Thomas Jones - I have him ranked #12RB (1 Viewer)

[Steelers4Life]

He looks exactly like he did in the preseason.And last year on the Bucs.And early in 2002 before he injured his ankle.

 

[Gr00vus]

As someone who was anti-TJ, I'll give credit where credit is due. A LOT can happen between now and the end of the season, but two weeks in and he looks to be the lone difference maker on that offense, and he's been successful despite little help from the passing game to keep defenses honest. Certainly = value pick two weeks into the year.

Agreed - I have to eat it as it looks like Tommy boy isn't going to be the total washout I thought he'd be. However, as Wood said, it's a long season.

 

[Peens]

He looks exactly like he did in the preseason.And last year on the Bucs.And early in 2002 before he injured his ankle.

Good call on Tjones Steelers4Life, too bad you werent as accurate on the Plaxico prediction. :(

 

[placeholder10391]

I love the Thomas Jones debates.I was here on TJ's bandwagon in the Spring, and it's gotten a bit more crowded here since then...http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=78777&hl=jones

Still

 

[playin4beer]

I drafted him in both my leagues because of the positive comments on this board. Got him late in both and was laughed at when I commented on him being this year's "sleeper of the year". I know it's early but in my 10-man league I got him after S.Alexander/B.Westbrook/Cu.Martin. Can you say "TRADE BAIT?"

 

[Steelers4Life]

He looks exactly like he did in the preseason.And last year on the Bucs.And early in 2002 before he injured his ankle.

Good call on Tjones Steelers4Life, too bad you werent as accurate on the Plaxico prediction. :(

That's for a different thread, but don't give up on that one just yet... for the second week in a row, the defense schemed to entirely take him away on the deeper routes. Left Ward wide open.

 

[kapp]

3 good weeks in a row.Week 3:110 rushing yds + 71 rec yd. + 1 TD.

 

[ko-jack]

how old are we here?do we have to re-visit this every week?

 

[kapp]

how old are we here?do we have to re-visit this every week?

As a matter of fact...Ko-jackoff...you can coun't on me revisiting this every time Jones has a good week...just to show how foolish some people are on this forum. It is real easy/safe/popular to pick players and teams who were good in the previous year. I'm am sick and tired of it. Use the information available (and your brain) to evaluate a situation...not the popular choice spoon-fed by the media. The Jones situation in Chicago was ready-made for success before the season started.

 

[jwvdcw]

There's a serious flaw in your Faulk/Holmes analogy:  The Bears suck, the Rams and Chiefs don't(didn't).

The Chiefs were 7-9 the year before Vermeil/Green/Holmes arrived...6-10 in their first year together.The Rams were 4-12 the year before Warner and Faulk teamed up in St.Louis...13-3 in their first year together.So, YES...the Rams and Chiefs did suck at this point in the progression.

Sorry, I'm going to have to dispute this one.In the pre-Vermeil era, both teams had decent offensive players on-board before the transition to the new offense.The 1996 Rams (w/o Vermeil) had:Isaac Bruce: 84-1338-7 (who had 119-1781-13 the year before) andEddie Kennison: 54-924-9Although not great, Harold Green and Lawrence Philips split time and but up 1500/10.They were lacking some at QB with Tony Banks the predominant QB.The 1997 Rams (w/Vermiel) had:Tony Banks as bad as ever. Still no clear #1 RB (in fact they were worse that year). Bruce did well but got hurt. No other WR did much of anything. Overall, the offense WAS WORSE than the year before.The 2000 Chiefs (w/o Vermeil) had:Elvis Grbac 4264/28RBBCDerrick Alexander 1400/10Tony Gonzalez 1200/9The 2001 Chiefs (w/Vermeil):Added Green and HolmesHad no real WR threatHad Tony G's numbers dipComparing either of those teams to the Bears, Chicago has . . . . Who do the Bears have that has any proven experience?Their record might be the same as the Rams or Chiefs, but I think the similarities stop pretty close to there.

So in Holmes first year, other than Holmes KC had(according to your own words) no solid WRs, a stud TE who had an off year, and Trent Green who was very unproven(had one good year in Washington and was coming off of a season ending injury). Basically the only one of those who you would've counted as a plus would've been Gonzo, but even you said he had an off year. Explain to me how thats so much better?I don't know why you list 1996 and 1997 only(or at all for that matter) because Faulk came over in 1999 for the Rams. That year they had their starting QB injured in the preseason, a rookie WR forced into their starting lineup(Holt), and an extremely injury prone WR who was good but not great when he did play and who had come off a season in which he only played 5 games(Bruce). What on earth is so good about that?Now of course its easy to look back and see how Holt turned out to be a stud, Bruce shed the injury prone label, Warner turned into a 2 time MVP, Green turned out to be the real deal, the Chiefs o-line turned into the best in the league, and so on and so on. But perhaps in two years we'll look back and see tons of stars on Chicago. Maybe it is the system that they're running. I fail to see any differences at all between how Faulk and the Rams looked and Priest and the Chiefs looked before their first season and how Jones looks with the Bears now. Next argument.

 

[placeholder10391]

I love the Thomas Jones debates.I was here on TJ's bandwagon in the Spring, and it's gotten a bit more crowded here since then...http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=78777&hl=jones

Still

Thought this deserved a bump, just a reminder to the majority here about what a bust Thomas Jones will be this year...(He is currently the #1 fantasy RB in my league. )

 

[cstu]

With all the talk of Onterrio Smith being the SOD, I think TJ is.

 

[jwvdcw]

There's a serious flaw in your Faulk/Holmes analogy:  The Bears suck, the Rams and Chiefs don't(didn't).

The Chiefs were 7-9 the year before Vermeil/Green/Holmes arrived...6-10 in their first year together.The Rams were 4-12 the year before Warner and Faulk teamed up in St.Louis...13-3 in their first year together.So, YES...the Rams and Chiefs did suck at this point in the progression.

Sorry, I'm going to have to dispute this one.In the pre-Vermeil era, both teams had decent offensive players on-board before the transition to the new offense.The 1996 Rams (w/o Vermeil) had:Isaac Bruce: 84-1338-7 (who had 119-1781-13 the year before) andEddie Kennison: 54-924-9Although not great, Harold Green and Lawrence Philips split time and but up 1500/10.They were lacking some at QB with Tony Banks the predominant QB.The 1997 Rams (w/Vermiel) had:Tony Banks as bad as ever. Still no clear #1 RB (in fact they were worse that year). Bruce did well but got hurt. No other WR did much of anything. Overall, the offense WAS WORSE than the year before.The 2000 Chiefs (w/o Vermeil) had:Elvis Grbac 4264/28RBBCDerrick Alexander 1400/10Tony Gonzalez 1200/9The 2001 Chiefs (w/Vermeil):Added Green and HolmesHad no real WR threatHad Tony G's numbers dipComparing either of those teams to the Bears, Chicago has . . . . Who do the Bears have that has any proven experience?Their record might be the same as the Rams or Chiefs, but I think the similarities stop pretty close to there.

Sportsline had an article today calling TJ 'the new Priest Holmes'