SI.com's Peter King calls Chester Taylor (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

Chester Taylor-RB-Vikings Feb. 15 - 11:43 am et

SI.com's Peter King calls Chester Taylor "the hidden skill-position gem of the unrestricted free-agent crop."

Taylor turns 31 in September, but he doesn't have a lot of tread on his tires the past three years. King suggests he could end up as a "solid co-number one" back for teams such as the Chargers, Redskins, or Lions. We wouldn't rule out the Patriots, either, as his strengths combine those of Sammy Morris, Kevin Faulk, and Fred Taylor. The Vikings will likely have to overpay to keep their third-down back.

Source: SI.com - per rotoworld here

 

[Dave Larkin]

I couldn't agree more with King on that one. Cecil and Sig talked about this at length on the last podcast on Thursday night. Taylor doesn't get nearly the respect he should, but the Vikings would be smart to hang on to him.

 

[Couch Potato]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries).

In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only season exceeding 160 carries in an 8-year career, and one year older than a season in which he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.

It's interesting to me that folks are calling LT washed up but Chet a gem when they are essentially in the same boat in terms of age and decline.

 

[JohnnyU]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries). In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only 300+ carry season, and one year older than last year when he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.

...and you give me crap about Matt Jones I'd say there's a greater chance that Chester Taylor can run the ball 225+ times than Matt Jones being worth a lick in the NFL. I'm pretty sure Chester Taylor can run it just as much in 2010 as Thomas Jones did in 2009 (331 times), and Taylor is a year younger.

 

[inzanitee]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries). In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only 300+ carry season, and one year older than last year when he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.

...and you give me crap about Matt Jones I'd say there's a greater chance that Chester Taylor can run the ball 225+ times than Matt Jones being worth a lick in the NFL. I'm pretty sure Chester Taylor can run it just as much in 2010 as Thomas Jones did in 2009 (331 times), and Taylor is a year younger.

I like Chester, but don't think he's as good as Thomas Jones. Not sure he'll get a shot at being the lead RB at his age, but you never know.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries). In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only season exceeding 160 carries in an 8-year career, and one year older than a season in which he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.It's interesting to me that folks are calling LT washed up but Chet a gem when they are essentially in the same boat in terms of age and decline.

This is analysis based on numbers, not watching Taylor play. Watching him this year with Minnesota, I have no doubt that he can be a very effective 1A, and he's probably one of the top 3-5 third down backs in the league when you look at his pass blocking, pass catching, and running ability.Taylor is a huge buy low right now.

 

[Balco]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries). In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only season exceeding 160 carries in an 8-year career, and one year older than a season in which he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.It's interesting to me that folks are calling LT washed up but Chet a gem when they are essentially in the same boat in terms of age and decline.

This is analysis based on numbers, not watching Taylor play. Watching him this year with Minnesota, I have no doubt that he can be a very effective 1A, and he's probably one of the top 3-5 third down backs in the league when you look at his pass blocking, pass catching, and running ability.Taylor is a huge buy low right now.

I would love for the Packers to make him an offer.

 

[Couch Potato]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries).

In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only 300+ carry season, and one year older than last year when he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.

...and you give me crap about Matt Jones I'd say there's a greater chance that Chester Taylor can run the ball 225+ times than Matt Jones being worth a lick in the NFL. I'm pretty sure Chester Taylor can run it just as much in 2010 as Thomas Jones did in 2009 (331 times), and Taylor is a year younger.

Taylor is nowhere near what Jones is physically IMO, and never has been. He's had over 160 carries just once in his career, 4 years ago. He had 93 carries last year and 101 the year before. Did you watch him run last year? He was 3.6 YPC because he's slo-o-o-o-o-w. All RBs don't hit the downside at the same time, and IMO Taylor has hit it.FWIW, the FBG news blogger added this opinion (the part in yellow) to the news blurb: "Our view: Taylor would be a great fit in Chicago, where he could split time with Matt Forte and perhaps become the lead back in that system because of his great receiving ability."

