Targeting back-up Running Backs - from here on out (1 Viewer)

[pittstownkiller]

Okay, the purpose of this thread is to identify the present back-up that will assume the "starting role" when the end of the regular season winds down (FF Playoffs). I am not real adept at identifying large pools of talent, so I will keep my picks to just two (others have been added some not back-ups but marginally available players all):



Pierre Thomas - Thomas seems to me to be exactly where I would like him to be at this time of the season; with Ingram banged up he is putting up solid numbers while working with Sproles, not against him. I see NOR utilizing him more for the rest of the season, with him putting up good to serviceable numbers from here on out. I do see his steady climb up the rankings board, even ranked above Sproles this week. With a one game lead in their division it makes the prospect of meaningless games a little harder to discern but I have confidence in NOR to at least have some games that are decided early on and put them into cruise control. Weeks 14-17: @ TEN, @ MIN, ATL, CAR.; I see MIN, ATL, and CAR all being high scoring affairs that NOR will try to settle down with a running game, of course that is speculation but even in pass heavy games NOR utilizes their backs greatly.

Ben Tate - I don't see a lot of HOU's games, so this is just from the box score but Tate seems like a perfect guy for the late season push; Foster is too valuable to risk in meaningless games and with a two game lead in their division I am making the assumption they will have some meaning less games. Tate is already putting up really solid numbers with Foster playing, we all can see what he would put up with more carries. Tate is the big fish to target that I see. Weeks 14-17: @ CIN, CAR, @ IND, TEN; that week 16 match-up at IND looks awfully juicy from here.

Hunter- this is an interesting pick to me as SFO's record and Gore's injury history leads me to believe that Harbaugh would be prudent in giving Gore a rest; even thought there are others in this thread that disagree with how Harbaugh will handle Gore at the end of the season. @ARI, PIT, @SEA, @GBP.

D. Lewis - I see more troubles with this pick than I like, as I don't see PHI either in it, or out of it, by enough to get Lewis involved...yet. @MIA, NYJ, @DAL, WAS.

Best - As I have said Best is the one that I think DET will rest, if they can, and I would imagine his present owner will have to hold on to him as the offers for him would not be very strong. MIN, @OAK, SD, @OAK.

F. Jones - Much like Best situation there are to many questions for me to answer here for me to look to him past others. I just don't know what the pecking order is in DAL, is Jones or Murray the starter? NYJ, @TBB, PHI, @NYG.



Lynch, Benson, Blount - I agree that Lynch has a sweet schedule at the end of the year but as a low end #1/high end #2 most weeks, he would require you to take apart your team at some level to acquire. Benson and Blount fall into the same category to me.

Lynch: STL, @CHI, SF, @ARI.

Benson: HOU, @STL, ARI, BAL.

Blount: @JAX, DAL, @CAR, @ATL.

Starks - could be had for a low price and GNB almost certainly will rest their starters; is Starks one of them? OAK, @KC, CHI, DET.

Battle - KC is a team that I don't see being good enough to pull away and getting into resting their starters but Battle may be a good pick for other reasons. @NYJ, DAL, @CAR, @ATL.

Present ranking for me is (based on availability and value0:

[*]Tate

[*]Hunter

[*]P. Thomas

[*]The rest (meaning their cost, schedule, status, standings, or their output, marginalizes the rewards).

If there starts to be more than a few names here I'll try to start a "pole". "Pole" coming.

As for my personal situation; I have one trade left, I can use it now and hopefully pick the "Playoff Star", or save it for the playoffs and pick up the weekly match-up pick - by trying to identify this talent now I could achieve both.

*If you can include your running back's schedule and your reasoning for your pick it will be helpful.

If this is a honda, then mods delete, but you try to do a search with running back or targeting in it.

*Edit 11/9

Edited to add in additional names. 11/10

Edit 11/13 to adjust Hunter's rank

 

[jonboltz]

Marshawn Lynch has a fantastic schedule from week 11-14, but a marginal and difficult matchup in weeks 15/16.

James Starks has a favorable schedule after this coming week.

 

[bengalbuck]

Cedric Benson?

 

[jdelsas]

Kendall Hunter - The 49ers may choose to sit Gore around FF playoff time if they breeze through their division like everyone thinks is going to happen. Hunter has pretty good talent but is currently in Gore's shadow. I drafted Hunter along with Gore initially for injury concerns, but now I am holding him mainly for the playoffs (if SF does choose to bench Gore the last few games).

 

[pittstownkiller]

Cedric Benson?

Give your reasoning.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Kendall Hunter - The 49ers may choose to sit Gore around FF playoff time if they breeze through their division like everyone thinks is going to happen. Hunter has pretty good talent but is currently in Gore's shadow. I drafted Hunter along with Gore initially for injury concerns, but now I am holding him mainly for the playoffs (if SF does choose to bench Gore the last few games).

I do like this pick. Can you post SFO week 14-17 games and your analysis.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Marshawn Lynch has a fantastic schedule from week 11-14, but a marginal and difficult matchup in weeks 15/16.James Starks has a favorable schedule after this coming week.

Starks might be tough to rest away from someone, as he is GNB starting running back; I'm sure it could be done but it would cost.Lynch, fortunately or unfortunately, has had just enough success that it may also be hard to wrest him away from an owner.

 

[jonboltz]

Marshawn Lynch has a fantastic schedule from week 11-14, but a marginal and difficult matchup in weeks 15/16.James Starks has a favorable schedule after this coming week.

Starks might be tough to rest away from someone, as he is GNB starting running back; I'm sure it could be done but it would cost.Lynch, fortunately or unfortunately, has had just enough success that it may also be hard to wrest him away from an owner.

Sorry, I didn't read through the OP carefully enough to realize you were looking mostly for backup RBs.

 

[Ariakis]

Dion Lewis if McCoy gets hurt.

Not sure I'm ready to give up on McCluster yet if they ever figure out how to use him.

JStew is on my trade target list too.

 

[Shutout]

I would agree with Pierre. He could be in the mix easily.

Your post says back-ups that will assume the starting spot down the stretch. It did not specify expecting an injury. Barring injury, Tate will not factor in that way. I know you said you were looking at box scores mostly on this info. Foster is clearly the RB in Houston. Tate is playing the backup roll and his really nice box score from this past week was very fluky. He came in to spell foster on the 27, which is typical. They will do that right outside the redzone because they always want foster in there when they get inside the 20. In this case, tate happened to break a 27 yard TD. Had he ran for a few yards or they did whatever to get inside the 20, Tate's line would have been far less appealing. It was just the randomness of it. Foster also has had a TD vultured by Shaub the past few weeks with short runs by the QB. I just bring that up to state that Foster is in the game in those goal line situations and to mention that he could easily have one additional TD the past few weeks. He (Foster) definitely IS the focal point of the offense.

When AJ returns, I think you could look at matchups and find games where both Foster and Tate will be utilized enough to make both playable, but not to the point where you want to grab Tate with the idea of using him down the stretch.

I can see the Kendall Hunter situation being a coin flip; can be effective if he is playing but can't possibly predict he will get the chance.

THE three guys I would look at picking up cheaper than they should be available right now are Best, Felix, and Jackie battle. I know these are not necessarily back-ups names but all are in the range of what you are looking for.

