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!
I was thinking the same thing. I know Murray is not great but he is good. It seems a little early to worry about Washington stealing a lion's share of receptions or even a bunch of carries. Let's wait until we see what Washington can do on Sundays.
Julius Thomas, but needed a TE and have bunch of RB options. I think it was a good deal in the long run, but you never know how these trades end up.
Not sure I agree with this. I mean using this logic we can never compare rookies to anyone because they haven't played yet, so you can't discuss their chances of unseating a vet. I enjoy hearing what people think rooks will do in the pros, and think it's an important part of scouting while looking for 2nd/3rd/4th round dynasty picks. Obviously it's all opinion, but to not be able to discuss the merits of a rookies skills takes away from the discussion immensely IMO.
He doesn't have to steal a lion's share and a bunch to ruin Murray's value though, he just needs to take 5 carries a game from him and that's 80 fewer carries and say 20 catches - how valuable can Murray be losing 100 touches?
Of course people care about value. Everyone wants to know if they should buy/sell a player or not. I was curious about his value for the exact reason that there aren't very many story lines around him other than the familiar one of "Oakland wants to attract a big name back for the second year straight and failed". The overall silence coupled with their O-line being newly minted as the gold standard makes me wonder if he is a value that is being over looked right now because he's not a in the spotlight.
No it doesn't but when you factor in that they've tried to upgrade from him 2 years straight in free agency and struck out, it paints a slightly different picture. I think drafting Washington in the 5th indicates that they intend to let Murray be in the driver's seat again this year. They drafted someone to compliment him on 3rd down and to spell him in Washington. However, Washington is also a high scoring player in terms of his SPARQ score so they obviously likely picked him for his upside. The plan isn't for him to take the job but I'm sure it's an option down the road if he shows up and Murray doesn't. Murray got the vote of confidence in the draft but it probably comes with a short leash
So you'd like a message board left completely blank during the offseason - and then we can just fill in with game recaps for each player after each week is played?WheelsUp said:
You can say this about almost all GM's... They find later round steals at X position. It's a useless measuring stick, because there is no such thing as a 100% success rate. The fact is he was a 5th round pick by the ENTIRE NFL, not just 1 GM. It's not lazy, it's a fact. Every Gm has a good find in the later rounds, that doesn't make them gods among picking them.LawFitz said:
I know they pursued DeMarco last year (more like DeMarco's agent used Oakland to land a bigger contract with Philly) but who was the big name FA they pursued this offseason? The big names were Doug Martin, Lamar Miller, CJ Anderson, Matt Forte & Chris Ivory. Did Oakland make a run at any of those guys?gabes1919 said:
I'm not 100% on who it was but I seem to recall they were hard after Martin and had some interest in Ivory too. And yeah, they were all over Demarco last year
From what I can find there was one rumor coming from Rand Getlin (should I know who that is?) suggesting that the Raiders were interested in Martin, that hot take was picked up by multiple outlets, one of which speculated the interest in Ivory as well. But I can't find anything else substantive about talks about contracts or suggestions that Martin (or Ivory) even visited the Raiders. I would think there would be more to be found if they went "hard after Martin" (or Ivory). I didn't look all that hard to find more though so there might be more out there.
Yes, let's talk about points. Specifically, let's talk about how Murray's points stacked up against the rest of the players at his position.
Latavius was the 8th best RB in our league, but if you look at avg. points he was 17th. It pretty much sums up why we sold him. I really like him and thought he could do better, but I have to admit that I was disappointed. Not because he sucked, but because I didn't see ANYTHING that would make feel like he's going to be there for a long time. They might run with him this year, but the next years rookie RB group is so good, that I really doubt he will be the lead back after this year (and no, I shouldn't think that far). And I don't like one bit coaches comments about who they don't want him to be three down back. It's not like he will do better will less opportunities, right? I still like him this year as re-draft player and I like Washinton too. If I had to choose one RB from this team in dynasty it would not be Latavius.
What you aren't grasping is that this is off season dynasty talk. There are no points, it's all story line and value. How does the consensus view a guy because I want to use that to my advantage to either trade him, trade for him, or hold him. Devonta Freeman lost a ton of value in the offseason last year because of Tevin Coleman being drafted. As a result, believers in Freeman got to buy him at a massive discount and reaped the benefits. Murray's value and how we expect Murray to do next year are 2 correlated but ultimately separate things. I think the problem is that you don't get that this is a dynasty discussion.
You know who else could've done that in week 16? Brandon Weedon, Mike Gillislee, and Dontrelle Inman. They were all 1s at their position in week 16. I'd be absolutely shocked if more than 1% of leagues even had Weedon rostered let alone starting.
That would be me, along with Deangelo and Hightower in the flex. Who would have thought.
True, but I think the detail that is significant is that they are labeling Washington a 3 down back while going out of their way to not label Murray as a "complete back."He's the #2 tailback (unless you are a Reece truther-which is adorable).
He was bound to get some work with the 1's.
McKenzie for one. The best I quote I can find is Reggie remarking on his size and speed. Mularkey insinuated, about a month ago that he misused Murray. Murray was a 3 down back last year. I am not hearing him labeled as a 3 down back or complete back, while both labels have been placed on Washington.
So have other backs that shouldn't be considered 3 down backs. Maybe I am imagining it, but they don't seem happy using him as a 3 down back.massraider said:
I don't think that the team thinks he's Walter Payton. Going back to his rookie year, they have been pretty public about challenging him.
How about giving up on a 1000 yard back because the only way his value goes up more than it is now is if he surpasses that and there is evidence that suggest he might not? That evidence being that they now have 2 3rd down backs on their roster who will at least take some of that work from him if not some of his early down work too. You seem to forget that Martin had 2 bad years straight prior to this one whereas Randle was averaging 6 ypc. Maybe you bought on Randle and not Martin but that is not the case for everyone. Smart people sold Randle (or at least didn't buy more when his value skyrocketed) and even smarter people got on Martin when he was cheap or just after there was rumbling of him being in great form (when he was still cheap).WheelsUp said:
Great post, tangfoot, super data breakdown.tangfoot said:
