>>>> Owning McFadden <<<< (1 Viewer)

[letter_j]

Any real updates?

Not an update...speculation (but from a beat writer):Beat writer Steve Corkran considers Darren McFadden (ankle) and Mike Goodson (ankle) "long shots" to play in Week 11 versus the Saints.

Coach Dennis Allen conceded that both backs will remain in question through the end of the week, holding out scant hope that one will heal quickly enough to play. Both backs remain in walking boots, however, which would seem to preclude a shot at cutting on the field by the weekend. We expect Marcel Reece to maintain top-20 fantasy value for Week 11. Nov 13 - 4:59 PM

Source: Sporting News

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4649/darren-mcfadden

 

[Insein]

i hope dmc stays out. reece is filling in just fine

I second this for another week at least. Reece against a bad NO D when we know they'll be passing should post solid numbers. May even sneak in the end zone. DMC would not get much just because Oak will be playing from behind and he would not be 100%. Give it another week Darren.

 

[heydangle]

ESPN ranked him pretty accurate I guess; lower than most sites. Took him at 15 overall, standard scoring. Don't see him as more than a 3rd round pick in a 12 team league, next year.

 

[need2know]

ESPN ranked him pretty accurate I guess; lower than most sites. Took him at 15 overall, standard scoring. Don't see him as more than a 3rd round pick in a 12 team league, next year.

I see him as a player I will never draft again. period.

 

[solorca]

I would be willing to draft him again in the future, but only if he slips deep into the draft. Then again, this is the only year I've ever owned him, and I'm able to win games without him...so I don't have that intense hatred toward him as I do for some players who have screwed me in the past.

Vincent Jackson and Tony Romo are the only two guys who I will refuse to draft, because both of them have screwed me over multiple times in important games.

 

[heydangle]

ESPN ranked him pretty accurate I guess; lower than most sites. Took him at 15 overall, standard scoring. Don't see him as more than a 3rd round pick in a 12 team league, next year.

I see him as a player I will never draft again. period.

You're probably right. I drafted him the last two years, somehow made the playoffs. Think if I just drafted somebody that didn't get hurt. Could win. Good thing I drafted Ridley, but other than that, another wasted pick. I should learn.

 

[scrumptrulescent]

I would be willing to draft him again in the future, but only if he slips deep into the draft. Then again, this is the only year I've ever owned him, and I'm able to win games without him...so I don't have that intense hatred toward him as I do for some players who have screwed me in the past.Vincent Jackson and Tony Romo are the only two guys who I will refuse to draft, because both of them have screwed me over multiple times in important games.

Refusing to draft VJax doesn't seem wise to me. He's not a Charger anymore.

 

[solorca]

I would be willing to draft him again in the future, but only if he slips deep into the draft. Then again, this is the only year I've ever owned him, and I'm able to win games without him...so I don't have that intense hatred toward him as I do for some players who have screwed me in the past.Vincent Jackson and Tony Romo are the only two guys who I will refuse to draft, because both of them have screwed me over multiple times in important games.

Refusing to draft VJax doesn't seem wise to me. He's not a Charger anymore.

Doesn't matter to me. He is still the same guy that will put up a 4 point game the week you need him. I've owned him for yearsminmdynasty, and still have him...he's just a player that I never feel confident in. I don't like having a guy treated as a wr1 who puts up an egg every time he plays a good pass defense. He has been fortunate this year to play a number of weaker pass defenses, but the trend is still there.

 

[Insein]

ESPN ranked him pretty accurate I guess; lower than most sites. Took him at 15 overall, standard scoring. Don't see him as more than a 3rd round pick in a 12 team league, next year.

I see him as a player I will never draft again. period.

There's a term for that. Its called Deangeloed.

 

[need2know]

ESPN ranked him pretty accurate I guess; lower than most sites. Took him at 15 overall, standard scoring. Don't see him as more than a 3rd round pick in a 12 team league, next year.

I see him as a player I will never draft again. period.

There's a term for that. Its called Deangeloed.

the sad thing is I drafted him the past 2 years. guess I'm a slow learner

 

[nb009]

I would be willing to draft him again in the future, but only if he slips deep into the draft. Then again, this is the only year I've ever owned him, and I'm able to win games without him...so I don't have that intense hatred toward him as I do for some players who have screwed me in the past.Vincent Jackson and Tony Romo are the only two guys who I will refuse to draft, because both of them have screwed me over multiple times in important games.

I agree with this. He's gettIng a little better this year, but still, he's someone that can't be trusted.Refusing to draft VJax doesn't seem wise to me. He's not a Charger anymore.

Doesn't matter to me. He is still the same guy that will put up a 4 point game the week you need him. I've owned him for yearsminmdynasty, and still have him...he's just a player that I never feel confident in. I don't like having a guy treated as a wr1 who puts up an egg every time he plays a good pass defense. He has been fortunate this year to play a number of weaker pass defenses, but the trend is still there.

 

[ChummyShark]

Also, when can we expect news on his foot for the week?

Check RotoWorld. They're pretty good about player updates. If I recall correctly, they said he's iffy for this week, but might play next week in week 12.

BTW, any DMC owners going to start him the first week that he's back from injury? If he has a "Q" tag, I suppose no one's going to start him. But if he has a "P" tag, are there DMC owners who are going to start him?

 

[mquinnjr]

Also, when can we expect news on his foot for the week?

Check RotoWorld. They're pretty good about player updates. If I recall correctly, they said he's iffy for this week, but might play next week in week 12.

BTW, any DMC owners going to start him the first week that he's back from injury? If he has a "Q" tag, I suppose no one's going to start him. But if he has a "P" tag, are there DMC owners who are going to start him?

If he is active, he is a must start if you own him. Unless you have so many bellcow options at your disposal that you can afford to bench him (in a 12+ team competitive league you won't), you likely drafted him high. You have to believe before you select someone like him on draft day, and be ready to go down with the ship and live with your decisions. You really had no business drafting him in the first place if you would leave him on the bench when he's active, zone blocking scheme woes or not. No worse feeling than waiting all off-season for redemption because you got cute when he's active and he has a big game in a crucial part of the season ending your season.

 

[ChummyShark]

Also, when can we expect news on his foot for the week?

Check RotoWorld. They're pretty good about player updates. If I recall correctly, they said he's iffy for this week, but might play next week in week 12.

BTW, any DMC owners going to start him the first week that he's back from injury? If he has a "Q" tag, I suppose no one's going to start him. But if he has a "P" tag, are there DMC owners who are going to start him?

If he is active, he is a must start if you own him. Unless you have so many bellcow options at your disposal that you can afford to bench him (in a 12+ team competitive league you won't), you likely drafted him high. You have to believe before you select someone like him on draft day, and be ready to go down with the ship and live with your decisions. You really had no business drafting him in the first place if you would leave him on the bench when he's active, zone blocking scheme woes or not. No worse feeling than waiting all off-season for redemption because you got cute when he's active and he has a big game in a crucial part of the season ending your season.

I certainly understand this logic and reasoning. On a related note, in your personal opinion, what's a worse feeling for you:(1) You start DMC in a critical playoff game, and he lays a stank egg, causing your team to lose. Or,

(2) You bench DMC in a critical playoff game, and he has a great game, and you lose because you benched him.

Similarly, in your personal opinion, what's a happier feeling for you:

(A) You start DMC in a critical playoff game, he has a great game, and you win because you started him, and he rewarded your faith.

(B) You bench DMC in a critical playoff game, your DMC replacement had a great game while DMC stank, and you win because you knowingly and deliberately benched DMC.

 

[cvnpoka]

I would be willing to draft him again in the future, but only if he slips deep into the draft. Then again, this is the only year I've ever owned him, and I'm able to win games without him...so I don't have that intense hatred toward him as I do for some players who have screwed me in the past.Vincent Jackson and Tony Romo are the only two guys who I will refuse to draft, because both of them have screwed me over multiple times in important games.

just lol at all this. its like they know when you need them and then intentionally have bad games and "screw you over." ill never take u on my fake team again. that will rilly learn em. you sound rediculous, petty, self-centered and illogical.

 

[nb009]

I would be willing to draft him again in the future, but only if he slips deep into the draft. Then again, this is the only year I've ever owned him, and I'm able to win games without him...so I don't have that intense hatred toward him as I do for some players who have screwed me in the past.Vincent Jackson and Tony Romo are the only two guys who I will refuse to draft, because both of them have screwed me over multiple times in important games.

just lol at all this. its like they know when you need them and then intentionally have bad games and "screw you over." ill never take u on my fake team again. that will rilly learn em. you sound rediculous, petty, self-centered and illogical.

PMS?

 

[cvnpoka]

hey im not the guy who actually thinks players are out "to screw me over" bc they are actually aware of when its a big game for me.

 

[nb009]

Also, when can we expect news on his foot for the week?

Check RotoWorld. They're pretty good about player updates. If I recall correctly, they said he's iffy for this week, but might play next week in week 12.

