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!
It's not that there are 24 rookies I like more than him. It's more that 2-3 of the ones that I like more than him will fall to that range. I think he's the next Kevin Faulk and a player with very little probability of ever becoming a reliable weekly starter. I tend to move guys like that off my roster when the opportunity arises, as I think it's better to invest in potential difference makers.
Okay, who are those guys then?I don't necessarily disagree that he isn't likely to ever become a reliable weekly starter. However, I think whoever you get with a 3rd round rookie pick is even less likely to do so.
Hmmm...so your strong sell now doesn't mean that much since you never liked him to begin with. Why should people who own him value your opinion, since you never thought he was worth owning in the first place? I respect someone much more who (you know) actually liked a player at some point in time and now is saying sell, rather than someone who was always down on the player.
So my opinion is invalid because I've been right about Vereen all along? That's interesting...I'm a Pac-12 homer and I usually have a decent handle of the talent in the conference. That's because in most cases I've been watching these guys for 2-4 years by the time they enter the draft. There's no hidden agenda or bias. I just offer an honest assessment based on what I've seen. And my assessment on Vereen is that he wasn't all that spectacular. Through two years in the NFL, there's almost no evidence that I was off-base with that judgment. So where's the problem?
Or viewed another way, you have never been open minded about him. So a player you said no one should ever buy is now a strong sell for those who didn't listen to you to begin with. And I don't agree there is "no evidence" you were off-base with your judgment - I was impressed by what I saw at the end of the season (small sample size notwithstanding). Ridley is no factor in the passing game and I see Vereen as good value at his ADP. And where's the problem? The problem is that you have a pre-existing bias on this player, and since you lack any kind of objectivity, your "strong sell" recommendation must be taken with a few pounds of salt.
Having an opinion doesn't mean you're close-minded, biased, or that you lack objectivity. It's a completely ludicrous assertion. By your logic, you should never listen to anyone who: liked, disliked, or was neutral about a player because their initial opinion discounts anything that could possibly follow.
just because it's a differing opinion of your own doesn't make it bias... that's a silly way to argue value of a player.'rude classless thugs said:
Pierce is no sure thing either. However, he showed more as a rookie than Vereen has in his entire pro career. I'd also argue that he's a better athlete. Heavier. Faster. More explosive. Truth is, you never want to wait 2-3 years on a player, but it can pay off if the player is talented enough. Pierce might be. I'd certainly give him better odds than Vereen of eventually becoming a 250+ carry back. I don't really want to beat a dead horse. My stance on Vereen is clear. If you own him right now, you have an opportunity to cash out for decent value. I'd jump on that. I think he's just a Chester Taylor/Kevin Faulk/Tashard Choice type of player. I think his perceived value hinges on one flukey game that sticks out in our memories because of its importance. Were it not for that random 3 TD explosion against Houston on national TV, we'd likely be talking about this guy as a dud and a bust like we have been for the last two years. I really think that one game inflated his value by 1-1.5 rounds in rookie draft terms. Madness. If you look at the subsequent game against Baltimore, I think that's a more realistic example of what to expect from Vereen going forward. Modest rushing totals with a couple catches here and there. Bye week filler in PPR. Nothing more. His numbers should jump up a bit in Woodhead's absence, but it won't change who he is essentially. I think we'll look back on this discussion 3-4 years down the line and realize that he was always a low ceiling backup type. That's my take and I really have nothing left to add.
I'm confused how keeping the same opinion, with no reason to change it, would mean that someone is biased? I think Peyton was always going to be fantastic -- and still think he is. I think it would be silly for someone to say "well you've always liked Peyton, so your biased in thinking that he is great".
Bias: an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias
I don't know about EBF, but I don't believe my opinion on Vereen is personal or unreasoned.
at this point in vereen's career it has been fact. which EBF has kindly pointed out multiple times backed by objectivity. there's plenty of objectivity coming from EBF on mendy too. what i find silly is that your opinion seems to be based around his being different than your own... and is also why i feel the value of your posts are severely lacking, but maybe that's just bias.ETA: took out capitalization, added punctuation.
i believe your EBF bias is getting in the way here, maybe you should take some time away from the forums.
was offered a very late 1st for him and turned it down, rather keep the player I saw play good ball.'flc735 said:
Looking at who is going in the late 1st I'd rather roll my dice with a rookie.
Said without a trace of irony.
This is what I was referring to a few pages back, when I said I didn't think Vereen would be in a better position if Ridley was injured. I would much rather have Vereen with 5-10 carries and 5-10 catches per game. Instead of 20 carries between the tackles and 2-3 catches.
It won't happen. Not often, at the very least. It's only a mismatch if a LB is covering him. Otherwise, he'd just be a really bad WR.
There's no way he's going to get 5-10 catches per game.
So you think the Houston game was a one-off, then? I'm not so sure. I mean they were able to get him matched up against a linebacker repeatedly in that game, even when Houston had to know it was coming. If the Pats are going no-huddle and putting Vereen in motion before the snap, how do you avoid having a mismatch?
