor man's Ryan Mathews (in that there isn't a single thing I think he does better than Mathews, and he's much smaller and less physical).I think he's a decent flier in 12 teamers and I'm starting him as a WR in a league that only gives 1 pt / 20 yards receiving. But, I don't see the same talent and upside a lot of others do.

This may be the most nonsensical analysis of a RB I have ever seen.

I see - the entire thing is nonsensical? I suppose I'll crawl back into my hole and watch this week as Dexter McCluster shows he has the best skills of Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers. If he is such a dynamic player, and has the vision, top-end speed, explosiveness and lateral agility, I guess I would have expected his career long to be longer than 24 yards.

Riiight. He's either "a very very very poor man's Ryan Mathews" OR Barry Sanders/Gale Sayers. There's no room in between. There is certainly room to debate McCluster's talent level/FF projections but to suggest that he only has straight line speed, say whatever it is you are observing when he runs in traffic, and compare him to Ryan Mathews of all Rbs is completely nonsensical. At least to me anyway.The guy has a total of 39 career carries (at a 5.4 clip) so that must mean he sucks b/c he hasnt had one longer than 24 yards right? And that 94 yard punt return TD....yeah that showed no explosiveness.

 

[De Novo]

Here's my problem with McCluster, and it has nothing to do with the Chiefs. He is a very fast straight-line runner and he's low to the ground so he can cut-back reasonably well. But there's something about watching him run through traffic or make 2 or 3 moves/stuttersteps over a short period of time that bothers me. He looks slow at those times, and it takes him longer to get "up to speed" than a lot of other backs. His legs move quickly, but he doesn't cover a lot of ground.I could be wrong and/or my eyes could be deceiving me, because he does look better to me than he did last year. But, he strikes me as a very very very poor man's Ryan Mathews (in that there isn't a single thing I think he does better than Mathews, and he's much smaller and less physical).I think he's a decent flier in 12 teamers and I'm starting him as a WR in a league that only gives 1 pt / 20 yards receiving. But, I don't see the same talent and upside a lot of others do.

This may be the most nonsensical analysis of a RB I have ever seen.

I see - the entire thing is nonsensical? I suppose I'll crawl back into my hole and watch this week as Dexter McCluster shows he has the best skills of Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers. If he is such a dynamic player, and has the vision, top-end speed, explosiveness and lateral agility, I guess I would have expected his career long to be longer than 24 yards.

Riiight. He's either "a very very very poor man's Ryan Mathews" OR Barry Sanders/Gale Sayers. There's no room in between. There is certainly room to debate McCluster's talent level/FF projections but to suggest that he only has straight line speed, say whatever it is you are observing when he runs in traffic, and compare him to Ryan Mathews of all Rbs is completely nonsensical. At least to me anyway.The guy has a total of 39 career carries (at a 5.4 clip) so that must mean he sucks b/c he hasnt had one longer than 24 yards right? And that 94 yard punt return TD....yeah that showed no explosiveness.

Look, you were rude. Worse, you didn't add a single thing to the discussion. I'm trying to contribute to the discussion and watched each of their carries from the SD/KC game twice. To have been the most nonsensical post ever (as you asserted), I could only assume you thought he was Barry Sanders's skinny short clone.I said he was worth a flier so I don't think he sucks. I just think everyone else is overrating him. Pardon me for disagreeing with the McCluster hype train.Also, returning kicks and punts is nothing like being a running back. Since you're so much more knowledgeable than me, you should know this.I just think McCluster gets little more than the blocking gives him, and I think you need to get more than what's blocked if you're 5'8" and 170. Why isn't he getting past the 2nd level?

 

[VaTerp]

Here's my problem with McCluster, and it has nothing to do with the Chiefs. He is a very fast straight-line runner and he's low to the ground so he can cut-back reasonably well. But there's something about watching him run through traffic or make 2 or 3 moves/stuttersteps over a short period of time that bothers me. He looks slow at those times, and it takes him longer to get "up to speed" than a lot of other backs. His legs move quickly, but he doesn't cover a lot of ground.I could be wrong and/or my eyes could be deceiving me, because he does look better to me than he did last year. But, he strikes me as a very very very poor man's Ryan Mathews (in that there isn't a single thing I think he does better than Mathews, and he's much smaller and less physical).I think he's a decent flier in 12 teamers and I'm starting him as a WR in a league that only gives 1 pt / 20 yards receiving. But, I don't see the same talent and upside a lot of others do.

This may be the most nonsensical analysis of a RB I have ever seen.

I see - the entire thing is nonsensical? I suppose I'll crawl back into my hole and watch this week as Dexter McCluster shows he has the best skills of Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers. If he is such a dynamic player, and has the vision, top-end speed, explosiveness and lateral agility, I guess I would have expected his career long to be longer than 24 yards.

Riiight. He's either "a very very very poor man's Ryan Mathews" OR Barry Sanders/Gale Sayers. There's no room in between. There is certainly room to debate McCluster's talent level/FF projections but to suggest that he only has straight line speed, say whatever it is you are observing when he runs in traffic, and compare him to Ryan Mathews of all Rbs is completely nonsensical. At least to me anyway.The guy has a total of 39 career carries (at a 5.4 clip) so that must mean he sucks b/c he hasnt had one longer than 24 yards right? And that 94 yard punt return TD....yeah that showed no explosiveness.

Look, you were rude. Worse, you didn't add a single thing to the discussion. I'm trying to contribute to the discussion and watched each of their carries from the SD/KC game twice. To have been the most nonsensical post ever (as you asserted), I could only assume you thought he was Barry Sanders's skinny short clone.I said he was worth a flier so I don't think he sucks. I just think everyone else is overrating him. Pardon me for disagreeing with the McCluster hype train.Also, returning kicks and punts is nothing like being a running back. Since you're so much more knowledgeable than me, you should know this.I just think McCluster gets little more than the blocking gives him, and I think you need to get more than what's blocked if you're 5'8" and 170. Why isn't he getting past the 2nd level?

I said your post was nonsensical. Rude? Please...get over yourself. It was mainly the comparison to Mathews that still makes ZERO sense to me.And I added to the discussion by pointing out what I saw as a very flawed post. IMO McCluster has not yet demonstrated his ability to get past the second level b/c he hasnt had enough opportunities. He will. He's a dynamic playmaker who makes things happen in space. He's simply too small to handle a huge amount of touches but he will produce yardage when given the ball and eventually break some big plays from scrimmage. In PPR he will be a very viable flex type option.

 

[jackdubl]

McCluster has more quicks than he has long speed. He looks like he's running real fast but he doesn't cover any distance during that time. A lot of steps but too short of a stride. Also, the guy can't break a tackle. Breathe on him and he goes down.

 

[Reepicheep]

Vikings have allowed 256 receiving yards to RBs through three games. Chargers went bonkers and Best had a nice day out of the backfield last week. Could be a sneaky play.