BTW, any DMC owners going to start him the first week that he's back from injury? If he has a "Q" tag, I suppose no one's going to start him. But if he has a "P" tag, are there DMC owners who are going to start him?

If he is active, he is a must start if you own him. Unless you have so many bellcow options at your disposal that you can afford to bench him (in a 12+ team competitive league you won't), you likely drafted him high. You have to believe before you select someone like him on draft day, and be ready to go down with the ship and live with your decisions. You really had no business drafting him in the first place if you would leave him on the bench when he's active, zone blocking scheme woes or not. No worse feeling than waiting all off-season for redemption because you got cute when he's active and he has a big game in a crucial part of the season ending your season.

I certainly understand this logic and reasoning. On a related note, in your personal opinion, what's a worse feeling for you:(1) You start DMC in a critical playoff game, and he lays a stank egg, causing your team to lose. Or,

(2) You bench DMC in a critical playoff game, and he has a great game, and you lose because you benched him.

Similarly, in your personal opinion, what's a happier feeling for you:

(A) You start DMC in a critical playoff game, he has a great game, and you win because you started him, and he rewarded your faith.

(B) You bench DMC in a critical playoff game, your DMC replacement had a great game while DMC stank, and you win because you knowingly and deliberately benched DMC.

If DMC is missing practices the whole week and is subsequently given the "give it a go" tag, he'll definitely be on my bench. If he has a great game, and I lose, oh well. I'll definitely feel better than if I play him, and he stinks up the joint, causing me to lose. On the other hand, if he practices enough and is listed as probably late in the week, I will probably start him.

 

[elbowrm]

The Denver game last year (2 years ago?) taught me if he's active, he's in my lineup.

 

[ChummyShark]

I'm one of the few football fans who never heard of the zone blocking scheme until this year. I thought a good RB could run behind anything as long as there was daylight somewhere.

Has there ever been a talented RB besides Darren McFadden who couldn't adjust to the zone blocking scheme? Just curious. Some well-regarded RB within the last 5-10 years who couldn't adjust to the zone blocking scheme and the coaches had to alter the O-line blocking to accommodate the star RB. Any RB like that? Or is DMC the only one that anyone can remember?

 

[elbowrm]

Yeah - DMC 3 yrs ago, then Hue came in and asked him what his favorite plays in college were, making him a top 5 rb that year.

 

[mquinnjr]

Also, when can we expect news on his foot for the week?

Check RotoWorld. They're pretty good about player updates. If I recall correctly, they said he's iffy for this week, but might play next week in week 12.

BTW, any DMC owners going to start him the first week that he's back from injury? If he has a "Q" tag, I suppose no one's going to start him. But if he has a "P" tag, are there DMC owners who are going to start him?

If he is active, he is a must start if you own him. Unless you have so many bellcow options at your disposal that you can afford to bench him (in a 12+ team competitive league you won't), you likely drafted him high. You have to believe before you select someone like him on draft day, and be ready to go down with the ship and live with your decisions. You really had no business drafting him in the first place if you would leave him on the bench when he's active, zone blocking scheme woes or not. No worse feeling than waiting all off-season for redemption because you got cute when he's active and he has a big game in a crucial part of the season ending your season.

I certainly understand this logic and reasoning. On a related note, in your personal opinion, what's a worse feeling for you:(1) You start DMC in a critical playoff game, and he lays a stank egg, causing your team to lose. Or,

(2) You bench DMC in a critical playoff game, and he has a great game, and you lose because you benched him.

Similarly, in your personal opinion, what's a happier feeling for you:

(A) You start DMC in a critical playoff game, he has a great game, and you win because you started him, and he rewarded your faith.

(B) You bench DMC in a critical playoff game, your DMC replacement had a great game while DMC stank, and you win because you knowingly and deliberately benched DMC.

If DMC is missing practices the whole week and is subsequently given the "give it a go" tag, he'll definitely be on my bench. If he has a great game, and I lose, oh well. I'll definitely feel better than if I play him, and he stinks up the joint, causing me to lose. On the other hand, if he practices enough and is listed as probably late in the week, I will probably start him.

