Just makes for better value.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
RB Kenneth Walker III - SEA (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
Even I think this is a bit high, but just sayin......
| RotoBaller Rankings | Player Stats | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | O-Rank | Tier | Trend | Player Name | YDS | RB YPC | RUSH | REC | TD | WR YPC | REC / TAR GAME | RUSH RK |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | → | Christian McCaffrey | 1914 | 4.7 | 244 | 85 | 13 | 8.7 | 5.0/6.4 | N/A |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | → | Austin Ekeler | 1637 | 4.5 | 204 | 107 | 18 | 6.7 | 6.3/7.5 | N/A |
| 3 | 4 | 1 | → | Saquon Barkley | 1650 | 4.4 | 295 | 57 | 10 | 5.9 | 3.6/4.8 | N/A |
| 4 | 5 | 1 | → | Jonathan Taylor | 1004 | 4.5 | 192 | 28 | 4 | 5.1 | 2.5/3.6 | N/A |
| 5 | 8 | 1 | → | Kenneth Walker III | 1215 | 4.6 | 228 | 27 | 9 | 6.1 | 1.8/2.3 | N/A |
| 6 | 9 | 1 | → | Josh Jacobs | 2053 | 4.9 | 340 | 53 | 12 | 7.5 | 3.1/3.8 | N/A |
| 7 | 11 | 1 | → | Derrick Henry | 1940 | 4.4 | 349 | 33 | 13 | 12.1 | 2.1/2.6 | N/A |
| 8 | 14 | 2 | → | Bijan Robinson | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 9 | 15 | 2 | → | Breece Hall | 681 | 5.8 | 80 | 19 | 5 | 11.5 | 2.7/4.4 | N/A |
| 10 | 16 | 2 | → | Nick Chubb | 1764 | 5.0 | 302 | 27 | 13 | 8.9 | 1.6/2.2 | N/A |
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I just find "logic" like this infuriating. Please explain how any prior PAC-12 RB drafted in the second round has any effect on what Zach Charbonet does going forward?
He may fail but if he does it surely won't be because he played for UCLA and was drafted in Round 2. You may as well say he'll fail because his first name starts with Z.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Two events are said to be independent if the occurrence of one doesn't influence the probability of the occurrence of the other. In other words, given two events A and B, if A occurring or not occurring has no effect on the probability of B occurring, then we say that A and B are probabilistically independent.
eighsse2
Footballguy
I agree that college conference is likely not a good place to look for meaningful correlations. (Might be interesting to see some actual numbers mapped out, but I doubt there would be anything really stark.) But as for the probabilistic independence, sure, past Pac-12 RB's don't cause or influence success or failure of future ones. But the past examples could indicate some underlying cause, totally different from direct causation (you know this). That being said, I doubt there is in fact any significant correlation, but I'd have to see the numbers.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Yes there are plenty of traits which could influence a players success - such as weight, age, speed etc.
If you’re strictly looking at draft round, there could be some kind of correlation between when a RB is drafted and career production, although logically RBs drafted on Day 3 would be the one’s least likely to succeed, not Round 2 RBs.
However we have seen players succeed from Division II schools and/or small-time college programs like Fresno State or Fordham. We’ve seen players from SEC or BiG10 schools fail as well. Unless the PAC-12 is somehow filled (and always was) with incompetent coaching, there’s really no possibility of a causation, direct or otherwise, which would lead to RBs that played in the PAC-12 failing at the NFL level.
To say “RBs from the Pac-12” have all failed - even assuming it was true, although it was shown in the thread that is decidedly not true - so therefore Zach Charbonet will fail is a logical fallacy. It’s the same as flipping a coin 5 times and saying flip 6 will be tails because the first five were.
He is an individual - his success in the NFL will be determined by his coaching and his work ethic and skill levels.
