This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Always, ALWAYS listen to a player's agent. They know stuff. :foos:
I think they like Fargas, but they like him as a role player/special teams player, not a major part of the running game.Not every player is on a team to be a superstar, some are "role" players and are great contributers to their team, but not FF material.The Raider organization thinks so highly of Justin "Fragile" Fargas that they felt compelled to go out and sign some sack of crap named Troy Hambrick.
Somehow I doubt that Hambrick does much of anything this year.As for Fargas, the Raiders know he has the talent to be an excellent NFL RB. The question is, as your moniker for him indicates, whether or not he can stay healthy. So Oakland is doing the wise thing, as troubling as it may be to FF'ers, in signing some cheap FA's to contracts.So, yes, Fargas is a stud when he's healthy. He will get every shot to be their #1 RB this season. He's younger and has the best speed amongst their group. If he doesn't perform, or starts off slowly, Wheatley and Zereoue will be right there.Hambrick? He's the joke here, not Fargas.The Raider organization thinks so highly of Justin "Fragile" Fargas that they felt compelled to go out and sign some sack of crap named Troy Hambrick.
Where did you hear this? What signs point to the Raiders viewing Fargas as a guy they view as a feature RB?All signs point to the Raiders viewing him as a role player/special teams guy, not a feature RB by any stretch of the imagination.They said it when they drafted him and their actions as a team seem to show they still feel this way.Is this just a personal opinion of yours? No problem if it is, I was just wondering if you had anything a bit more concrete.
All I remember hearing after the Raiders drafted him was that Fargas has the size/speed combination that made him a possible every down RB in the NFL. I don't really have the time or inclination to search for articles, but that's how I recall it.As for "signs", obviously the Raiders are not taking chances. The "signs" out there point to mass confusion at the position. Fargas came out of college with an injury reputation. He changed nothing about that perception after one year. I am far from sold that he will ever change that perception. But if he can remain healthy, Fargas can be a very dangerous RB. The Raiders did not spend a third round pick on a RB only for special teams and/or as a role player. They drafted him in the hopes that his health issues would cease and he would be a major playmaking 20+ carry RB.The point made in this thread was that somehow the Hambrick signing meant that Fargas was not talented, and I disagree on this in two regards: First, that Hambrick will do little or nothing for Oakland this year unless Wheatley breaks down and Fargas stays hurt. Even then, I like Amos' chances better. Second, is that Fargas has terrific NFL talent and OAK signing extra RB's has nothing to do with Fargas' lack of talent and everything to do with his inability to stay on the field.The OAK backfield situation is obviously a mess and I am not recommending Fargas will suddenly lead the way. But saying that signing Hambrick somehow means Fargas is not very talented is not true.
lol at thinking tyrone wheatley has a chance at the starting job.if you believe this you have never watched a raiders game.
i would say the starting job is wide open. most likely a couple of these guys be cut before the season even begins (fargas NOT being one of them).right now the raiders are signing a bunch of RBs to short salary cap friendly contracts and see if they can find a diamond in the rough. most of these guys are has beens or never haves.
what those contract numbers tell me is that wheatley's contract is backloaded and he will never see those dollars, so using that to determine that he'll be the starter is extremely misleading.watching the raiders i would be absolutely stunned if that piece of garbage beat out hambrick, zereoue, and fargas for the #1 starting job.wheatley is essentially ron dayne.given wheatley's experience with the raiders he'll be around for another year or two (until those #s get up to the $2m mark) but does not guarantee a starting spot at all.all of those salaries are very low.i really think the raiders are throwing a bunch of crap against a wall in terms of their RB situation and are seeing what sticks. could be nobody and RBBC all year.regardless, i don't see fargas having a major impact on redraft leagues but still could have potential in keeper or dynasty leagues.mini camps should hopefully shake this situation out a bit.
I agree with Pony!!!!Fargas has as good a shot if not better than the other backs that the Raiders have to be the starting back this year. I do not think that Wheatly will be there for the first game of the year. He has done nothing in 4 years. Hambrick does not have the work ethic to be a solid back in the league. He sat and cried because he wanted to be the starter for Dallas. When he got the chance to do it he came in overweight and out of shape.Fargas was incredible in the preseason which you can take with a grain of salt because he was playing for the most part against 2-3rd string defenses when he was in there. But he did show that he can break the long one and has awsome speed. The only thing that concerns me about him is that there has to be something that is not being said that caused him to get into the dog house last year. Maybe he can not pick up the blitz or something but when Garner went down last year I thought he would be the clear replacement and wasn't.Amos- well I see him as a 3rd down back only. He also was given chances to take and keep the starting job and never did. There is no reason to think that he can do it here.Pony also brought up a good point in that it is my understanding that the only guaranteed money in an NFL contract is the signing bonus. That makes the guys that they picked up not a big deal if they do not work out.Come the start of the season Fargas will be the starting back!!!!!