I play to win. With that cliche out of the way, I don't just wing it on draft day. I draft players for a reason. DMC's potential is so high (in my opinion) that if he's a healthy active and I drafted him, there is no way he sits on my bench. Even if he's "give it a go" active, unless I have a roster full of RB studs, I'm going DMC. I live and die with the decisions I made on draft day, and if it doesn't work out, I didn't position myself well enough on draft day to win my league that season. I'm certainly not starting some schlub RB off of the WW over him in a "give it a go" situation if he's active. If DMC is a trainwreck in that scenario, it's my fault, I'm the one that studied him in the pre-season and pulled the trigger on draft day to be an RB1 for my squad, regardless of if he plays like one over the course of the current season. Week to week, you have no way of knowing if that potential you saw in him on draft day will come out. If I'm wrong, I dust off and re-group for my next draft. Leave it all on the starting lineup, not the bench.

 

[ChummyShark]

Yeah - DMC 3 yrs ago, then Hue came in and asked him what his favorite plays in college were, making him a top 5 rb that year.

Oakland had a zone blocking scheme 3 years ago before Hue came in?If true, that's interesting.New coach Dennis Allen comes in. He should know, or did know, that DMC wasn't very good behind a zone blocking scheme from previous attempts in the past. Right? And knowing that, he still wanted to ram through a zone blocking scheme anyways, believing or hoping that DMC would get it the second time around. Is this coaching error? If a star player can't shine with a particular scheme, might as well give up the scheme.

 

[az_prof]

Yeah - DMC 3 yrs ago, then Hue came in and asked him what his favorite plays in college were, making him a top 5 rb that year.

Oakland had a zone blocking scheme 3 years ago before Hue came in?If true, that's interesting.New coach Dennis Allen comes in. He should know, or did know, that DMC wasn't very good behind a zone blocking scheme from previous attempts in the past. Right? And knowing that, he still wanted to ram through a zone blocking scheme anyways, believing or hoping that DMC would get it the second time around. Is this coaching error? If a star player can't shine with a particular scheme, might as well give up the scheme.

Many of us in here, including myself, pointed this bit of history out this summer. For some reason, the new coaches didn't care and neither did the DMC fan club. Talent matters, but so does surrounding cast and offensive scheme.

 

[ChummyShark]

Yeah - DMC 3 yrs ago, then Hue came in and asked him what his favorite plays in college were, making him a top 5 rb that year.

Oakland had a zone blocking scheme 3 years ago before Hue came in?If true, that's interesting.

New coach Dennis Allen comes in. He should know, or did know, that DMC wasn't very good behind a zone blocking scheme from previous attempts in the past. Right? And knowing that, he still wanted to ram through a zone blocking scheme anyways, believing or hoping that DMC would get it the second time around. Is this coaching error? If a star player can't shine with a particular scheme, might as well give up the scheme.

Many of us in here, including myself, pointed this bit of history out this summer. For some reason, the new coaches didn't care and neither did the DMC fan club. Talent matters, but so does surrounding cast and offensive scheme.

I wonder if knowing this information would have altered my pick of DMC in the 8th spot of a 12-team PPR redraft league. Probably not. But this is good learning for future years.

 

[SameSongNDance]

Also, when can we expect news on his foot for the week?

Check RotoWorld. They're pretty good about player updates. If I recall correctly, they said he's iffy for this week, but might play next week in week 12.

BTW, any DMC owners going to start him the first week that he's back from injury? If he has a "Q" tag, I suppose no one's going to start him. But if he has a "P" tag, are there DMC owners who are going to start him?

If he is active, he is a must start if you own him. Unless you have so many bellcow options at your disposal that you can afford to bench him (in a 12+ team competitive league you won't), you likely drafted him high. You have to believe before you select someone like him on draft day, and be ready to go down with the ship and live with your decisions. You really had no business drafting him in the first place if you would leave him on the bench when he's active, zone blocking scheme woes or not. No worse feeling than waiting all off-season for redemption because you got cute when he's active and he has a big game in a crucial part of the season ending your season.

I certainly understand this logic and reasoning. On a related note, in your personal opinion, what's a worse feeling for you:(1) You start DMC in a critical playoff game, and he lays a stank egg, causing your team to lose. Or,

(2) You bench DMC in a critical playoff game, and he has a great game, and you lose because you benched him.

Similarly, in your personal opinion, what's a happier feeling for you:

(A) You start DMC in a critical playoff game, he has a great game, and you win because you started him, and he rewarded your faith.

(B) You bench DMC in a critical playoff game, your DMC replacement had a great game while DMC stank, and you win because you knowingly and deliberately benched DMC.

If DMC is missing practices the whole week and is subsequently given the "give it a go" tag, he'll definitely be on my bench. If he has a great game, and I lose, oh well. I'll definitely feel better than if I play him, and he stinks up the joint, causing me to lose. On the other hand, if he practices enough and is listed as probably late in the week, I will probably start him.