If anyone does think there is some correlation they should definitely show their work and not just throw BS against the wall.
eighsse2
Footballguy
Yeah I'm with you on the reality of it. I don't expect there to be anything there. But even with the coin situation, if you get tails frequently enough, you start to wonder if it could be a funky coin. (ETA: At no point does the history of the coin prove that it's fair or not fair, but it can indicate the likelihood.) But to beat a dead horse, I agree, it is a seriously dubious sounding hypothesis. But if somebody has a chart showing something dramatic, by all means break it out. Like you said, nobody saying these things is showing any work, so no reason to be convinced at all.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
You gotta admit that the letter Z lags far behind most letters. And when it does do well it's obviously an outlier.
TripItUp
Footballguy
I'm not responding to you based on your tone in this thread and others. Laughing emoji etc. etc.
Not very excellent.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
There was zero tone expressed.
I laughed at one thing you said, that seemed “off” and followed it up asking for an explanation.
I just don’t think you have an answer, so it’s easier to pretend I’m being the bad guy here, because I dared to question you, than for you to ever admit you were wrong about anything. That’s ok.
Hopefully you can back up what you said to someone nicer than me then….I’m moving on.
Last edited:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Pick 4.05 in my current 1QB startup draft.
That seems really late. FFPC? Was that even in top 12 of RBs?
TripItUp
Footballguy
great value
ghostguy123
Footballguy
RB-14
Da Franchise
Footballguy
He went 4.9 as RB8 in my $1250 Tri Flex that finished a couple weeks ago. Ekeler and Jacobs were the next two picks.
I’m not sure how many backs that went after him I would prefer, but more to the point, he’s just a guy I don’t want at that kind of price and neither are the next few backs. Whether he’s RB6 or RB12, I’m not spending a startup pick on him until like the 10th round, which means I’m not getting him, and I’m completely fine with that.
I’m not sure how many backs that went after him I would prefer, but more to the point, he’s just a guy I don’t want at that kind of price and neither are the next few backs. Whether he’s RB6 or RB12, I’m not spending a startup pick on him until like the 10th round, which means I’m not getting him, and I’m completely fine with that.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
That’s a hefty price. Wow.
I don't feel there is much validity behind the "Seattle took Zach in the 2nd therefore he will play" argument.
I made the argument earlier that Pete seems to like veterans and this was a quality depth / change of pace draft pick.
Look no further than 2018.
Rashaad Penny was drafted pick 27 in 2018. 1st round.
His 2018 Game Log:
Chris Carson:
I made the argument earlier that Pete seems to like veterans and this was a quality depth / change of pace draft pick.
Look no further than 2018.
Rashaad Penny was drafted pick 27 in 2018. 1st round.
His 2018 Game Log:
| GAME | RUSHING | RECEIVING | FUMBLES | FANTASY | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPP | SCORE | ATT | YDS | Y/A | LG | TD | REC | TGT | YDS | Y/R | LG | TD | FUM | FUML | POINTS | WEEKLY FINISH | |
| Week 1 | @ DEN | L, 24-27 | 7 | 8 | 1.1 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 35 | 8.8 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.3 | 48 |
| Week 2 | @ CHI | L, 17-24 | 10 | 30 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 | 54 |
| Week 3 | vs. DAL | W, 13-24 | 3 | 5 | 1.7 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 80 |
| Week 4 | @ ARI | W, 20-17 | 9 | 49 | 5.4 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.9 | 35 |
| Week 5 | vs. LAR | L, 33-31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 101 |
| Week 6 | @ LV | W, 27-3 | 9 | 43 | 4.8 | 13 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 27 | 13.5 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.0 | 27 |
| Week 7 | BYE Week | ||||||||||||||||
| Week 8 | @ DET | W, 28-14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 94 |
| Week 9 | vs. LAC | L, 25-17 | 4 | 11 | 2.8 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 4.3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.4 | 48 |