Battle, I believe is going to be right there with his team in a dog fight for the division so I think they use him. Less upside with him, but in the FF playoffs, even guys that end up with 10-12 points are very valuable.

The Lions have the look of a team that is going to be "all hands on deck" trying to make the playoffs and if Best (who I think people would part with cheaper than they should) is healthy enough to play, he might blow up in a late FF playoff game (playoff games against the Vikes, then raiders, then Chargers). that last game or two especially could be very meaningful shootout type games and that last one is on home turf.

I say the Lions will be all hands on deck because they aren't going to win the division so that puts the squarely in play as a wild card against other good teams with good records that won't be winning their divisions such as either the Saints/Falcons/Bucs, the Cowboys if they keep improving, and the Bears.

I say felix because he is cheaper now and the cowboys are in the same spot the Lions are in and I think it is assumed yet not proven that Felix just takes a back seat to Murray. Murray has been impressive, but he hasn't exactly been running over the best teams. He had a massive game against the lost rams, a good, but not great game against the Eagles (a team most say is very soft against the run), and then a very good game against the Seahawks. In all, not enough to annoint a guy and Murray himself has had his own injury concerns. Thinking of that and the fact that felix is an attractive PPR player, he could be helpful. Week 15 and 16 is Bucs and Eagles. Both of those games could be HUGE for any chance Dallas has and the way the Eagles like to bring pressure, I could easily see a situation where Felix catches a good handful of short passes (again, in PPR I like him much better...not banking on him to be a yardage monster by any means).

 

[pittstownkiller]

Marshawn Lynch has a fantastic schedule from week 11-14, but a marginal and difficult matchup in weeks 15/16.James Starks has a favorable schedule after this coming week.

Starks might be tough to rest away from someone, as he is GNB starting running back; I'm sure it could be done but it would cost.Lynch, fortunately or unfortunately, has had just enough success that it may also be hard to wrest him away from an owner.

Sorry, I didn't read through the OP carefully enough to realize you were looking mostly for backup RBs.

No problem. I think that Starks and Lynch are both able to listed here, as neither has really tore it up, and may be had for a price; I am looking for RB's that are approximately WW level though.

 

[zamboni]

With regard to clear backups like Tate and Hunter, those expecting them to get significant work for more than week 17 - maybe week 16 - are going to be disappointed IMO. I don't see Gore or Foster sitting for significant stretches until the very end of the season.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I would agree with Pierre. He could be in the mix easily.Your post says back-ups that will assume the starting spot down the stretch. It did not specify expecting an injury. Barring injury, Tate will not factor in that way. I know you said you were looking at box scores mostly on this info. Foster is clearly the RB in Houston. Tate is playing the backup roll and his really nice box score from this past week was very fluky. He came in to spell foster on the 27, which is typical. They will do that right outside the redzone because they always want foster in there when they get inside the 20. In this case, tate happened to break a 27 yard TD. Had he ran for a few yards or they did whatever to get inside the 20, Tate's line would have been far less appealing. It was just the randomness of it. Foster also has had a TD vultured by Shaub the past few weeks with short runs by the QB. I just bring that up to state that Foster is in the game in those goal line situations and to mention that he could easily have one additional TD the past few weeks. He (Foster) definitely IS the focal point of the offense.When AJ returns, I think you could look at matchups and find games where both Foster and Tate will be utilized enough to make both playable, but not to the point where you want to grab Tate with the idea of using him down the stretch. I can see the Kendall Hunter situation being a coin flip; can be effective if he is playing but can't possibly predict he will get the chance. THE three guys I would look at picking up cheaper than they should be available right now are Best, Felix, and Jackie battle. I know these are not necessarily back-ups names but all are in the range of what you are looking for. Battle, I believe is going to be right there with his team in a dog fight for the division so I think they use him. Less upside with him, but in the FF playoffs, even guys that end up with 10-12 points are very valuable.The Lions have the look of a team that is going to be "all hands on deck" trying to make the playoffs and if Best (who I think people would part with cheaper than they should) is healthy enough to play, he might blow up in a late FF playoff game (playoff games against the Vikes, then raiders, then Chargers). that last game or two especially could be very meaningful shootout type games and that last one is on home turf.I say the Lions will be all hands on deck because they aren't going to win the division so that puts the squarely in play as a wild card against other good teams with good records that won't be winning their divisions such as either the Saints/Falcons/Bucs, the Cowboys if they keep improving, and the Bears.I say felix because he is cheaper now and the cowboys are in the same spot the Lions are in and I think it is assumed yet not proven that Felix just takes a back seat to Murray. Murray has been impressive, but he hasn't exactly been running over the best teams. He had a massive game against the lost rams, a good, but not great game against the Eagles (a team most say is very soft against the run), and then a very good game against the Seahawks. In all, not enough to annoint a guy and Murray himself has had his own injury concerns. Thinking of that and the fact that felix is an attractive PPR player, he could be helpful. Week 15 and 16 is Bucs and Eagles. Both of those games could be HUGE for any chance Dallas has and the way the Eagles like to bring pressure, I could easily see a situation where Felix catches a good handful of short passes (again, in PPR I like him much better...not banking on him to be a yardage monster by any means).

Interesting take. Do you not feel that HOU can pull away enough to rest their starters, they have to know that an injury to Foster and it is all but over; Same could be said for Gore with SFO, for all intents and purposes, already having clinched a playoff spot with a 5 game lead in the loss column. Best could be had but still hasn't seen the field and with DET making new signings it can't be a good sign; not to mention if DET stabilizes their playoff position, I think that Best is the one they would rest. Felix is an interesting choice, as everyone attention is clearly on Murray, but who becomes the lead back and who is the on they are resting if DAL could get to meaningless games (doubtful, unless they are out of it).

 

[bengalbuck]

Cedric Benson?

Give your reasoning.

A lot of people have playoff byes week 14, where he has a mediocre matchup home vs. Houston.Week 15 and 16 he has @St. Louis and Arizona. The Arizona game, FF super bowl week, is at home and its likely to be very cold in late December in Cincy. Arizona will have nothing to play for and their D is pretty bad anyway. Just a gut feeling, but that looks like a 120 yard, 2 TD day for Cedric.He'd be the type of guy I'd target in leagues with a trade deadline approaching if you feel like you're pretty locked into a top 2 seed and may need another option at RB2. He won't cost you a fortune (schedule the next few weeks is tough) and he has less value to a team struggling just to get into the playoffs right now than to a team that can wait for those great matchups.(Note too that even though the Balt/Pitt matchups don't look great, the Bengals always seem to put up pretty good rushing #s against those teams. People would probably be pretty shocked if they saw Marvin Lewis' career record vs. the Ravens and how many of those wins came with big offensive days.)

 

[shadyridr]

Jim Harbaugh wont rest his starters even if they have clinched a bye IMO

 

[shadyridr]

Cedric Benson?

Give your reasoning.