I play to win. With that cliche out of the way, I don't just wing it on draft day. I draft players for a reason. DMC's potential is so high (in my opinion) that if he's a healthy active and I drafted him, there is no way he sits on my bench. Even if he's "give it a go" active, unless I have a roster full of RB studs, I'm going DMC. I live and die with the decisions I made on draft day, and if it doesn't work out, I didn't position myself well enough on draft day to win my league that season. I'm certainly not starting some schlub RB off of the WW over him in a "give it a go" situation if he's active. If DMC is a trainwreck in that scenario, it's my fault, I'm the one that studied him in the pre-season and pulled the trigger on draft day to be an RB1 for my squad, regardless of if he plays like one over the course of the current season. Week to week, you have no way of knowing if that potential you saw in him on draft day will come out. If I'm wrong, I dust off and re-group for my next draft. Leave it all on the starting lineup, not the bench.

Don't get me wrong, I never sat DMC once, but it's because I didn't have another RB guaranteed 20 touches. However, IMO, ADP goes out the window after around 4-8 weeks. I don't care if I took SJax in the 2nd round, the hell I was going to be starting him in his current situation. I've benched "studs" in the past with varying results, but regardless, I always go with my gut. Being too stubborn to bench CJ early in the season, or similarly SJax because of ADP more than likely netted you several losses. The NFL season is too short to ride someone hoping that they turn it around if you can help it.

Yeah - DMC 3 yrs ago, then Hue came in and asked him what his favorite plays in college were, making him a top 5 rb that year.

Oakland had a zone blocking scheme 3 years ago before Hue came in?If true, that's interesting.

New coach Dennis Allen comes in. He should know, or did know, that DMC wasn't very good behind a zone blocking scheme from previous attempts in the past. Right? And knowing that, he still wanted to ram through a zone blocking scheme anyways, believing or hoping that DMC would get it the second time around. Is this coaching error? If a star player can't shine with a particular scheme, might as well give up the scheme.

Many of us in here, including myself, pointed this bit of history out this summer. For some reason, the new coaches didn't care and neither did the DMC fan club. Talent matters, but so does surrounding cast and offensive scheme.

I wonder if knowing this information would have altered my pick of DMC in the 8th spot of a 12-team PPR redraft league. Probably not. But this is good learning for future years.

The change to the ZBS was a huge talking point during the summer. Some even worried about it more so than his injury history. I personally believed talent could supersede any situation coming into this year. I'll be leaving this fantasy season realizing the OL is the most important factor in both real life and fantasy football, and without a competent one, talent will be squandered. Good OLs can make mediocre RBs look good and vice versa.

 

[cvnpoka]

just bc mcfadden struggled in the zbs in the past did not make it certain he would do so again. it could easily have been argued that his past struggles were due to a poor surrounding cast, adjustment to the nfl, and turf toe etc problems. it was a viable argument that given his dominance the past few yrs, he would be productive regardless of scheme. esp when he was one of the few backs guaranteed a full workload.

again, his projected workload is mainly what vaulted him to a high draft pick and really, this season kinda justified it. he was pretty atrocious but still a high end rb2 due to volume. and there was plenty of season left to turn it around.

anyway, the gamble didnt work out so the now the smartasses get to jump in with the "i told ya so" that this board is so well known for.

 

[need2know]

Also, when can we expect news on his foot for the week?

Check RotoWorld. They're pretty good about player updates. If I recall correctly, they said he's iffy for this week, but might play next week in week 12.

BTW, any DMC owners going to start him the first week that he's back from injury? If he has a "Q" tag, I suppose no one's going to start him. But if he has a "P" tag, are there DMC owners who are going to start him?

If he is active, he is a must start if you own him. Unless you have so many bellcow options at your disposal that you can afford to bench him (in a 12+ team competitive league you won't), you likely drafted him high. You have to believe before you select someone like him on draft day, and be ready to go down with the ship and live with your decisions. You really had no business drafting him in the first place if you would leave him on the bench when he's active, zone blocking scheme woes or not. No worse feeling than waiting all off-season for redemption because you got cute when he's active and he has a big game in a crucial part of the season ending your season.

I certainly understand this logic and reasoning. On a related note, in your personal opinion, what's a worse feeling for you:(1) You start DMC in a critical playoff game, and he lays a stank egg, causing your team to lose. Or,

(2) You bench DMC in a critical playoff game, and he has a great game, and you lose because you benched him.