Isn't Forte's receiving ability a main strength? Personally, I think the idea that Chet will be a lead back anywhere at this stage is just nuts. 1% chance he gets 225+ carries next year. Any fantasy player targeting him with hope he'll do anything special will very likely be sadly disappointed.

 

[LOCO]

I could see him ending up as a Chief.

 

[LHUCKS]

Peter King also put Hines Ward on his all decade team over T.O. ...guy is an ########.

 

[Couch Potato]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries). In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only season exceeding 160 carries in an 8-year career, and one year older than a season in which he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.It's interesting to me that folks are calling LT washed up but Chet a gem when they are essentially in the same boat in terms of age and decline.

This is analysis based on numbers, not watching Taylor play. Watching him this year with Minnesota, I have no doubt that he can be a very effective 1A, and he's probably one of the top 3-5 third down backs in the league when you look at his pass blocking, pass catching, and running ability.Taylor is a huge buy low right now.

Wow, we couldn't disagree more as to running ability and being an effective 1A. I did watch him play, and he's got no burst at all. I guess we'll just agree to disagree, and if I owned him I'd sure be looking to move him right now if there are so many like you and JohnnyU who see this much upside.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries). In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only season exceeding 160 carries in an 8-year career, and one year older than a season in which he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.It's interesting to me that folks are calling LT washed up but Chet a gem when they are essentially in the same boat in terms of age and decline.

This is analysis based on numbers, not watching Taylor play. Watching him this year with Minnesota, I have no doubt that he can be a very effective 1A, and he's probably one of the top 3-5 third down backs in the league when you look at his pass blocking, pass catching, and running ability.Taylor is a huge buy low right now.

Nicely said, Sig.Relevant notes on Taylor's stats from '09:1. Don't forget Peterson's per-carry numbers dropped precipitously as well. Neither back was running nearly as effectively as they did the previous two seasons.2. The small sample size is skewing Taylor's average. You can have a large range of outcomes on 50-100 carries. Take Jerious Norwood, for example. He dropped from 5.1 to 3.3 YPC in 2009. Do we really think Norwood will be held under 4.0 YPC in 2010?3. I don't think you can compare Taylor's decline phase to that of Tomlinson unless you're taking the stand that workload is not a factor at all in a RB's decline.

 

[Couch Potato]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries). In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only season exceeding 160 carries in an 8-year career, and one year older than a season in which he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.It's interesting to me that folks are calling LT washed up but Chet a gem when they are essentially in the same boat in terms of age and decline.

This is analysis based on numbers, not watching Taylor play. Watching him this year with Minnesota, I have no doubt that he can be a very effective 1A, and he's probably one of the top 3-5 third down backs in the league when you look at his pass blocking, pass catching, and running ability.Taylor is a huge buy low right now.

Nicely said, Sig.Relevant notes on Taylor's stats from '09:1. Don't forget Peterson's per-carry numbers dropped precipitously as well. Neither back was running nearly as effectively as they did the previous two seasons.2. The small sample size is skewing Taylor's average. You can have a large range of outcomes on 50-100 carries. Take Jerious Norwood, for example. He dropped from 5.1 to 3.3 YPC in 2009. Do we really think Norwood will be held under 4.0 YPC in 2010?3. I don't think you can compare Taylor's decline phase to that of Tomlinson unless you're taking the stand that workload is not a factor at all in a RB's decline.

Bah! Oh you guys... Wow, it's not very often I disagree with either Bloom or F & L (and not all that often with JohnnyU for that matter), so disagreeing with both here is kind of weird. On this one we're miles apart though. So I'll just let it go and say let's see how it plays out. I won't be a Chester Taylor owner this year I'm pretty sure.

 

[vikingdave]

I just hope the Vikings can find a way to re-sign him...

 

[datonn]

Chester Taylor is substantially under-rated by a lot of people outside of Minnesota, IMHO. Heck, probably even by a lot of people in Minnesota! I'm not saying he's your next stud RB and that everyone in fantasy should be clamoring to buy low! However, in a RBBC, he is rock solid in my opinion. Startable in fantasy as a RB2 in deeper leagues? Absolutely, if he lands in the right situation and/or benefits from an injury to another player.