A lot of people have playoff byes week 14, where he has a mediocre matchup home vs. Houston.Week 15 and 16 he has @St. Louis and Arizona. The Arizona game, FF super bowl week, is at home and its likely to be very cold in late December in Cincy. Arizona will have nothing to play for and their D is pretty bad anyway. Just a gut feeling, but that looks like a 120 yard, 2 TD day for Cedric.He'd be the type of guy I'd target in leagues with a trade deadline approaching if you feel like you're pretty locked into a top 2 seed and may need another option at RB2. He won't cost you a fortune (schedule the next few weeks is tough) and he has less value to a team struggling just to get into the playoffs right now than to a team that can wait for those great matchups.(Note too that even though the Balt/Pitt matchups don't look great, the Bengals always seem to put up pretty good rushing #s against those teams. People would probably be pretty shocked if they saw Marvin Lewis' career record vs. the Ravens and how many of those wins came with big offensive days.)

Did this two weeks ago (traded DThomas straight up for him). Im currently the #1 seed.

 

[pittstownkiller]

With regard to clear backups like Tate and Hunter, those expecting them to get significant work for more than week 17 - maybe week 16 - are going to be disappointed IMO. I don't see Gore or Foster sitting for significant stretches until the very end of the season.

That's why schedules and standings plays so heavy into this. As soon as teams make the playoffs their focus has to turn to winning the playoffs; a team such as SFO is so much better with Gore. how could they continue to risk him in meaningless games, especially with his injury history?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Jim Harbaugh wont rest his starters even if they have clinched a bye IMO

I always appreciate your analysis but it would behoove SFO to get Hunter more carries in almost every circumstance that I can logically conclude and that doesn't even include Gore's lengthy and consistent injury history; I can't speak to Harbaugh's college, run-up the score, mentality though.

 

[Bayhawks]

With regard to clear backups like Tate and Hunter, those expecting them to get significant work for more than week 17 - maybe week 16 - are going to be disappointed IMO. I don't see Gore or Foster sitting for significant stretches until the very end of the season.

That's why schedules and standings plays so heavy into this. As soon as teams make the playoffs their focus has to turn to winning the playoffs; a team such as SFO is so much better with Gore. how could they continue to risk him in meaningless games, especially with his injury history?

Because some/many coaches suscribe to the theory of playing your game EVERY week, in order to prevent your players from becoming complacent/"rusty." We don't have any track record with regards to Harbaugh(SF) & how he'd handle this situation. Based on his persona, I would assume he's going to try to win every game, and not rest players in weeks 17, let alone 14-16.

 

[angman]

Something to consider about Tate is that Houston (in looking at their sched) has a very realistic shot at getting the 2 seed and a bye in the playoffs. If that's within reach, they may not rest Foster.

That said, Tate definitely has value because there are going to be games down the stretch (Week 16 at Indy as an example) where both Foster and Tate will be productive.

 

[Akira]

That's why schedules and standings plays so heavy into this. As soon as teams make the playoffs their focus has to turn to winning the playoffs; a team such as SFO is so much better with Gore. how could they continue to risk him in meaningless games, especially with his injury history?

There's a big difference between simply making the playoffs and being one of the top seeds in your division. You do realize the top two teams get a bye as well as a home game? Even if the Niners secure a playoff spot in the next few weeks, they will still be playing for either the #1 or #2 seed in the NFC and home field advantage.In your worst case scenario, the Niners win out. Well, the Packers play Detroit in week 17 and if they lose that game, the Niners get the #1 seed in the NFC, a bye, and home field advantage throughout the playoffs. In other words, the Niners will be competing in and playing every game as a must win from here on out, regardless of whether they have a playoff spot guaranteed or not. Hunter will probably not see much more playing time assuming Gore is healthy.

 

[packersfan]

That's why schedules and standings plays so heavy into this. As soon as teams make the playoffs their focus has to turn to winning the playoffs; a team such as SFO is so much better with Gore. how could they continue to risk him in meaningless games, especially with his injury history?

There's a big difference between simply making the playoffs and being one of the top seeds in your division. You do realize the top two teams get a bye as well as a home game? Even if the Niners secure a playoff spot in the next few weeks, they will still be playing for either the #1 or #2 seed in the NFC and home field advantage.In your worst case scenario, the Niners win out. Well, the Packers play Detroit in week 17 and if they lose that game, the Niners get the #1 seed in the NFC, a bye, and home field advantage throughout the playoffs. In other words, the Niners will be competing in and playing every game as a must win from here on out, regardless of whether they have a playoff spot guaranteed or not. Hunter will probably not see much more playing time assuming Gore is healthy.

Bingo. The Niners aren't just battling for a playoff spot; they're in the hunt for homefield advantage. Given how weak their division is, that's a very realistic goal if they continue to play as they have so far. I think it's safe to say that if they had to play the Packers in the NFC Title Game they'd much rather have it in S.F. than traveling to Lambeau.

 

[two_dollars]

That's why schedules and standings plays so heavy into this. As soon as teams make the playoffs their focus has to turn to winning the playoffs; a team such as SFO is so much better with Gore. how could they continue to risk him in meaningless games, especially with his injury history?

There's a big difference between simply making the playoffs and being one of the top seeds in your division. You do realize the top two teams get a bye as well as a home game? Even if the Niners secure a playoff spot in the next few weeks, they will still be playing for either the #1 or #2 seed in the NFC and home field advantage.In your worst case scenario, the Niners win out. Well, the Packers play Detroit in week 17 and if they lose that game, the Niners get the #1 seed in the NFC, a bye, and home field advantage throughout the playoffs. In other words, the Niners will be competing in and playing every game as a must win from here on out, regardless of whether they have a playoff spot guaranteed or not. Hunter will probably not see much more playing time assuming Gore is healthy.

 

[pittstownkiller]

With regard to clear backups like Tate and Hunter, those expecting them to get significant work for more than week 17 - maybe week 16 - are going to be disappointed IMO. I don't see Gore or Foster sitting for significant stretches until the very end of the season.

That's why schedules and standings plays so heavy into this. As soon as teams make the playoffs their focus has to turn to winning the playoffs; a team such as SFO is so much better with Gore. how could they continue to risk him in meaningless games, especially with his injury history?

Because some/many coaches suscribe to the theory of playing your game EVERY week, in order to prevent your players from becoming complacent/"rusty." We don't have any track record with regards to Harbaugh(SF) & how he'd handle this situation. Based on his persona, I would assume he's going to try to win every game, and not rest players in weeks 17, let alone 14-16.

You're making the assumption that SFO can't win a game without Gore on the field; that is a conclusion I can't make. What about the old IND move of one quarter of play for the starters? I think that the more opportunities you can hand to Hunter the stronger SFO is, with regards to bench strength this year and to know what they have for next year - SFO certainly cannot experiment in their own playoffs like they can at the end of the season.

 

[zamboni]

With regard to clear backups like Tate and Hunter, those expecting them to get significant work for more than week 17 - maybe week 16 - are going to be disappointed IMO. I don't see Gore or Foster sitting for significant stretches until the very end of the season.

That's why schedules and standings plays so heavy into this. As soon as teams make the playoffs their focus has to turn to winning the playoffs; a team such as SFO is so much better with Gore. how could they continue to risk him in meaningless games, especially with his injury history?

Because some/many coaches suscribe to the theory of playing your game EVERY week, in order to prevent your players from becoming complacent/"rusty."

Exactly. We've seen with increasing regularity that, by and large, coaches generally don't fully sit players until week 17. Sure there are a few exceptions if a guy is really banged up, but players tend to play even if a playoff spot is secured a few weeks early.

 

[Akira]

You're making the assumption that SFO can't win a game without Gore on the field; that is a conclusion I can't make. What about the old IND move of one quarter of play for the starters? I think that the more opportunities you can hand to Hunter the stronger SFO is, with regards to bench strength this year and to know what they have for next year - SFO certainly cannot experiment in their own playoffs like they can at the end of the season.

The Colts sat their starters because they either had the #1 or #2 seed in the AFC wrapped up prior to the end of the season and thus their remaining games wouldn't affect their playoff seeding. If the Packers keep winning, the Niners drop a game or two, and the Giants, Lions, and Saints completely self destruct thus giving the Niners the #2 seed with a game or two left then I could see the Niners reducing Gore's workload. I don't see that happening though. I can see the Niners giving Hunter more carries if they have a big lead towards the end of games, but if the game is close and Gore is healthy he'll be in there.

 

[nyy45]

I don't know if I am sold on PT considering the competition in that backfield with Sproles and Ivory, not to mention Ingram looming to come back down the stretch. I was actaully offered Roddy and PT for Nicks in one of my 2-keeper leagues. I'm considering it but I was concerned that PT was an easy sell high canidate..

 

[pittstownkiller]

That's why schedules and standings plays so heavy into this. As soon as teams make the playoffs their focus has to turn to winning the playoffs; a team such as SFO is so much better with Gore. how could they continue to risk him in meaningless games, especially with his injury history?

There's a big difference between simply making the playoffs and being one of the top seeds in your division. You do realize the top two teams get a bye as well as a home game? Even if the Niners secure a playoff spot in the next few weeks, they will still be playing for either the #1 or #2 seed in the NFC and home field advantage.In your worst case scenario, the Niners win out. Well, the Packers play Detroit in week 17 and if they lose that game, the Niners get the #1 seed in the NFC, a bye, and home field advantage throughout the playoffs. In other words, the Niners will be competing in and playing every game as a must win from here on out, regardless of whether they have a playoff spot guaranteed or not. Hunter will probably not see much more playing time assuming Gore is healthy.

Bingo. The Niners aren't just battling for a playoff spot; they're in the hunt for homefield advantage. Given how weak their division is, that's a very realistic goal if they continue to play as they have so far. I think it's safe to say that if they had to play the Packers in the NFC Title Game they'd much rather have it in S.F. than traveling to Lambeau.

Fair enough and to say "meaningless games" might not have been the best choice of words but every season there are backups that run wild the last couple of games of the season, and there will be a select few this season, I am just trying to identify them. If having a big cushy lead isn't a time to balance out your running game, then maybe you target a team that has nothing to play for but I generally stay clear of teams that are not good to begin with. SFO is already chasing GNB for home field, who do you think realistically will lose first? One more loss by SFO and you would have to have GNB lose two just to tie. GNB has some difficult games with NYG, CHI, and to a lesser extent DET (2) but SFO has NYG too, along with BAL and PIT: do you really see them challenging GNB for home field? I guess the argument could revert to maintaining a lead over the other division leaders but I guarantee you somewhere there will be a backup, that is thrust into the starting lineup without an injury taking place, that will produce big; just trying to divine who that might be.

 

[statman]

Okay, the purpose of this thread is to identify the present back-up that will assume the "starting role" when the end of the regular season winds down (FF Playoffs). I am not real adept at identifying large pools of talent, so I will keep my picks to just two:



Pierre Thomas - Thomas seems to me to be exactly where I would like him to be at this time of the season; with Ingram banged up he is putting up solid numbers while working with Sproles, not against him. I see NOR utilizing him more for the rest of the season, with him putting up good to serviceable numbers from here on out. I do see his steady climb up the rankings board, even ranked above Sproles this week. With a one game lead in their division it makes the prospect of meaningless games a little harder to discern but I have confidence in NOR to at least have some games that are decided early on and put them into cruise control. Weeks 14-17: @ TEN, @ MIN, ATL, CAR.; I see MIN, ATL, and CAR all being high scoring affairs that NOR will try to settle down with a running game, of course that is speculation but even in pass heavy games NOR utilizes their backs greatly.

I just don't see Pierre getting more than 12-15 touches, tops. Don't discount Chris Ivory here. Just look at last week. Ivory had 15 carries. In the 2 games that Ingram has missed, Thomas has 11 and 12 touches. Sean Payton is NEVER going to feed Pierre the ball, unless an in-game injury occurs. He will have to rely on a TD to put up more than about 6 or 8 points in non-PPR.

 

[packersfan]

That's why schedules and standings plays so heavy into this. As soon as teams make the playoffs their focus has to turn to winning the playoffs; a team such as SFO is so much better with Gore. how could they continue to risk him in meaningless games, especially with his injury history?

There's a big difference between simply making the playoffs and being one of the top seeds in your division. You do realize the top two teams get a bye as well as a home game? Even if the Niners secure a playoff spot in the next few weeks, they will still be playing for either the #1 or #2 seed in the NFC and home field advantage.In your worst case scenario, the Niners win out. Well, the Packers play Detroit in week 17 and if they lose that game, the Niners get the #1 seed in the NFC, a bye, and home field advantage throughout the playoffs. In other words, the Niners will be competing in and playing every game as a must win from here on out, regardless of whether they have a playoff spot guaranteed or not. Hunter will probably not see much more playing time assuming Gore is healthy.

Bingo. The Niners aren't just battling for a playoff spot; they're in the hunt for homefield advantage. Given how weak their division is, that's a very realistic goal if they continue to play as they have so far. I think it's safe to say that if they had to play the Packers in the NFC Title Game they'd much rather have it in S.F. than traveling to Lambeau.

Fair enough and to say "meaningless games" might not have been the best choice of words but every season there are backups that run wild the last couple of games of the season, and there will be a select few this season, I am just trying to identify them. If having a big cushy lead isn't a time to balance out your running game, then maybe you target a team that has nothing to play for but I generally stay clear of teams that are not good to begin with. SFO is already chasing GNB for home field, who do you think realistically will lose first? One more loss by SFO and you would have to have GNB lose two just to tie. GNB has some difficult games with NYG, CHI, and to a lesser extent DET (2) but SFO has NYG too, along with BAL and PIT: do you really see them challenging GNB for home field? I guess the argument could revert to maintaining a lead over the other division leaders but I guarantee you somewhere there will be a backup, that is thrust into the starting lineup without an injury taking place, that will produce big; just trying to divine who that might be.

I agree it's very likely to happen. I just think for that guy to be Hunter he'll need a Gore injury, especially if we're talking about players being rested in Week 16 which I'm assuming we are since many fantasy leagues don't play in Week 17.

 

[Akira]

Fair enough and to say "meaningless games" might not have been the best choice of words but every season there are backups that run wild the last couple of games of the season, and there will be a select few this season, I am just trying to identify them. If having a big cushy lead isn't a time to balance out your running game, then maybe you target a team that has nothing to play for but I generally stay clear of teams that are not good to begin with. SFO is already chasing GNB for home field, who do you think realistically will lose first? One more loss by SFO and you would have to have GNB lose two just to tie. GNB has some difficult games with NYG, CHI, and to a lesser extent DET (2) but SFO has NYG too, along with BAL and PIT: do you really see them challenging GNB for home field? I guess the argument could revert to maintaining a lead over the other division leaders but I guarantee you somewhere there will be a backup, that is thrust into the starting lineup without an injury taking place, that will produce big; just trying to divine who that might be.

The Packers are the only team that might give their starters more rest towards the end of season if they get the #1 seed wrapped up early. If the Packers are 13-0 and the Niners/Saints/Giants are 10-3, Rodgers probably won't play the entire game against the Chiefs especially if they build a big lead by halftime. Could be worse if they are 14-0 against Chicago if the next closest team is 11-3. Not sure who would be the guy to pick up. Maybe Donald Driver or James Jones? Regardless, if you own a lot of Packers you should be hoping for either the Packers to lose a game (if you're not a Packers fan) or for the Niners to keep winning.I could see the Falcons giving more work to Jacquizz Rodgers if they fall out of playoff contention, but that would take a lot of losses for that to happen. Same with Ricky Williams in Baltimore if they can secure the #1 or 2 seed early. But even then we're probably only talking about week 17.

 

[Sabertooth]

Marshawn Lynch has a fantastic schedule from week 11-14, but a marginal and difficult matchup in weeks 15/16.James Starks has a favorable schedule after this coming week.

I'm going to try an pair Lynch with Tate. Lynch can get you there, and Tate is a high upside wildcard who is actually startable even with Foster healthy. If Foster got hurt, upside is literally #1 RB in sport.

 

[andrew11]

How about Blount? Should be the bell cow and remain in for a lot of 3rd downs now that Graham is out of the picture. Weeks 13-16 his schedule is Carolina, @Jacksonville, Dallas, @Carolina.

 

[Shutout]

Fair enough and to say "meaningless games" might not have been the best choice of words but every season there are backups that run wild the last couple of games of the season, and there will be a select few this season, I am just trying to identify them. If having a big cushy lead isn't a time to balance out your running game, then maybe you target a team that has nothing to play for but I generally stay clear of teams that are not good to begin with. SFO is already chasing GNB for home field, who do you think realistically will lose first? One more loss by SFO and you would have to have GNB lose two just to tie. GNB has some difficult games with NYG, CHI, and to a lesser extent DET (2) but SFO has NYG too, along with BAL and PIT: do you really see them challenging GNB for home field? I guess the argument could revert to maintaining a lead over the other division leaders but I guarantee you somewhere there will be a backup, that is thrust into the starting lineup without an injury taking place, that will produce big; just trying to divine who that might be.

The Packers are the only team that might give their starters more rest towards the end of season if they get the #1 seed wrapped up early. If the Packers are 13-0 and the Niners/Saints/Giants are 10-3, Rodgers probably won't play the entire game against the Chiefs especially if they build a big lead by halftime. Could be worse if they are 14-0 against Chicago if the next closest team is 11-3. Not sure who would be the guy to pick up. Maybe Donald Driver or James Jones? Regardless, if you own a lot of Packers you should be hoping for either the Packers to lose a game (if you're not a Packers fan) or for the Niners to keep winning.I could see the Falcons giving more work to Jacquizz Rodgers if they fall out of playoff contention, but that would take a lot of losses for that to happen. Same with Ricky Williams in Baltimore if they can secure the #1 or 2 seed early. But even then we're probably only talking about week 17.

You dont' think if they are 13-0 they chase the undefeated season? Maybe I am biased on this one but the year that the colts were undefeated and then rested seemed to undo them permanently. they haven't been right since. I think there is something to it about keeping the momentum and the "edgE", etc. I kind of think (as a non-Packer fan looking in) that because they are the Packers and all they mean to their fans and the sport in general that there would be a very real pressure for them to go undefeated if they can.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Dion Lewis if McCoy gets hurt.

Not sure I'm ready to give up on McCluster yet if they ever figure out how to use him.

JStew is on my trade target list too.

I would say that Lewis will get into the mix, without a McCoy injury, unless PHI can right their ship and start winning games.

 

[Sabertooth]

Marshawn Lynch has a fantastic schedule from week 11-14, but a marginal and difficult matchup in weeks 15/16.James Starks has a favorable schedule after this coming week.

I'm going to try an pair Lynch with Tate. Lynch can get you there, and Tate is a high upside wildcard who is actually startable even with Foster healthy. If Foster got hurt, upside is literally #1 RB in sport.

Yeah for me. My plan is coming together after getting Tate today. I really do think Tate and Lynch make a nice handcuff setup as an RB2 by committee. If Foster does happen to go down, you are gold. Even if he doesn't they play Carolina and Indy in weeks 15 and 16. Tate will see action in those games.

 

[Bayhawks]

You're making the assumption that SFO can't win a game without Gore on the field; that is a conclusion I can't make. What about the old IND move of one quarter of play for the starters? I think that the more opportunities you can hand to Hunter the stronger SFO is, with regards to bench strength this year and to know what they have for next year - SFO certainly cannot experiment in their own playoffs like they can at the end of the season.

With respect to the bolded, no I'm not. SF is winning because they are playing tough D, pounding the ball on the ground, and asking Alex Smith to manage the game, not carry the team.You're suggesting that taking away an All-Pro RB, (who has 5 consecutive 100 yard games) & replacing him with an uproven rookie is an idea that Harbaugh, a rookie coach who seems to be extremely competitive would endorse. I'm merely suggesting that I highly doubt he will.

What about the old IND move of one quarter of play for the starters?

That didn't work out that well for them. The only year they won the SB was when they had to play their starters in all their games. Anectdotal evidence suggests that you need your players sharp. Obviously if they are hurt, you rest them, but if they are healthy, they should play, because with (essentially) 2 weeks off (assuming they have a bye and rest week 17), the rust causes problems.

I think that the more opportunities you can hand to Hunter the stronger SFO is, with regards to bench strength this year and to know what they have for next year

You're trying to analyze the situation from an outside perspective. It doesn't matter if you think SF would be better by seeing if they can trust Hunter or not. You have no vested interest in winning/losing these games. These coaches do. Harbaugh knows that having Gore at RB gives him a better chance to win than having Hunter there. That's a fact, and it's a fact that will (almost) undoubtedly prevent Harbaugh from utilizing this strategy you're endorsing.

 

[Bayhawks]

Fair enough and to say "meaningless games" might not have been the best choice of words but every season there are backups that run wild the last couple of games of the season, and there will be a select few this season, I am just trying to identify them......

I guarantee you somewhere there will be a backup, that is thrust into the starting lineup without an injury taking place, that will produce big

This is where you are mistaken. Please provide some examples, every year, of back-ups being thrust into a starting role, WITHOUT INJURY, that have "run wild the last couple games of the season."

 

[DoubleG]

Dion Lewis if McCoy gets hurt.

Not sure I'm ready to give up on McCluster yet if they ever figure out how to use him.

JStew is on my trade target list too.

I would say that Lewis will get into the mix, without a McCoy injury, unless PHI can right their ship and start winning games.

I don't understand the reasoning here. McCoy is clearly a much better talent. Teams don't just arbitrarily start taking away playing time from a guy that is the lone bright spot in their offense - especially if he is not part of the problem and not an aging vet who isn't part of their future. While this logic works to an extent at QB (again usually with an aging vet - not a young stud-in-the-making), it doesn't make sense in Philly's situation. I could much sooner see them getting the backup QB into the mix or maybe a WR or two - but don't see McCoy suddenly losing playing time...regardless of the Eagles' record.

 

[Bayhawks]

This is where you are mistaken. Please provide some examples, every year, of back-ups being thrust into a starting role, WITHOUT INJURY, that have "run wild the last couple games of the season."

Okay, I did it myself.Since 2007, there have been only 3 RBs who have finished top-12 over weeks 15-17 in FF scoring (non-PPR, non-decimal scoring) without an injury to the #1 RB. They are:

2010

#6 weeks 15-17 John Kuhn-all value came from TDs; 1 in week 15, 3 in week 16. He didn't get the majority of carries/yards.

2009

#11 weeks 15-17 Willis McGahee-167 yards, 3 TD in week 17, nothing significant 15 or 16. Presumably Rice was being rested.

2008

#4 weeks 15-17 Lamont Jordan-He put up good numbers these weeks, but there was not "real" #1 RB in NE this year; he happened to be the RBBC member who stepped up at the end of the year.

So, only Kuhn (2010), Willis McGahee (2009)& Lamont Jordan (2008) meet your criteria, and of those Kuhn's numbers were TD based, not opportunity based. So only twice in the last 4 years has there been "back-ups being thrust into a starting role, WITHOUT INJURY, that have run wild the last couple games of the season."

This phenomena is not nearly as common as you think it is.

 

[pittstownkiller]

My replies to your replies are in red.

You're making the assumption that SFO can't win a game without Gore on the field; that is a conclusion I can't make. What about the old IND move of one quarter of play for the starters? I think that the more opportunities you can hand to Hunter the stronger SFO is, with regards to bench strength this year and to know what they have for next year - SFO certainly cannot experiment in their own playoffs like they can at the end of the season.

With respect to the bolded, no I'm not. SF is winning because they are playing tough D, pounding the ball on the ground, and asking Alex Smith to manage the game, not carry the team.You're suggesting that taking away an All-Pro RB, (who has 5 consecutive 100 yard games) & replacing him with an uproven rookie is an idea that Harbaugh, a rookie coach who seems to be extremely competitive would endorse. I'm merely suggesting that I highly doubt he will.

I did not say replace him, just limit him, do you not see the possibility of Hunter's carries increasing? Are you suggesting that a coach of a team, especially one that is a running game/defensive oriented, wouldn't try to protect his already injured all-pro back? This week will tell us a lot but then again if Gore doesn't play much and Hunter stands out, Hunter will not be available to most.

What about the old IND move of one quarter of play for the starters?

That didn't work out that well for them. The only year they won the SB was when they had to play their starters in all their games. Anectdotal evidence suggests that you need your players sharp. Obviously if they are hurt, you rest them, but if they are healthy, they should play, because with (essentially) 2 weeks off (assuming they have a bye and rest week 17), the rust causes problems.I can easily make the counter-point that almost every season a star level valuable player goes down, in either garbage time, or in games that have very little meaning; the coaches usually get criticized highly for this. If Manning went down in week 17 do you think that they wouldn't of been calling for the coaches head and if they won the SB that year do you think anyone would of cared that they went 16-1, as compared to 17-0?

I think that the more opportunities you can hand to Hunter the stronger SFO is, with regards to bench strength this year and to know what they have for next year

You're trying to analyze the situation from an outside perspective. It doesn't matter if you think SF would be better by seeing if they can trust Hunter or not. You have no vested interest in winning/losing these games. These coaches do. Harbaugh knows that having Gore at RB gives him a better chance to win than having Hunter there. That's a fact, and it's a fact that will (almost) undoubtedly prevent Harbaugh from utilizing this strategy you're endorsing.I hope you are not not implying that I do not understand that football teams need to win games, I can assure you that I do; I also know that my opinion on the issue doesn't really matter to SFO (like this really needed to be said) but I can assure you that SFO has a plan, and an interest, this is what I am trying to guess/predict. I can also assure that in being a coach of a team you are not a jockey constantly whipping the rear of your mount, you'll burn guys out; no, instead you have to manage the team so they have something left at the end of the season...and beyond. If you are saying that a team that is 5 games out is going to try as hard as a team tied for first, I can assure you that it is against human nature - coaches realize this; the reverse is also true. If I subscribed to your thoughts on this I guess there would be no such thing as a "let down game". Coaches manage whole teams, and have to take input from GM's and owner's that might want/need to know what they have in a back-up player, say for the draft, or if someone is due a big bonus.

The purpose of this thread was to try to identify talent that may be available, that may be in the advantageous position of being utilized during the FFB playoffs, weeks 14-17; I do realize, as I hope you do too, that in week 10 this is a very hard, if not impossible thing to do. I instead get nonsense of "where is the example of this ever happening?" (not necessarily by you); as if it happened every year, or never had happened, has any implication on if it will happen this year. In case anyone here doesn't know a lot of what goes on here is speculation and gut feelings, all the way up to Bloom and Dodds; I don't see where I have to provide anymore "proof" than they do. If you truly believe that everyone that is playing in week 10 will remain locked in as their teams starters, injuries aside, than fine; I just do not agree. I firmly believe that somewhere, there is someone, that will be a "find". If you don't believe that Harbaugh is the type of guy to give a veteran with a long history of injuries, who also happens to be injured now, and has had a lot of carries in his career, an easier time of it when he can, than that is fine and I appreciate your analysis but for you, or others, to discount my whole theory with sweeping terms that speak for every head coach/team situation is too much for me to buy into. People build and manage their fantasy teams in a myriad of ways, this particular avenue was one that I am looking to explore.

 

[pittstownkiller]

This is where you are mistaken. Please provide some examples, every year, of back-ups being thrust into a starting role, WITHOUT INJURY, that have "run wild the last couple games of the season."

Okay, I did it myself.Since 2007, there have been only 3 RBs who have finished top-12 over weeks 15-17 in FF scoring (non-PPR, non-decimal scoring) without an injury to the #1 RB. They are:

2010

#6 weeks 15-17 John Kuhn-all value came from TDs; 1 in week 15, 3 in week 16. He didn't get the majority of carries/yards.

2009

#11 weeks 15-17 Willis McGahee-167 yards, 3 TD in week 17, nothing significant 15 or 16. Presumably Rice was being rested.

2008

#4 weeks 15-17 Lamont Jordan-He put up good numbers these weeks, but there was not "real" #1 RB in NE this year; he happened to be the RBBC member who stepped up at the end of the year.

So, only Kuhn (2010), Willis McGahee (2009)& Lamont Jordan (2008) meet your criteria, and of those Kuhn's numbers were TD based, not opportunity based. So only twice in the last 4 years has there been "back-ups being thrust into a starting role, WITHOUT INJURY, that have run wild the last couple games of the season."

This phenomena is not nearly as common as you think it is.