Similarly, in your personal opinion, what's a happier feeling for you:

(A) You start DMC in a critical playoff game, he has a great game, and you win because you started him, and he rewarded your faith.

(B) You bench DMC in a critical playoff game, your DMC replacement had a great game while DMC stank, and you win because you knowingly and deliberately benched DMC.

If DMC is missing practices the whole week and is subsequently given the "give it a go" tag, he'll definitely be on my bench. If he has a great game, and I lose, oh well. I'll definitely feel better than if I play him, and he stinks up the joint, causing me to lose. On the other hand, if he practices enough and is listed as probably late in the week, I will probably start him.

I play to win. With that cliche out of the way, I don't just wing it on draft day. I draft players for a reason. DMC's potential is so high (in my opinion) that if he's a healthy active and I drafted him, there is no way he sits on my bench. Even if he's "give it a go" active, unless I have a roster full of RB studs, I'm going DMC. I live and die with the decisions I made on draft day, and if it doesn't work out, I didn't position myself well enough on draft day to win my league that season. I'm certainly not starting some schlub RB off of the WW over him in a "give it a go" situation if he's active. If DMC is a trainwreck in that scenario, it's my fault, I'm the one that studied him in the pre-season and pulled the trigger on draft day to be an RB1 for my squad, regardless of if he plays like one over the course of the current season. Week to week, you have no way of knowing if that potential you saw in him on draft day will come out. If I'm wrong, I dust off and re-group for my next draft. Leave it all on the starting lineup, not the bench.

Don't get me wrong, I never sat DMC once, but it's because I didn't have another RB guaranteed 20 touches. However, IMO, ADP goes out the window after around 4-8 weeks. I don't care if I took SJax in the 2nd round, the hell I was going to be starting him in his current situation. I've benched "studs" in the past with varying results, but regardless, I always go with my gut. Being too stubborn to bench CJ early in the season, or similarly SJax because of ADP more than likely netted you several losses. The NFL season is too short to ride someone hoping that they turn it around if you can help it.

Yeah - DMC 3 yrs ago, then Hue came in and asked him what his favorite plays in college were, making him a top 5 rb that year.

Oakland had a zone blocking scheme 3 years ago before Hue came in?If true, that's interesting.

New coach Dennis Allen comes in. He should know, or did know, that DMC wasn't very good behind a zone blocking scheme from previous attempts in the past. Right? And knowing that, he still wanted to ram through a zone blocking scheme anyways, believing or hoping that DMC would get it the second time around. Is this coaching error? If a star player can't shine with a particular scheme, might as well give up the scheme.

Many of us in here, including myself, pointed this bit of history out this summer. For some reason, the new coaches didn't care and neither did the DMC fan club. Talent matters, but so does surrounding cast and offensive scheme.

I wonder if knowing this information would have altered my pick of DMC in the 8th spot of a 12-team PPR redraft league. Probably not. But this is good learning for future years.

The change to the ZBS was a huge talking point during the summer. Some even worried about it more so than his injury history. I personally believed talent could supersede any situation coming into this year. I'll be leaving this fantasy season realizing the OL is the most important factor in both real life and fantasy football, and without a competent one, talent will be squandered. Good OLs can make mediocre RBs look good and vice versa.

we should start a new thread in the preseason next year that analyzes olines

 

[ChummyShark]

anyway, the gamble didnt work out so the now the smartasses get to jump in with the "i told ya so" that this board is so well known for.

I wouldn't begrudge the folks who advocated caution. They were trying to be helpful, and they were.

(1) AZProf: "Many of us in here, including myself, pointed this bit of history out this summer. For some reason, the new coaches didn't care and neither did the DMC fan club. Talent matters, but so does surrounding cast and offensive scheme."

(2) SameSongnDance: "The change to the ZBS was a huge talking point during the summer. Some even worried about it more so than his injury history. I personally believed talent could supersede any situation coming into this year. I'll be leaving this fantasy season realizing the OL is the most important factor in both real life and fantasy football, and without a competent one, talent will be squandered. Good OLs can make mediocre RBs look good and vice versa."

 

[az_prof]

anyway, the gamble didnt work out so the now the smartasses get to jump in with the "i told ya so" that this board is so well known for.

I wouldn't begrudge the folks who advocated caution. They were trying to be helpful, and they were.

(1) AZProf: "Many of us in here, including myself, pointed this bit of history out this summer. For some reason, the new coaches didn't care and neither did the DMC fan club. Talent matters, but so does surrounding cast and offensive scheme."