| Week 10 | @ LAR | L, 31-36 | 12 | 108 | 9 | 38 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.8 | 15 |
| Week 11 | vs. GB | W, 24-27 | 8 | 46 | 5.8 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.6 | 33 |
| Week 12 | @ CAR | W, 30-27 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.4 | 73 |
| Week 13 | vs. SF | W, 16-43 | 7 | 65 | 9.3 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.5 | 13 |
| Week 14 | vs. MIN | W, 7-21 | 8 | 44 | 5.5 | 17 | 0 |
Chris Carson:
| GAME | RUSHING | RECEIVING | FUMBLES | FANTASY | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPP | SCORE | ATT | YDS | Y/A | LG | TD | REC | TGT | YDS | Y/R | LG | TD | FUM | FUML | POINTS | WEEKLY FINISH | |
| Week 1 | @ DEN | L, 24-27 | 7 | 51 | 7.3 | 24 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 28 | 9.3 | 14 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5.9 | 38 |
| Week 2 | @ CHI | L, 17-24 | 6 | 24 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.4 | 58 |
| Week 3 | vs. DAL | W, 13-24 | 32 | 102 | 3.2 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 22 | 11 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.4 | 6 |
| Week 4 | @ ARI | W, 20-17 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Week 5 | vs. LAR | L, 33-31 | 19 | 116 | 6.1 | 21 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.7 | 18 |
| Week 6 | @ LV | W, 27-3 | 14 | 59 | 4.2 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.9 | 33 |
| Week 7 | BYE Week | ||||||||||||||||
| Week 8 | @ DET | W, 28-14 | 25 | 105 | 4.2 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.4 | 9 |
| Week 9 | vs. LAC | L, 25-17 | 8 | 40 | 5 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.0 | 39 |
| Week 10 | @ LAR | L, 31-36 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Week 11 | vs. GB | W, 24-27 | 17 | 83 | 4.9 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 12.3 | 17 |
| Week 12 | @ CAR | W, 30-27 | 16 | 55 | 3.4 | 16 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 12.3 | 19 |
| Week 13 | vs. SF | W, 16-43 | 13 | 69 | 5.3 | 23 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 39 | 13 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.8 | 19 |
| Week 14 | vs. MIN | W, 7-21 | 22 | 90 | 4.1 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.0 | 9 |
| Week 15 | @ SF | L, 23-26 | 22 | 119 | 5.4 | 26 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 29 | 4.8 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20.8 | 7 |
| Week 16 | vs. KC | W, 31-38 | 27 | 116 | 4.3 | 17 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23.6 | 1 |
| Week 17 | vs. ARI | W, 24-27 | 19 | 122 | 6.4 | 61 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.9 | 4 |
| Totals | 247 | 1,151 | 4.7 | 61 | 9 | 20 | 24 | 163 | 8.2 | 27 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 181.4 |
From the FBG experts themselves. Seems very similar to how the board feels. Very mixed.
Reasons to be In on Ken Walker III
Reasons to be Out on Ken Walker III
Reasons to be In on Ken Walker III
- Phil Alexander: Don't let Charbonnet scare you off one of the best runners in the league. Obscene value at his current ADP.
- Jeff Bell: There is speculation he will still see the lion's share of the work, but the downside is sacrificing both goal line and passing work to Zach Charbonnet.
- Jason Wood: Charbonnet complicates things, but the ADP reaction went too far in the other direction.
- Jeff Tefertiller: The selection of Charbonnet has lowered the price too far. Walker flashed as a rookie and will be even better in 2023.
- Andy Hicks: With the Seahawks drafting another running back high, Walker has seen his draft price dip way below his actual value
Reasons to be Out on Ken Walker III
- Joey Wright: The arrival of Zach Charbonnet puts a cap on Walker’s upside and presence in the red zone.
- Ryan Weisse: Hard to pay up for a running back who could end up in a 50/50 timeshare and doesn't catch passes.
- Christian Williams: Zach Charbonnet could get a larger workload than expected, and the highest value touches may go to Charbonnet.
- Sam Wagman: It's very hard for me not to see a possible scenario where Kenneth Walker cedes enough touches to Zach Charbonnet that he is clearly unable to pay off his current ADP.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
That’s a reason to be “in”?
How do you define "lions share"?
Walker had 228 carries in 15 games last year. Averaged 4.6 yards per carry.