FWIW, I've been quietly trying to buy Albert Young in the Dollar-Store clearance bin for a while now...as if the Vikings decide to spend their money elsewhere and ADP continues to not hold on to the ball (or gets hurt) while Chester Taylor is wearing a different uni, Young could put up RB2-caliber numbers for the Purple. At least if they still have the passing game opening up opportunities for their rushing attack. The Vikings could always target another vet in free agency or rookie in the draft and blow-up that theory. However, Young has seemed to play well enough in practice, mini-camp, training camp, etc. to hold on to that RB3 role for a while now...and it wouldn't surprise me (as a homer) to see him get the promotion to RB2. Particularly if the price tag for Taylor gets uncomfortably high. FWIW.

 

[Breesisdaman]

I just hope the Vikings can find a way to re-sign him...

He has actually outplayed AD at times. He must be a top priority for the Vikes after you know who of coarse.

 

[The Captain]

I would love to see the Lions sign him to help Stafford in the passing game for the next two years. This would free up their picks to grab Defense and o-line help. Next year or the year after they grab the RB of the future.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Horsetrading. How do you think sports journalists or any journalists get a scoop or inside information? They either agree to1) Spotlight a certain issue or certain player2) Spotlight it in a certain direction3) Not run something they do know in exchange for something elseWhen you see someone who doesn't talk to the media much or become candid suddenly, it's probably happening for a reason. This is the same theory under which all the new coaching hires will get positive press by their local media during the preseason ( costs you nothing credibility wise) to buddy up/get a rapport with the new head coach, then save it down the road if you have to firebomb them in print. The media frenzy turned on guys like Millen and Zorn and Vick, not only because of their choices, but they were "easy" targets to hit. Vick was a goner in Atlanta before he got cut, the local writers had nothing to lose by torching him completely. Zorn wasn't coming back, so why try to foster that relationship? But when you have a guy like Jeff Fisher or Bill Cowher, guys who were around for a while, you have to rethink how badly you want to gut them in your article. Like any career, markers get passed back and forth and called in, sometimes King will have to owe a team a favor, sometimes a player, sometimes an agent, sometimes to appease his bosses. Sometimes someone will owe him a favor. His stock and trade is information. While people here laugh at King, he's still in print because he appeals to the general masses, the same people that players and teams try to appeal to when they want a new stadium or contract. How things are sometimes don't matter was much as how things look the the public at large. Kings real power is in his ability to frame a certain position one way or another. Michael Vick could look fully redeemed in many people's eyes if enough sportswriters got together and made it so. Now King has an in with the Vikings ( assuming he doesn't have one already) to ask about Favre or Chilly or whatnot. Pro athletes are ego driven creatures. Any exposure to the public makes many people ego driven. This is why King only goes after the "soft kills" when he criticizes ( i.e. players or teams who cannot aid him in any way or hamper his ability to access insider information) Even if you hate King, he got where he is because he knows how to play the game that has nothing to do with football.

One of the best posts I've read here. You, sir, are a smart man.

 

[moderated]