(2) SameSongnDance: "The change to the ZBS was a huge talking point during the summer. Some even worried about it more so than his injury history. I personally believed talent could supersede any situation coming into this year. I'll be leaving this fantasy season realizing the OL is the most important factor in both real life and fantasy football, and without a competent one, talent will be squandered. Good OLs can make mediocre RBs look good and vice versa."

There is a certain amount of luck in fantasy football, but, you also have to learn from your mistakes if there is a lesson to learn. I had previously learned this lesson about the importance of scheme and the OL from Larry Johnson--the year he took a big drop in production was largely because the OL had aged and a new scheme was put into place. There are very few players who can excel in a system that is bad for them and that lacks the supporting cast--ADP may be the only RB in the NFL right now who would be very good in any circumstance and DMC simply is not in that class.I was wrong myself about Meachem, whom I thought would flourish now that he was a starting WR. Those who said "if he was that good he would have established himself over Devry Henderson and Lance Moore by now" were right. I need to file that lesson away and I will learn from it.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

post 827, Good points.

Also remember that the Raiders were led by mega-bust QB JaMarcus Russell back then. So the comparison isn't exactly a fair one, as Carson Palmer is in a whole other league in comparison. Also, the run scheme isn't strictly ZBS, there has been a variation of the scheme with backside gap blocking as well. And even last year, the Raiders did employ ZBS around 40% of the time mixed with power blocking. It's just that they use the ZBS I'm guess about 80% of the time now. There's a whole lot of hyperbole and nonsense being thrown out by a lot of ill-informed folks that have an axe to grind one way or the other.

 

[cvnpoka]

There is a certain amount of luck in fantasy football, but, you also have to learn from your mistakes if there is a lesson to learn. I had previously learned this lesson about the importance of scheme and the OL from Larry Johnson--the year he took a big drop in production was largely because the OL had aged and a new scheme was put into place. There are very few players who can excel in a system that is bad for them and that lacks the supporting cast--ADP may be the only RB in the NFL right now who would be very good in any circumstance and DMC simply is not in that class.I was wrong myself about Meachem, whom I thought would flourish now that he was a starting WR. Those who said "if he was that good he would have established himself over Devry Henderson and Lance Moore by now" were right. I need to file that lesson away and I will learn from it.

plenty of players have thrived in multiple schemes. and fwiw, i would not lump you in with the "smartasses" from earlier as your posts are usually helpful and respectful.

 

[ChummyShark]

There is a certain amount of luck in fantasy football, but, you also have to learn from your mistakes if there is a lesson to learn. I had previously learned this lesson about the importance of scheme and the OL from Larry Johnson--the year he took a big drop in production was largely because the OL had aged and a new scheme was put into place. There are very few players who can excel in a system that is bad for them and that lacks the supporting cast--ADP may be the only RB in the NFL right now who would be very good in any circumstance and DMC simply is not in that class.

Is ADP Adrian Peterson? I've seen AP as short for Adrian Peterson. And I've ADP as short for Average Draft Position.

Adrian Peterson sure is a quick healer from his torn ACL.

 

[solorca]

hey im not the guy who actually thinks players are out "to screw me over" bc they are actually aware of when its a big game for me.

Neither am I. I said that I wouldn't draft those two specific players because they have performed poorly when I've needed them in the past. They obviously have no knowledge or interest in my situation, but they are players who I don't trust because of their regular failed performances. I don't have a grudge against them, I just have a bad history with them and prefer to have players on my team that I trust. You're digging a little deep to think I believe there is any connection between their performance and the needs of my team. I don't draft them because I don't like them and don't feel confident in their performance.

 

[solorca]

There is a certain amount of luck in fantasy football, but, you also have to learn from your mistakes if there is a lesson to learn. I had previously learned this lesson about the importance of scheme and the OL from Larry Johnson--the year he took a big drop in production was largely because the OL had aged and a new scheme was put into place. There are very few players who can excel in a system that is bad for them and that lacks the supporting cast--ADP may be the only RB in the NFL right now who would be very good in any circumstance and DMC simply is not in that class.

Is ADP Adrian Peterson? I've seen AP as short for Adrian Peterson. And I've ADP as short for Average Draft Position.

Adrian Peterson sure is a quick healer from his torn ACL.

Just an FYI: All you have to do is click "reply" under the post you want to quote and you will see it the way you see this post (with your items quoted above me).ADP, in this case, was Peterson.

 

[letter_j]

Darren McFadden (ankle) was absent from Wednesday's practice.