205 came as the starter in 11 games. An average of 19 carries per game.
Let's say he loses 3 carries per game.
16 carries a game over 17 games is still 272 carries.
272 carries at 4.6 carries per game is 1,250 yards. Five RB's had that many yards last year.
Walker is a threat. He can take it to the house every time he touches the ball. He doesn't need GL and passing downs to be very good.
And we are not even sure he is going to lose GL work yet.
Blick
Footballguy
I understand the point you've made here, but I think you're underestimating the complete lack of competition Walker had after Penny went down. Charbonnet SHOULD be tiers ahead of Tony Jones, DeeJay Dallas, or Travis Homer. I don't think it realistic to assume he only loses 3 carries per game. Further, we know he wasn't used much in the passing game and relatively poor at the goal line (only 2 of his 9 TDs came from inside the 10). It's reasonable to assume Charbonnet will be taking a large chunk of those touches which limits Walker's upside. Maybe he doesn't take a step back, but it's hard to see him improve.
rockaction
Footballguy
I think Dr. Octopus was simply making a comment about the FBG staff saying they were "in" on a guy that they concede will lose touches at the goal line and on passing downs. Usually that's not a reason to be in on a guy, and we like to hear reasons why somebody is "in" on somebody if they say they are "in."
That's what I think was going on.
That's what I think was going on.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Even if it was 70/30 split in Walker's favor, but that 30% included most passing game and goal-line packages - wouldn't that be a major hit to Walker's value? Now do a more reasonable 60/40 split.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The first part is a bit hyperbolic and the second (bolded) part is not very true in the modern NFL.
I don't think anyone believes Walker won't be the lead back and/or that he won't have value - but it just seems so disingenuous to constantly act like drafting Charbonet in Round 2 is completely meaningless to Walker's value.
Da Franchise
Footballguy
This is a good theory. The counter argument would be that Carson was incredibly steady while Walker was pretty boom or bust last year. Does he prefer veterans, or does he prefer steady production? I’m not exactly sure where I fall on that. Also, Penny broke his finger in camp and had surgery, giving Carson plenty of opportunity to take the lead in the backfield.
I don’t totally disagree with your narrative, but there are factors suggesting it’s far from predictive.
100% agree. But an expert can also feel a RB may lose touches and still be a guy they are "in" on based on something such as ADP.
I'm not. But the Penny / Carson comparison above helps my position that it may not be as bad as some of you are making it out to be either.
Penny came in with a ton of hype. A ton. And Pete stuck with what worked. I tend to think Seattle is going to stick with what they know and what works.
Edit: No hyperbole at all. Walker is explosive.
rockaction
Footballguy
Sure and agreed. So why not have that be the explanation? I get what Dr. D is saying, that's all. He's probably wondering why the guy decided to hedge like that and why they printed it when he could have said exactly what you just said. Just an observation.
Boom or bust? Possibly. His three poor scoring games last year were @LAR, @TB and SF. Every other start was productive.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The thing is most RBs can take it to the house on any carry depending on blocking and the defense. Walker’s speed isn’t on some elite level compared to a lot of other RBs.
How many RBs bust out multiple long TD runs though? If you’re counting on long TD runs for fantasy value you could end up in trouble. So, yes, to bring it up in terms of his fantasy value is a bit hyperbolic. I stand by that statement.
Last edited:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Anyway, I like Walker (he was a big part of my redraft team last season which lead the league in fantasy points) so don’t really want it to seem like I’m bashing the guy.
Last edited:
Da Franchise
Footballguy
I’m talking about real football.
Walker clocked a 4.38-second time in the 40-yard dash at the 2022 NFL Combine. That was tied for the third-fastest among running backs with Ty Chandler. Faster then Breece Hall.
He also recorded the 2nd fastest speed in the NFL last season. 22.09 MPH.
I thought 228 carries, 1,050 yards in just 11 games as a starter, 9 TD's and a 4.6 average was considered good at "real football".
Walker is good at "real football". Really good. Did you not see him at MSU? He literally carried that team on his back.