I appreciate your analysis and work. I will agree that I thought this happened more frequently but as the financial commercials say "past performance does not guarantee future results". I have no idea if my particular example will exist this year, just as you don't have any idea that it won't. I would also stress that if my example comes in the form of an injury, I could really care less; an injury-prone starting running back would almost certainly have to work into my "equation" while I am attempting to hone my pick. While I wouldn't have used "top-12 in weeks 15-17" as my criteria, I certainly don't have a beef with it and maybe I should of been more precise at exactly what I am thinking: I am not looking for a #1 hands down RB, I have to assume if I have made my playoffs I have a pretty good team, I am also assuming that my RB#1 & RB#2 are pretty ingrained; I am really looking for a high-level flex/RB#3 type player that could possibly have usefulness now. I also don't need a guy to perform every week of 14-17, just one or two. Please don't confuse fine-tuning a roster with a major overhaul, these picks are as much to help my team as to prevent another team from acquiring them.*I seem to remember Rashard Jennings and Micheal Bush having nice weeks at the end of the season, when the guys in front of them were dinged-up but not out.

*edit

 

[Bayhawks]

The purpose of this thread was to try to identify talent that may be available, that may be in the advantageous position of being utilized during the FFB playoffs, weeks 14-17;

No offense, but YOU, specifically, posted that you wanted to identify players that could/would step up the last few weeks, WITHOUT INJURY. The question of who might benefit from injury is a separate question. Having back-ups on your roster in the event that an injury occurs is different than predicting that a healthy player will be rested.

I instead get nonsense of "where is the example of this ever happening?"

Again, YOU, specifically, posted "every season there are backups that run wild the last couple of games of the season, and there will be a select few this season." You shouldn't complain about "nonsense" when you are the one who first posted the nonsense. If you hadn't said it happens every season, then the question of "when" wouldn't have been posed.

If you don't believe that Harbaugh is the type of guy to give a veteran with a long history of injuries, who also happens to be injured now, and has had a lot of carries in his career, an easier time of it when he can

Why would I believe this? Gore has previously been listed on the injury report two times this year. He has averaged 20 touches & 141 YFS in those two weeks. It seems pretty obvious, based on Harbaugh's history that he is not going to give Gore an "easier time," even if he is nicked up.

than that is fine and I appreciate your analysis but for you, or others, to discount my whole theory with sweeping terms that speak for every head coach/team situation is too much for me to buy into. People build and manage their fantasy teams in a myriad of ways, this particular avenue was one that I am looking to explore.

Again, YOU posted that this happens EVERY YEAR. You posted on a FF discussion board that EVERY YEAR teams rest players without injury being a factor. This is not factually accurate. If you don't want your theory dismissed, then you shouldn't base it on a flawed premise and you shouldn't post in on a discussion board.

 

[Bayhawks]

I appreciate your analysis and work. I will agree that I thought this happened more frequently but as the financial commercials say "past performance does not guarantee future results". I have no idea if my particular example will exist this year, just as you don't have any idea that it won't. I would also stress that if my example comes in the form of an injury, I could really care less; an injury-prone starting running back would almost certainly have to work into my "equation" while I am attempting to hone my pick. While I wouldn't have used "top-12 in weeks 15-17" as my criteria, I certainly don't have a beef with it and maybe I should of been more precise at exactly what I am thinking: I am not looking for a #1 hands down RB, I have to assume if I have made my playoffs I have a pretty good team, I am also assuming that my RB#1 & RB#2 a pretty ingrained; I am really looking for a high-level flex/RB#3 type player that could possibly have usefulness now. I also don't need a guy to perform every week of 14-17, just one or two.

Well that (the bolded) changes the question. In that case, Tate is an obvious choice, although I'd guess he is already owned. Houston has relatively soft schedule against the run the last few weeks. Maurice Morris might be a good add, as Best doesn't seem to be coming back soon from his concussion. J Rogers in Atl might be worth a look; Turner has tended to get banged up the last few years. If you can figure out which Ari backup to pick, Wells might be limited by injury for the rest ofthe year.

 

[pittstownkiller]

The purpose of this thread was to try to identify talent that may be available, that may be in the advantageous position of being utilized during the FFB playoffs, weeks 14-17;

No offense, but YOU, specifically, posted that you wanted to identify players that could/would step up the last few weeks, WITHOUT INJURY. The question of who might benefit from injury is a separate question. Having back-ups on your roster in the event that an injury occurs is different than predicting that a healthy player will be rested.

I instead get nonsense of "where is the example of this ever happening?"

Again, YOU, specifically, posted "every season there are backups that run wild the last couple of games of the season, and there will be a select few this season." You shouldn't complain about "nonsense" when you are the one who first posted the nonsense. If you hadn't said it happens every season, then the question of "when" wouldn't have been posed.

If you don't believe that Harbaugh is the type of guy to give a veteran with a long history of injuries, who also happens to be injured now, and has had a lot of carries in his career, an easier time of it when he can

Why would I believe this? Gore has previously been listed on the injury report two times this year. He has averaged 20 touches & 141 YFS in those two weeks. It seems pretty obvious, based on Harbaugh's history that he is not going to give Gore an "easier time," even if he is nicked up.

than that is fine and I appreciate your analysis but for you, or others, to discount my whole theory with sweeping terms that speak for every head coach/team situation is too much for me to buy into. People build and manage their fantasy teams in a myriad of ways, this particular avenue was one that I am looking to explore.

Again, YOU posted that this happens EVERY YEAR. You posted on a FF discussion board that EVERY YEAR teams rest players without injury being a factor. This is not factually accurate. If you don't want your theory dismissed, then you shouldn't base it on a flawed premise and you shouldn't post in on a discussion board.

So I am having a hard time trying to figure out if a player is dinged-up and plays, or if he is just as dinged up but doesn't play, if he is "injured" in your world. Could we agree that on any given week, especially late in the season a featured running back is probably less than 100%; could we also agree that with the same level of injury that a coach might make two different choices on playing a running back...say in a meaningless game! MJD sat last year when, by accounts he could of played because his team wasn't contending for anything; if you want to say that Jennings played because of an injury, have at it, but I'm going that they rested MJD - it doesn't really matter, it is the same...could you at least agree to this?

 

[Bayhawks]

So I am having a hard time trying to figure out if a player is dinged-up and plays, or if he is just as dinged up but doesn't play, if he is "injured" in your world.

What is hard to figure out? If a player is injured, he doesn't play. if a player is "dinged up," (as most NFL players are, all the time), he plays.

Could we agree that on any given week, especially late in the season a featured running back is probably less than 100%; could we also agree that with the same level of injury that a coach might make two different choices on playing a running back...say in a meaningless game!

Yes, we can agree on that. However, to address your Gore hypothesis, Harbaugh has shown that he won't limit Gore just because he is dinged up. Can you acknowledge that?

MJD sat last year when, by accounts he could of played because his team wasn't contending for anything; if you want to say that Jennings played because of an injury, have at it, but I'm going that they rested MJD - it doesn't really matter, it is the same...could you at least agree to this?

Sure, I can agree to that, however, perhaps the reason you are having such a hard time understanding what I am posting is because you keep changing the criteria for these players you want to look to acquire.You started out saying, without equivocation, that you were looking for players who would playing time, without an injury to a starter. Now, you are willing to include players that could/should get playing time if a starter gets hurt.

