What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What happened to Justin Fargas is a stud? (1 Viewer)

Dman30

Footballguy
"This was the best situation for Troy Hambrick," Jordan Woy said. "They want him to come in a compete with Tyrone Wheatley for the starting job. They have a big, huge offensive line, and it fit perfectly for Troy and his skills."

--------------

No mention of Fragile Fargas anywhere in the same sentence as "starting job." :rotflmao:

 
"This was the best situation for Troy Hambrick," Jordan Woy said. "They want him to come in a compete with Tyrone Wheatley for the starting job. They have a big, huge offensive line, and it fit perfectly for Troy and his skills."

--------------

No mention of Fragile Fargas anywhere in the same sentence as "starting job." :rotflmao:
Always, ALWAYS listen to a player's agent. They know stuff. :foos:
 
LOFL @ a 19 year old who can't get his mom to write a check for $50 to cover a FF bet raking me about a turd like Hambrick joining the Raiders.Although I sure will admit that the RB situation in OAK is a freakin' joke now. They need to add James Stewart to the mix & really screw it up.Anyone who can make this situation clear must be Carnak. And I would say that all these signings of failed RBs from other teams is certainly a vote of no-confidence in both Wheatley & 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. :rolleyes:

 
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. :rolleyes:
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. :rolleyes:
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.
 
He will get every shot to be their #1 RB this season.
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.
 
Call me crazy, but I can see this thread being resurrected one way or the other if Fagas or Hambrick turn out very well after '04.. :P

 
I'm sure I'll get razzed, but hey it's early and I'm feeling frisky.My prediction: Hambrick will win the job in Oaktown and beat last years numbers (972yds rushing, 5 TD, 99yds receiving). I'll say 1,150 rushing, 9 TD, 60 receiving.

 
Fargas, Hambrick, Wheatley... same ol' crap in a different body. I agree with the James Stewart comment. Might as well add more crap to the toilet.

 
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.
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.
 
I still think pretty highly of Fargas. He looked very good last preseason and put up respectable stats when he played during the regular season. I think he can eventually be a quality starter if he stays healthy.

 
Stay tuned for our next episode of the NFL's version of the Real World/Road Rules Inferno as Jamal Anderson will be pitching himself for the Silver and Black.... :popcorn:

 
Stay tuned for our next episode of the NFL's version of the Real World/Road Rules Inferno as Jamal Anderson will be pitching himself for the Silver and Black.... :popcorn:
Don't forget Ricky Watters! :D
 
"This was the best situation for Troy Hambrick," Jordan Woy said. "They want him to come in a compete with Tyrone Wheatley for the starting job. They have a big, huge offensive line, and it fit perfectly for Troy and his skills."

--------------

No mention of Fragile Fargas anywhere in the same sentence as "starting job." :rotflmao:
lol at thinking tyrone wheatley has a chance at the starting job.if you believe this you have never watched a raiders game.

ps, fargas' reputation of being "injury prone" is ridiculous. breaking your leg in college does not then mean you are now more prone to get hurt again.

having some injuries in one season does not make someone injury prone. if it continues again in year 2 then it can be looked at.

until then, i wouldn't be so quick to gloat.

 
He will get every shot to be their #1 RB this season.
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.
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.

fargas still has the greatest potential out of the group.

it is certainly too early to gloat about a player's success (or lack thereof).

 
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.
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.
agreed.
 
Tyrone Wheatley's contract:2004 710,000.00 2005 800,000.00 2006 2,000,000.00 2007 2,000,000.00 2008 2,000,000.00 2009 2,000,000.00 Justin Fargas' contract:2004 305,000.00 2005 380,000.00 2006 460,000.00 2007 545,000.00 Zereoue's contract:2004 535,000.00 Hambrick's contract:2004 535,000.00Money talks, b.s. walks and the money is on Wheatley starting. Wheatley is the one the Raiders are paying the bigger bucks. I don't think he'll be sitting. Fargas on the other hand is being paid like the special teams player that he is. If Fargas was in competition for the starting job, they wouldn't be looking at washed up RBs from other teams. Zereoue or Hambrick might make the roster as a backup, but Wheatley will be given every chance to win the job.

 
Tyrone Wheatley's contract:2004 710,000.00 2005 800,000.00 2006 2,000,000.00 2007 2,000,000.00 2008 2,000,000.00 2009 2,000,000.00 Justin Fargas' contract:2004 305,000.00 2005 380,000.00 2006 460,000.00 2007 545,000.00 Zereoue's contract:2004 535,000.00 Hambrick's contract:2004 535,000.00Money talks, b.s. walks and the money is on Wheatley starting. Wheatley is the one the Raiders are paying the bigger bucks. I don't think he'll be sitting. Fargas on the other hand is being paid like the special teams player that he is. If Fargas was in competition for the starting job, they wouldn't be looking at washed up RBs from other teams. Zereoue or Hambrick might make the roster as a backup, but Wheatley will be given every chance to win the job.
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.
 
Wheatley, Zereoue, and Hambrick are entirely mediocre. If I draft an Oakland RB next year it will be Fargas because I think he offers the most upside. The Raiders are not stupid and they weren't going to go into next season with no options. That doesn't mean Fargas won't be starting on opening day or at some point in the future. To dismiss him simply because Oakland has an abundance of average veterans who have done virtually nothing in recent years would be a mistake.