Full disclosure- I'm a fan of Walker, I think he played well last year and am still scratching my head a bit at the Charbs pick.
However, I don't think these situations are all that comparable. Yes, Penny was a high pick, but it was made after a season where they got putrid production out of the RB position. Carson was a 7th round pick who played 4 mediocre games before going on IR for the season and everyone else was worse. So they drafted Penny, who got hurt (tell me where you've heard that before) in the pre-season and Carson capitalized on it. So yes, I think Seattle is going to go with what works, but that's why they went with Carson, not because they "knew" him. On one hand that means it's likely to be a competition again this season and yes Walker can win it, on the other it can't make you feel good that they saw an entire season of admittedly good play out of Walker last year and still went out and spent pretty decent draft capital to bring in another RB.
I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that we don't know how large or exactly what roles these RBs will have, but the fact that they saw this productive, explosive RB last year but still decided to take Charbs where they did means they likely think he's better at at least some role(s) than Walker. Of course, that doesn't mean it'll play out that way, but I don't think this is identical to Carson/Penny as Carson was still an unknown.
Da Franchise
Footballguy
I said he was boom or bust. You quoted me his fantasy stats. I’m not referring to fantasy stats. I’m saying he is a home run hitter in real life who strikes out a lot. Meaning, he breaks off a lot of long runs but gets stuffed for no gain or a yard far too frequently, which could be why the drafted Charbonnet in the first place. You compared it to the Penny situation where he didn’t play right away. I’m saying that’s a valid theory, but a different and valid narrative would be that this is different because Carson was a very steady but unspectacular runner, while Walker is spectacular sometimes but far too frequently gets stuffed.
In other words, despite his overall production and fantasy status, they might actually feel the urge to get Charbonnet to play more than they did with Penny because Walker is boom or bust and that’s not Pete Carroll football.
Both are valid theories and personally I think the truth lies in the middle.
I’m not sure the Seahawks see it that way, at least not at the moment.
I find it hard to believe they’d spend a premium draft pick on a career backup.
Yes, I do. I think they saw a guy they couldn't pass up to fill a need.
I won't go as far as saying Zach is a career backup. He is good. But, for this year, I think it's Walkers backfield.
My opinion is Seattle went BPA who happened to provide good depth where they needed it.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Fair enough - he does have speed, but the point of breaking long runs still applies. Most legit RBs can score on any carry if things break right, but it's rare. How many 40 plus yards TDs can we expect?
formerfourdigit
Footballguy
without scrolling through all the thread, why are people assuming walker will cede rz/gl touches? I thought he was pretty strong there at msu and last year
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Once again this isn't at issue. I don't believe anyone in here has said Charbonet will put Walker on the bench and take the starting role. The issue is Charbonet is better in the passing game and in short yardage and those are valuable touches in fantasy football.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I agree. I don't think they used a valuable pick on Charbs because they were unhappy with Walker and wanted to replace him- but at the same time they surely didn't use a valuable pick on a RB, not to use him at all. I'm really not sure why this concept is so difficult to accept.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
It's far from a given but it's a possibility given Walker's struggles in short yardage last season and Charbs having 10 pounds on Walker. But you're right in that it's just an assumption now and not necessarily how it plays out.
Don't believe I ever stated that. I just don't think Zach will be used enough to warrant the huge drop we have seen in Walker's ADP.
Take care. At this point I am just going to sit back and see what happens.
Despite playing just 15 games, Walker led all rookies in rushing yards (4.6 YPC). A true blend of speed and power, Walker gashed defenses around the league for big plays - and made defenders miss. On the year, Walker was credited with 48 missed tackles while also not fumbling all season long. Walker rushed for 100 yards or more in five games, while generating 10 runs of 20-or-more yards. Shook broke down the Next Gen calculations, as Walker led all running backs, finishing No. 2 overall behind Chicago quarterback Justin Fields.
- Explosive score: 90
- 10+ yard runs: 29
- 10+ pct: 12.7%
- 15+ mph runs: 57
- 15+ mph pct: 25%
