Young 8
Footballguy
Edmonds missed 3 games then he came back and barely saw the field.
When a team with a 3-5 record decides to trade at the deadline for a RB with an expiring contract you know that they don't think very highly of their RB roster.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
RB Chase Edmonds, TB (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter EBF
- Start date
Edmonds missed 3 games then he came back and barely saw the field.
When a team with a 3-5 record decides to trade at the deadline for a RB with an expiring contract you know that they don't think very highly of their RB roster.
zamboni
Footballguy
When Drake was brought in, DJ was clearly out of favor. But by the time Edmonds returned, Drake was running hot from the get go and Kingsbury understandably didn't want to take him off the field. Not sure that it was a reflection of how he felt about Edmonds.
rockaction
Footballguy
Sorry, but Edmonds got hurt, so they traded for Drake. Edmonds ripped off 126 yards against the Giants and pulled a hamstring at the end or at the beginning of the next game. Then came the trade.
I-ROK
Footballguy
Let’s also remember that Drake was practically worthless, and just a body at the time. They didn’t trade for post 2019 Drake.
rockaction
Footballguy
Very true. They were trading for a guy who was buried on the bench in Miami. Behind Kalen Ballage and Patrick Laird.
He had a foot out the league at that point.
Amazing how this works, this NFL, doesn't it? So much of it is about situation.
Young 8
Footballguy
Oh, sure....so Kingsbury didn't want to take him off the field last year but somehow some people here expecting to see Edmonds getting 10/12 touches this year.
Young 8
Footballguy
Ok, I'm gonna say it again........the Arizona Cardinals were 3-5 at the deadline, I repeat 3-5.
They didn't have to make any trade, they could have gone with Alfred Morris & Zach Zenner while Edmonds or David Johnson were out.
Instead they decided to trade for a RB with an expiring contract, that never happens.
I think we can assume that they've already decided back then that David Johnson's days were numbered and realized that Chase Edmonds is essentially a J.A.G.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Nobody said differently. I don't expect him to be in for fifty-five of the seventy-five or eighty plays that Kingsbury wants to run though.tangfoot said:
None of this was mutually exclusive; he can be the RB1 while Edmonds gets ten touches a game.
rockaction
Footballguy
You can keep saying it. Nothing in that sentence necessarily follows from what you keep repeating.Young 8 said:
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
“Objection”Young 8 said:
”overruled.”
”I strenuously object....”
In seriousness, the signing of Drake wasn’t much of a negative for Edmonds. Rather, the timing of his injury was a huge negative, Drake’s performance was another, and his contract was a 3rd. But the actual signing was just a desperate team - in the rebuilding phase - taking a shot at a guy with talent who had done very little. Edmonds needs to take care of business, get healthy, and be productive with his limited touches while Drake is healthy - which we all know won’t last for 16 games.
Buck Bradcanon
Footballguy
Not saying I agree with this, but I don't mind hearing it, especially from the likes of Evan Silva.
Last edited by a moderator:
rschroeder1
Footballguy
Drake signed a one-year transition tag contract. In terms of AAV, he ranks 9th in the NFL. In terms of overall contract value, his contract is currently 27th among all RBs.
This sort of situation is perfect for a back-up RB to usurp carries.
Last edited by a moderator:
Buck Bradcanon
Footballguy
Twenty-Four Eighty-Four
Footballguy
Trying to trade for Edmonds for this reason. Even if they split carries Edmonds could do some damage it looks like.
I wonder if the foot thing that cost Drake the preseason is still nagging. Have to think there’s an enhanced chance he misses some time.
zamboni
Footballguy
I own Gaskin and I'd take Edmonds in a heartbeat. Had Edmonds last year to handcuff David Johnson, but neither worked out.
Judge Smails
Footballguy
What’s wrong with Drake is he’s tired of seeing nothing but opposing jerseys before he gets to the lineCobbler1 said:
It's partially Drake's fault, because now he doesn't trust holes when they are there... he's trying to find the edge now on every carry.
cloppbeast
Footballguy
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Isn't that what Gase was complaining about in regards to him and their other RBs at the time like Jay Ajayi?
That was my impression of him at Alabama. He put some good games together and I was thinking maybe he had put this tendency behind him. Maybe he just had good blocking during that spell?
Buck Bradcanon
Footballguy
Guy just keeps producing on limited touches.
rockaction
Footballguy
I'm happy. I've started him in a FLEX the last two weeks in a deep league.
This page of this thread has not aged well for some people whatsoever.
This page of this thread has not aged well for some people whatsoever.
Just traded for him last week to secure my Drake holding. I wonder if there will be a changing of the guard forthcoming. He could be dynamic with more snaps.
It was a blockbuster: 0.5 PPR league, start 2RB, 2WR and a Flex.
I have Drake and had Hunt, and my trading partner has Chubb and had Edmonds. I offered Drake for Chubb. He countered wanting Diontae Johnson as part of a deal, and also inquired about James Robinson.
I wound up trading Hunt, Robinson, and Johnson for Kamara, Edmonds, and Slayton. Not sure if that really gives you a good idea of value, though.
I felt very uncomfortable making it, and it took all afternoon to dream it up and put it out there last week! Ha!
But, assuming good health I'll have Kamara, Drake, Adams, Julio, Fuller, and Andrews as my squad.