You also said:

If having a big cushy lead isn't a time to balance out your running game, then maybe you target a team that has nothing to play for but I generally stay clear of teams that are not good to begin with.

Now, you are mentioning players like MJD who sat because his team was out of the playoff hunt.If you are consistent with your posts, then perhaps the replies and information you read will make more sense to you.

 

[LOCO]

Lynch and Tate are your guys.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I appreciate your analysis and work. I will agree that I thought this happened more frequently but as the financial commercials say "past performance does not guarantee future results". I have no idea if my particular example will exist this year, just as you don't have any idea that it won't. I would also stress that if my example comes in the form of an injury, I could really care less; an injury-prone starting running back would almost certainly have to work into my "equation" while I am attempting to hone my pick. While I wouldn't have used "top-12 in weeks 15-17" as my criteria, I certainly don't have a beef with it and maybe I should of been more precise at exactly what I am thinking: I am not looking for a #1 hands down RB, I have to assume if I have made my playoffs I have a pretty good team, I am also assuming that my RB#1 & RB#2 a pretty ingrained; I am really looking for a high-level flex/RB#3 type player that could possibly have usefulness now. I also don't need a guy to perform every week of 14-17, just one or two.

Well that (the bolded) changes the question. In that case, Tate is an obvious choice, although I'd guess he is already owned. Houston has relatively soft schedule against the run the last few weeks. Maurice Morris might be a good add, as Best doesn't seem to be coming back soon from his concussion. J Rogers in Atl might be worth a look; Turner has tended to get banged up the last few years. If you can figure out which Ari backup to pick, Wells might be limited by injury for the rest ofthe year.

I appreciate you stepping back from dissecting every sentence I type and entering an opinion. The reason I choose the wording of "not including injury" was because I didn't want to start a thread that asked "Hey, who do you think is going to get hurt?" it seemed counter productive and to vague, I also didn't want to have a list of the best available WW pickups; I was specifically looking for picks that did not need an injury to see time and could see even greater amount of carries if the starting back was rested. I guess, and maybe this is the way I should of proceeded, was to ask "who do you think will be rested at the end of the year?". As far as your pick of Tate, I like him a lot as an answer to my original question; not so much Morris as Best's status really throws too much into the mix. Tate, obviously, offers a kind of lottery ticket hedge, if Foster goes down and is still putting up numbers to warrant a bench roster spot; P. Thomas has this feeling for me too. The one that was brought up here and perked up my ears was Hunter but he is not quite as clear to me as Tate. I also thought that Benson was a good choice but a little to expensive for this particular exercise. The back up in PHI (Lewis) also seems like too much of a long-shot, barring injury, with PHI needing to win every single game.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So I am having a hard time trying to figure out if a player is dinged-up and plays, or if he is just as dinged up but doesn't play, if he is "injured" in your world.

What is hard to figure out? If a player is injured, he doesn't play. if a player is "dinged up," (as most NFL players are, all the time), he plays.

Could we agree that on any given week, especially late in the season a featured running back is probably less than 100%; could we also agree that with the same level of injury that a coach might make two different choices on playing a running back...say in a meaningless game!

Yes, we can agree on that. However, to address your Gore hypothesis, Harbaugh has shown that he won't limit Gore just because he is dinged up. Can you acknowledge that?

MJD sat last year when, by accounts he could of played because his team wasn't contending for anything; if you want to say that Jennings played because of an injury, have at it, but I'm going that they rested MJD - it doesn't really matter, it is the same...could you at least agree to this?

Sure, I can agree to that, however, perhaps the reason you are having such a hard time understanding what I am posting is because you keep changing the criteria for these players you want to look to acquire.You started out saying, without equivocation, that you were looking for players who would playing time, without an injury to a starter. Now, you are willing to include players that could/should get playing time if a starter gets hurt.

You also said:

If having a big cushy lead isn't a time to balance out your running game, then maybe you target a team that has nothing to play for but I generally stay clear of teams that are not good to begin with.

Now, you are mentioning players like MJD who sat because his team was out of the playoff hunt.If you are consistent with your posts, then perhaps the replies and information you read will make more sense to you.

Boy this is getting tiring. Maybe if we weren't arguing through two different posting cycles this would make more sense to you (and me). If a player doesn't play but could, he is being rested, period. I don't care if you think this does, or does not happen, because it does.My original stated purpose of this thread was this: "Okay, the purpose of this thread is to identify the present back-up that will assume the "starting role" when the end of the regular season winds down (FF Playoffs).", injuries are not what I was looking for as I can not imagine anyone is accurate at predicting them. I also did not think it was necessary that I had to state that injuries were excluded from my discussion as injuries create a whole new pool of talent to choose from (like every back-up running back). It was a simple premise and I don't know what is so confusing, others seem to "get it". Hey, listen, either you hate the way that I use the English language, are unable to follow a written conversation, love to dissect a body of work so it is unidentifiable with its intentions, or you just hate me, I don't really care; either stay in the parameters, or say that it has no validity and move on.

 

[urbanhack]

I appreciate your analysis and work. I will agree that I thought this happened more frequently but as the financial commercials say "past performance does not guarantee future results". I have no idea if my particular example will exist this year, just as you don't have any idea that it won't. I would also stress that if my example comes in the form of an injury, I could really care less; an injury-prone starting running back would almost certainly have to work into my "equation" while I am attempting to hone my pick. While I wouldn't have used "top-12 in weeks 15-17" as my criteria, I certainly don't have a beef with it and maybe I should of been more precise at exactly what I am thinking: I am not looking for a #1 hands down RB, I have to assume if I have made my playoffs I have a pretty good team, I am also assuming that my RB#1 & RB#2 a pretty ingrained; I am really looking for a high-level flex/RB#3 type player that could possibly have usefulness now. I also don't need a guy to perform every week of 14-17, just one or two.

Well that (the bolded) changes the question. In that case, Tate is an obvious choice, although I'd guess he is already owned. Houston has relatively soft schedule against the run the last few weeks. Maurice Morris might be a good add, as Best doesn't seem to be coming back soon from his concussion. J Rogers in Atl might be worth a look; Turner has tended to get banged up the last few years. If you can figure out which Ari backup to pick, Wells might be limited by injury for the rest ofthe year.

I appreciate you stepping back from dissecting every sentence I type and entering an opinion. The reason I choose the wording of "not including injury" was because I didn't want to start a thread that asked "Hey, who do you think is going to get hurt?" it seemed counter productive and to vague, I also didn't want to have a list of the best available WW pickups; I was specifically looking for picks that did not need an injury to see time and could see even greater amount of carries if the starting back was rested. I guess, and maybe this is the way I should of proceeded, was to ask "who do you think will be rested at the end of the year?". As far as your pick of Tate, I like him a lot as an answer to my original question; not so much Morris as Best's status really throws too much into the mix. Tate, obviously, offers a kind of lottery ticket hedge, if Foster goes down and is still putting up numbers to warrant a bench roster spot; P. Thomas has this feeling for me too. The one that was brought up here and perked up my ears was Hunter but he is not quite as clear to me as Tate. I also thought that Benson was a good choice but a little to expensive for this particular exercise. The back up in PHI (Lewis) also seems like too much of a long-shot, barring injury, with PHI needing to win every single game.

You guys are ruining this thread.Thanks!