Horsetrading. How do you think sports journalists or any journalists get a scoop or inside information? They either agree to1) Spotlight a certain issue or certain player2) Spotlight it in a certain direction3) Not run something they do know in exchange for something elseWhen you see someone who doesn't talk to the media much or become candid suddenly, it's probably happening for a reason. This is the same theory under which all the new coaching hires will get positive press by their local media during the preseason ( costs you nothing credibility wise) to buddy up/get a rapport with the new head coach, then save it down the road if you have to firebomb them in print. The media frenzy turned on guys like Millen and Zorn and Vick, not only because of their choices, but they were "easy" targets to hit. Vick was a goner in Atlanta before he got cut, the local writers had nothing to lose by torching him completely. Zorn wasn't coming back, so why try to foster that relationship? But when you have a guy like Jeff Fisher or Bill Cowher, guys who were around for a while, you have to rethink how badly you want to gut them in your article. Like any career, markers get passed back and forth and called in, sometimes King will have to owe a team a favor, sometimes a player, sometimes an agent, sometimes to appease his bosses. Sometimes someone will owe him a favor. His stock and trade is information. While people here laugh at King, he's still in print because he appeals to the general masses, the same people that players and teams try to appeal to when they want a new stadium or contract. How things are sometimes don't matter was much as how things look the the public at large. Kings real power is in his ability to frame a certain position one way or another. Michael Vick could look fully redeemed in many people's eyes if enough sportswriters got together and made it so. Now King has an in with the Vikings ( assuming he doesn't have one already) to ask about Favre or Chilly or whatnot. Pro athletes are ego driven creatures. Any exposure to the public makes many people ego driven. This is why King only goes after the "soft kills" when he criticizes ( i.e. players or teams who cannot aid him in any way or hamper his ability to access insider information) Even if you hate King, he got where he is because he knows how to play the game that has nothing to do with football.

One of the best posts I've read here. You, sir, are a smart man.

 

[smackdaddies]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries). In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only season exceeding 160 carries in an 8-year career, and one year older than a season in which he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.It's interesting to me that folks are calling LT washed up but Chet a gem when they are essentially in the same boat in terms of age and decline.

This is analysis based on numbers, not watching Taylor play. Watching him this year with Minnesota, I have no doubt that he can be a very effective 1A, and he's probably one of the top 3-5 third down backs in the league when you look at his pass blocking, pass catching, and running ability.Taylor is a huge buy low right now.

I would love for the Packers to make him an offer.

Have to agree - he would be a great fit

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

From Minn.'s perspective, Taylor leaving would give them an opportunity to sign an/other player/s, as they can't sign any UFAs unless one of theirs is signed by another team.

(For the record I don't see GB as a good fit on either side.)

 

[JohnnyU]

(For the record I don't see GB as a good fit on either side.)

Ryan Grant owner?

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Taylor is going to want more playing time and more money. I don't see GB offering either.

Brandon Jackson isn't as good but is way cheaper. The upgrade wouldn't be worth the expense.

 

[JohnnyU]

Taylor is going to want more playing time and more money. I don't see GB offering either.Brandon Jackson isn't as good but is way cheaper. The upgrade wouldn't be worth the expense.

The hell with upgrading Jackson, Taylor would upgrade Grant.

 

[Tanner9919]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries). In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only season exceeding 160 carries in an 8-year career, and one year older than a season in which he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.It's interesting to me that folks are calling LT washed up but Chet a gem when they are essentially in the same boat in terms of age and decline.

and of course, he runs behind that massive vikings O-line..

 

[Resident A]

Remember 2006, the year Chester was the starter for the Vikings?

He was a no better than a RB3 for fantasy purposes, and that was when the Minnesota O-line was utterly mauling people. He had decent yardage, but only a few TDs on the year. I had him all year & he wasn't good enough to start, nor good enough to get anything good in a trade. So you think Chester starting on the Lions are in a RBBC in San Diego is going to be any better?

Temper your expectations, his upside is low-end RB2 in a 12-team league.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I disagree that he's such a gem. He's a pass catching role player like a lot of other guys in the league, and is on that slippery slope downside of his career. He is no longer an effective runner. I don't think Chet (31 next season) has what it takes to be a #1 or a co-#1 (implying, to me anyway, 200+ carries). In 2010 he'll be four years removed from his only season exceeding 160 carries in an 8-year career, and one year older than a season in which he had just a 3.6 YPC. I can't see any team with a lick of sense signing him to be more than the 100 carry and pass catching role player he is now.It's interesting to me that folks are calling LT washed up but Chet a gem when they are essentially in the same boat in terms of age and decline.

and of course, he runs behind that massive vikings O-line..

To be fair, the Vikings o-line sucked this year.But they've been great in the recent past.