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
Anyone have snap counts from last week?
ahartig
Footballguy
this is a great website to check out snap counts, really useful:
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/snap-counts
This website is also good and is a bit easier to spot snap count trends over weeks
https://www.lineups.com/nfl/snap-counts
Last edited by a moderator:
Buck Bradcanon
Footballguy
Bye weeks kicking in and Chase gets a perfect matchup at DAL on MNF. He's in my lineup.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
he's on the small side so it's hard to see him taking too much of a share, but def the kind of satellite back who can be (& has been) very productive in PPR
starting him this week again with Ingram on a bye
trying to make a trade for Swift so I don't have to pair him with Ingram ( :X )
starting him this week again with Ingram on a bye
trying to make a trade for Swift so I don't have to pair him with Ingram ( :X )
I'm light on RB and with Kamara on bye and Akers not yet trust-worthy, I'm putting both Drake and Edmonds in my line-up this week.
ahartig
Footballguy
I am an Edmunds believer. And yet - I don't think I'll start him this week. Between A Jones, Mixon, J Conner, Mattison and D Harris I have to leave some on the bench. Can only start 3.
If and when AZ declares or is obvious about Edmunds as the primary RB I will start him I guess.
If and when AZ declares or is obvious about Edmunds as the primary RB I will start him I guess.
Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
Same here. So be forewarned -- seems whoever I start this year manages to completely bagel the week.Buck Bradcanon said:
turkishkamel
Footballguy
I'm starting Drake for the same reason, and probably much less excited about it.Buck Bradcanon said:
Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
Strange game for Edmonds so kicking this thread up to discuss.
His usage had been steadily climbing and while Drake was still the primary back, Edmonds was becoming flexible -- esp. in PPR. Even talk about how Drake continuing to not really shine could open up the door for this to be a true full blown committee or even give Edmonds more of a shot.
Tonight lined up to be a fantastic match up for both backs. And the way this game went, the game script heavily leaned towards using the backs to grind out the clock.
Yet Edmonds was barely visible.
It was Drake in there -- even late -- to grind out the clock with 20 carries to Edmonds 5. Edmonds wasn't involved in the pass game, either -- don't have total targets but he logged a single catch.
Is this an anomaly given the last couple of weeks? Or has Edmonds' value and utility this year for your fantasy squad null and void?
There are certainly other backfield messes to invest in -- SD, BAL, WAS, NYJ, and LAR to name a few. All of those looked more sketchy than investing in Edmonds because Edmonds had some momentum and had consistently delivered.
Has that changed? How do we view this situation -- and Edmonds' value -- going forward?
His usage had been steadily climbing and while Drake was still the primary back, Edmonds was becoming flexible -- esp. in PPR. Even talk about how Drake continuing to not really shine could open up the door for this to be a true full blown committee or even give Edmonds more of a shot.
Tonight lined up to be a fantastic match up for both backs. And the way this game went, the game script heavily leaned towards using the backs to grind out the clock.
Yet Edmonds was barely visible.
It was Drake in there -- even late -- to grind out the clock with 20 carries to Edmonds 5. Edmonds wasn't involved in the pass game, either -- don't have total targets but he logged a single catch.
Is this an anomaly given the last couple of weeks? Or has Edmonds' value and utility this year for your fantasy squad null and void?
There are certainly other backfield messes to invest in -- SD, BAL, WAS, NYJ, and LAR to name a few. All of those looked more sketchy than investing in Edmonds because Edmonds had some momentum and had consistently delivered.
Has that changed? How do we view this situation -- and Edmonds' value -- going forward?
I used to play fantasy baseball way back in the day, and we had limited starts at each position. So, for my pitchers I used to look very closely at the Vegas Lines before I put them in my line-up, even if they were high quality starters (the only one glued to my starting line-up was Randy Johnson). The magic number turned out to be -250 for the starting pitchers team. I beat my competition by about 4 points per starts.
I'm going to dig in to this, but I bet there's a pattern with Drake and Edmonds and that the answer to playing which one each week will lie in the betting lines.
Last edited by a moderator:
rschroeder1
Footballguy
Transparency note - I own Edmonds in both of my two leagues.
Last night's game doesn't change my perspective all that much. A caveat, I didn't watch the fourth quarter last night.
Regarding Drake: I know there are advanced stats for this, but I'll rely on anecdotal observations. He had absurd holes to attack. We know how bad the Cowboys' run defense is, and they played true to form last night. One other observation: on the somewhat-rare occasions where Drake was met in the hole with initial contact, he struggled to shake off first contact. In summary, I think it makes sense the Cardinals would try to get him going last night, but nothing I saw really changes my mind about Drake.
Regarding Edmonds: we have seen his primary fantasy value coming in the passing game. Coming into last night, he was consistently second or third in targets most games. Last night's games simply didn't require usage of drop-off passes to running backs; everybody else was wide open to start with. We may have learned he's more of a situational play without value in lopsided games, but the Cardinals figure to play a lot of competitive games, as they have all season long. The Seattle game upcoming will be a good test of this theory.
I don't have much of a choice but to start Edmonds these days due to the fun vagaries of fantasy, but I still feel good about him moving forward.
rockaction
Footballguy
Guy has 4/55 on the ground 7/87 in the air. Half PPR is 18 points plus.
Nice night if you had the stones or the necessity to throw him in there.
Nice night if you had the stones or the necessity to throw him in there.