As was Mike Goodson (ankle). All signs point toward FB Marcel Reece piloting the Raiders' backfield for at least one more week. Coming off a 20-touch, 104-yard performance against the Ravens, he'll be a strong flex play in all formats. As for McFadden, it doesn't look like this will be the year he sheds his "slow healer" tag. He should be considered week-to-week until he gets in some full practices. Nov 14 - 2:15 PM

Source: Vittorio Tafur on Twitter

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4649/darren-mcfadden

 

[ChummyShark]

Here's another RotoWorld posting:

According to FOX's Jay Glazer, the Raiders anticipated a 2-4 week absence when Darren McFadden went down with a high-ankle sprain in Week 9.

In other words, they've been lying. Coach Dennis Allen refused to publicly rule McFadden out for Week 10 until last Friday, and has avoided providing any sort of a concrete timetable. Glazer's reported timeline is the norm for high-ankle sprains, however, and finally gives us a better idea of when to expect McFadden back. He can be safely ruled out for Week 11, and should be considered doubtful for Week 12. Marcel Reece will be the lead dog in Oakland's backfield against the Saints.

----

Suppose he takes 4 weeks. Then DMC will have a full week of practice, get the "Probable" tag and play in Week 14 at home against Denver. If I still had him, I'd kinda be nervous starting him for four reasons: (1) Denver has a good defense (2) How good will he be in his first game back? Will the coaches call less zone blocking schemes for him, and give him what he likes better instead? (3) How many carries/touches will the coaches give him? (4) If Denver jumps out to a big lead, will the Raiders abandon the run, and throw the ball a lot, including to Marcel Reece?

Lot of uncertainties there.

 

[nb009]

Oh god.

 

[ChummyShark]

Oh god.

Don't worry. God answers prayers.Maybe not the answer you want though.

 

[daveR]

Oh god.

Don't worry. God answers prayers.Maybe not the answer you want though.

Still better than crossing your fingers &amp; hoping.

 

[Insein]

That's actually good to hear. Reece is the play now. No guessing.

 

[Dought Man]

 

[ChummyShark]

"Darren McFadden (ankle) and Mike Goodson (ankle) were held out of practice again on Thursday.

McFadden is driven to return, appearing at the Raiders facility at 6:00 a.m. Thursday to rehab the injury. Coach Dennis Allen acknowledged that neither injured back is likely to play versus the Saints. The Raiders will go with a similar backfield rotation as Week 10, with Marcel Reece leading the way."

Maybe DMC will come back in Week 12?

 

[DocHolliday]

DMC is not a quick healer. That is a fact. His ankle sprain may not be that severe so I would not guess on his return to the field though.

I would describe this as non-clinical speculative drivel.

So you would say DMC is a quick healer?

 

[ChummyShark]

DMC is not a quick healer. That is a fact. His ankle sprain may not be that severe so I would not guess on his return to the field though.

I would describe this as non-clinical speculative drivel.

So you would say DMC is a quick healer?

Maybe DMC can go to a Pentecostal healing service, get bapped on the forehead, and have his high ankle sprain healed immediately. That'd be a quick healing.

 

[I Love Your Fantasy Team]

@VicTafur: Allen said McFadden ran around with trainers on the side today

 

[ChummyShark]

@VicTafur: Allen said McFadden ran around with trainers on the side today

I'd say that's quick healing from a high ankle sprain. Even though I traded him, I still want him to do exceedingly well.

 

[JD8p]

I think the best us McFadden owners can hope for is that this turns out to be like last year...and we are lucky enough to have Marcel Reece.

 

[matuski]

DMC is not a quick healer. That is a fact. His ankle sprain may not be that severe so I would not guess on his return to the field though.

I would describe this as non-clinical speculative drivel.

So you would say DMC is a quick healer?

What does that even mean?He heals through the same processes as any other human being. You are insinuating that somehow the ligaments in his body heal differently than your own? Which part of the process do you think the next guy is "quicker" exactly?

Perhaps it would make more (any) sense to speculate on the severity of the sprain, which would actually have some influence on the length of time to heal.

 

[One]

FWIW, my bud was on the sideline yesterday (Sideline photographer, so take it with a grain of salt). He said it couldn't be too bad since McFadden jogged by him to and from the tunnel and didn't seem in much pain. He also thought Goodson appeared in worse shape than McFadden after coming out of the game.

Looks like his observation was right.

Mike Goodson (ankle) has yet to begin running.He's not going to beat Darren McFadden (ankle) back to the lineup. McFadden was seen running around with trainers on the side of Thursday's practice and could be aiming for a Week 12 return.