That could be true, I don't know. But which one of his posts here gives you any indication that he thinks Fargas will be good? Maybe you are referencing other posts in other threads.For someone that began this thread, you have offered absolutely no opinion or insight to this matter, other than some vague reference that Fargas is not a stud. That, to me, is laughable.
If you were watching Raiders games in 99 and 00 (which I think you were, bagger, beign a fan) I think you know that Wheatley has the ability to be a starting RB. You may argue that he is still a 3-yard-cloud-of-dust back, or that his age cuts into this substantially, but I don't think it can be argued that Wheatley has the tools to carry the bulk of the load.Before the Redmond/Hambrick signings, I thought that Wheatley would be given the chance to be the prominent back. But, as many have said, with more similar backs or arguably mediocre talent joining the squad, I look towards a revolving backfield that is essentially open for anyone to step up and take that starting role.If I am going to roll the dice fantasy-wise on an RBBC situation, I think I'd rather gamble with one of the Minny or Denver backs than this talent pool.
Burro-Boy, the back-loading of his contract has nothing to do with the fact that he is the highest paid back on the roster. Yes it is back-loaded. So what? A lot of starting players sign back-loaded contracts. (Check out Rice) And no, he'll never see $2 million/year. The bottom line, is Al Davis signed him to a multi-year contract last year for a reason: to replace Garner in 2004.Now, Wheatley has had a 1000 yard season (2000, 1046 yards starting 13 games) and a near-1000 yard season (1999 - 936 yards starting 9 games). He was relegated to backup when Garner signed in 2001.Wheatley's 2003 rushing average was 4.3 (career 3.9), Hambrick 3.5 and Zereoue 3.3. He's the best of the three. Fargas had a 5.1 average, but until he learns to hold the football closer to his body he won't get many touches. Just to press the point, last year Wheatley averaged 11.4 touches per game in 15 games that he was active in. Fargas averaged 4.2 touches per game in the 10 games he was active in.He is not only the highest paid, but most productive of the lot.Fargas won't be starting. Hambrick and Zereoue are wash-outs. Wheatley is the guy I'm betting on. I'm certainly not calling him a stud. He's just the best of the sorriest lot of running backs ever assembled by the Raiders or any other professional football team. That' my story and I'm sticking to it.
Well, he is the highest paid. I'm not sure wtf that has to do with being the best RB. You say Wheatley is the most productive, then you say that he has a 3.9 ypc vs Hambrick's 3.5 ypc & Zeroue's 3.3 ypc, but then state that Fargas had 5.1 ypc. I could swear that 5.1 ypc is more productive than 3.9 ypc. But maybe I just don't understand numbers.You also state that Wheatley had 1046 yds in 2000 in 13 starts, but you of course know that you are skewing those numbers because he gained those yards by playing in all 16 games and getting 8 carries in each of the 3 games he didn't start - that's 10% of his carries that year. When he gained 936 yds in 1999, you again skew that facts by saying it was in 9 starts, but fail to mention he played in 14 games and carried not less than 12 times in all 14.Wheatley - again - is 32 years old. That can't be ignored (or skewed). He has had a grand total of 7 100 yd games in 9 NFL seasons. In fact, when he carries the football at least 14 times in a game, he is more likely to gain less than 60 yds (10 times) than he is to gain 100 yds or more (7 times). Even worse - about 15 carries a game is about his limit. He has never had more than 242 carries in a 16 game season. In 9 years, he has only carried the football more than 20 times in a game 9 times. Plus, he's not much of a pass catching threat out of the backfield at all (that may explain why he can't wrest the starting job - he's 1 dimensional, and he's mediocre at that 1 dimension).If Wheatley is the guy who is featured carrying the football for OAK this season, you can kiss OAK's season goodbye before it starts. That ought to go over really well in the locker room, with guys like Gannon, Rice, & Brown playing in what very well could be their last seasons.
Nice of you to pick and chose which points of mine you'll answer, rather than consider the entire argument. Bottom line is if Fargas was that good, he would have seen more than 4.2 touches per game. A lot depends not only on what the ypc is, but the number of carries he gets and the circumstances in which he gets the carries. If you look just at YPC, you'll think Maurice Morris (6.2) is a better back than Alexander (4.3). You have to consider the entire picture donkey boy.
LOFL! Mr. Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle:
Must have missed answering that comment, huh?If I'm not mistaken, I answered every misconstrued point that you painfully tried to make - including the ones where you intentionally skewed the numbers to bolster your argument with half-truths, except for the touches per game.
Bueno,Before you go off on "Donkey Boy", there are a few people that do feel that Morris is a more talented back than Alexander. If I am not mistaken there have been a lot of reports out of Seattle that they have been shopping Alexanders worth because they feel that Morris is just as good as Alexander.I feel that YPC is a good gauge of how well a RB will do in the league. Some of it is luck (break a long run against second string player), but there were lots of people that thought Priest was not that good even though Priest had a better YPC than Lewis in Baltimore. Well we see how that worked out for Baltimore. I still believe that Fargas will be starting in Oakland on the first game of the season next year. Hambrick has been rumored to be moving to fullback this season.
Physical AbilitiesTalent