In terms of overall skills, that's probably true, but in terms of outside the numbers receiving ability, Woodhead never showed anything like Vereen did in the playoffs last year. That's what's intriguing about Vereen, IMO. His targets were deep shots down the sideline, not the sort of middle of the field stuff we've seen with Woodhead and Faulk. If he can get those sort of catches on a regular basis, he could become very interesting in fantasy.Agree about 5-10 catches per game being way too high, though. 1-5 seems more likely. But even that might be enough to make him a viable RB3.Woodhead topped out at 40 last year, and he is better than Vereen.
How many times? I only remember the one reception where he lined up outside, and I think he went in motion. When that becomes a regular part of an offense, the defense would simply adjust and treat him as they would a WR. It's very hard to dictate and line your RB up with a LB on the outside. Most often the corner takes the outermost option, whether that's a WR, RB, or even a QB (wildcat). Then, they treat the WR as they do any slot option; nickle corner, or cover up with a LB who passes longer routes off to the safety. I'm not saying it can't happen from time-to-time. But he certainly won't be lining up out there enough for it to matter much fantasy wise.
The problem with that though is that there are plenty of RB's that had roles which were "complementary" at the onset. Is it really necessary to make a list of all productive RB's that didn't seize a lion's share of the load their rookie season?
EBF, you are a great poster. You add a lot more than almost anybody to this board. I have much respect for you and your opinion on players. You see an average player in Vereen. That is fair. No reasonable person is going to fault you for that opinion. Here is my point in this whole thing, though. You make statements like "his own coaches have shown no interest in getting him the ball through two years tells me a lot of what I think I need to know about him", but you mostly ignore any comments about context. Vereen was injured during training camp in his rookie year, then put on the PUP list. Imagine my lack of surprise when an injured rookie without a camp doesn't get meaningful playing time on a playoff team with a complicated offense. Then year two comes around and, from all reports, it is really a camp battle for RB1 duties. Preseason comes... and Vereen gets hurt again. Now if Vereen was a transcendent talent, he would simply win the job when he was healthy. I think it is safe to say he is not a transcendent talent, and a pretty good RB in Ridley kept the job. While it is technically correct to say he hasn't done much of anything in two years, it is misleading. Year one there was never a chance. Year two his injury put him behind the eight ball again. That is context. One cannot make sweeping judgments outside of context. Just like the stat concerning the game situations where Vereen got his carries. If Bolden got those late game blow out carries and did the same thing as Vereen, it would be his YPC that suffered. Vereen having a 4.9 YPC in all other situations is context. You have repeatedly cited Vereen's one big playoff game as the reason people still believe, and dismiss that as positive evidence... but you say that Bolden is probably better than Vereen... based on pretty much one game (against a terrible run D). Can you see how that can be construed as hypocritical? You have probably posted more about Vereen than anybody else. You seem to go out of your way to cherry pick stats or present them in the most negative light so as to bolster your opinion, then do not address very pertinent rebuttal stats and later restate your sweeping judgment stats without context. (and in another thread talk about 200 very successful carries of another RB as being too small a sample to draw conclusions about ::smackshead:: ) Bottom line is that you don't seem to apply the same standards of evaluation (regarding stats) to every player. You seem too quick to paint a negative picture for Vereen. It is good enough to say that he just doesn't look like starter material to you. I say this without a strong opinion of Vereen one way or the other. It would not surprise me at all for him to be a 3rd down RB for his whole career. But it isn't his stats so far that support that view. The grade for his stats so far is an INCOMPLETE. You are a respected guy. You don't have to fight dirty with stats to prove anything.
1. Vereen was never on the PUP list.
My bad. The point was that he was injured, missed a lot of camp, missed a lot of games. But it is true that he was not on the PUP.
Again, I am not a Vereen backer. I like him okay, I think he has a shot for relevance, probably not until Ridley gets hurt or he leaves NE. The points I am making are not to show that Vereen is great, they are to show that the stats being used as negatives are not useful for saying he is not good enough to be relevant. The other suppositions are, to say the least, arguable.
Except I was talking about Ridley, not Bolden. Even if you like Vereen, the biggest short term problem is the presence of Ridley. He is the same age as Vereen. Even though he was the lower draft pick, he has clearly surpassed him. As I mentioned previously, Ridley has received more touches than Vereen in every game that the two have played. Usually by a wide margin.
Good posting.EBF is clearly locked into a position and is merely trying to bolster it with specious proof.
If Lamar Miller had a 24 year old RB that just got 300 carries sitting on the roster, I bet you there would be slightly less enthusiasm for him.
I wouldn't think you'd have much trouble doing that. Thomas doesn't get much love for a guy drafted in the 2nd round. The main problem with Thomas is that he was drafted by a previous regime. Miller was drafted by the current GM/coaching staff.