 
I was initially on the Fargas bandwagon, but the Hambrick signing is very telling in my opinion. Some Points:a) The Raiders had plent of veteran RBs before they went after Hambrickb) Fargas is not Turner's guyc) We are one year removed from Hambrick being labeled a sleeperI personally think it's Hambrick's job to lose...given little to no informationon the topic, for what it's worth.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guys! Geez, understand the contracts, please!Contracts in the NFL are not like contracts in some other sports. The only guaranteed part of an NFL contract, unless otherwise specifically written in (which virtually never happens), is the signing bonus. The rest of the contract is a make-good contract which is usually tied to making the final roster.Signing both Zeroue & Hambrick to one year $535,000 contracts means that they can cut either guy & not pay anything other than the signing bonus, as well as count that bonus towards the cap. It is my understanding that both signing bonuses were tiny (by NFL standards). Zeroue & Hambrick can be cut & cost the Raiders virtually nothing - which is a great benefit to the Raiders - little risk with the slim chance of a great reward.And to think Wheatley is the starter is almost laughable. Sandbagger is right - his contract is backloaded. The reason NFL teams do this is so they can write a guy a huge contract but then cut him before the big $$$ kick in. It's almost a deal to assuage the egos of the players more than anything else, and almost gaurantees that the player will be cut in the very near future. Wheatley is very old by NFL RB standards and has never shown that he can handle the load of being a featured RB yet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Justin Fargas' contract:2004 305,000.00 2005 380,000.00 2006 460,000.00 2007 545,000.00 Fargas on the other hand is being paid like the special teams player that he is.
That looks like a pretty standard rookie deal for a 3rd round pick to me. It has nothing to do with whether he is projected to be a starter or special teamer. That was a pretty nonsensical statement, quite frankly.
 
Justin Fargas' contract:2004 305,000.00 2005 380,000.00 2006 460,000.00 2007 545,000.00 Fargas on the other hand is being paid like the special teams player that he is.
That looks like a pretty standard rookie deal for a 3rd round pick to me. It has nothing to do with whether he is projected to be a starter or special teamer. That was a pretty nonsensical statement, quite frankly.
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!!!!!
 
What you have here is 4 backs, none of which stand out over the rest. Zeroue and Fargas are similar in style, as are Hambrick and Wheatley. Oakland obviously didn't feel comfortable with either Fargas or Wheatley or they wouldn't have added 2 guys who basically bring the same skill set to the table. That's saying something because Fargas and Wheately would have been a platoon situation at best even before they added Zeroue and Hambrick. Now you got 4 guys who will all surely split time. I think I'll look elsewhere for my RB's this year...

 
Until Zack Crockett isn't taking goalline carries, NONE of them are going to be worth much in fantasy leagues.It never ceases to amaze me how many different ways people can discuss Fargas, Wheatley, Amos, and now Hambrick without even making mention of the fact that Crockett is an EXTREMELY effective Goalline back not likely to lose the carries inside the 5 to anybody currently on their roster.Colin

 
Pony Kid = obvious Fargas ownerIt's quite laughable.
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.
 
Pony Kid = obvious Fargas ownerIt's quite laughable.
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.
does he ever? :sleep:
 
I agree with everyone about this whole mess.I just wanted to point one thing out: Fargas is the only back in Oakland that can take to house on any play. Everyone else is 3 yards and cloud of dust. I see a Philly situation in Oakland. They rotated Duce, Buck, and West pretty good with West coming out on Top. I see that happening again in Oakland.just my 2 cents.

 
Fellas,The Raiders Running Back situation is definitely one worth talking about. Please keep the personal antagonizing to a minimum. There is too much good insight among you guys about Fargas, Wheatley, Hambrick, Amos, and Crockett to bogg it down with personal jabs.Thanks,Colin

 
Until Zack Crockett isn't taking goalline carries, NONE of them are going to be worth much in fantasy leagues.It never ceases to amaze me how many different ways people can discuss Fargas, Wheatley, Amos, and now Hambrick without even making mention of the fact that Crockett is an EXTREMELY effective Goalline back not likely to lose the carries inside the 5 to anybody currently on their roster.Colin
Colin: I am not joining in on this, but whomever get the most carries will be a RB30 or better. And if those carries get more towards 60+%, the value goes up. Same thing in Min.JAA
 
lol at thinking tyrone wheatley has a chance at the starting job.if you believe this you have never watched a raiders game.
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.
 
i always thought Kaufman got a bad rap of not being able to carry the every down load. i always thuoght he was a much better back than wheatley.i have never been a fan.

 
Guys! Geez, understand the contracts, please!Contracts in the NFL are not like contracts in some other sports. The only guaranteed part of an NFL contract, unless otherwise specifically written in (which virtually never happens), is the signing bonus. The rest of the contract is a make-good contract which is usually tied to making the final roster.Signing both Zeroue & Hambrick to one year $535,000 contracts means that they can cut either guy & not pay anything other than the signing bonus, as well as count that bonus towards the cap. It is my understanding that both signing bonuses were tiny (by NFL standards). Zeroue & Hambrick can be cut & cost the Raiders virtually nothing - which is a great benefit to the Raiders - little risk with the slim chance of a great reward.And to think Wheatley is the starter is almost laughable. Sandbagger is right - his contract is backloaded. The reason NFL teams do this is so they can write a guy a huge contract but then cut him before the big $$$ kick in. It's almost a deal to assuage the egos of the players more than anything else, and almost gaurantees that the player will be cut in the very near future. Wheatley is very old by NFL RB standards and has never shown that he can handle the load of being a featured RB yet.
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.
 
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.
Yeah - until he fumbled the ball on the goal line. Something that didn't surprise me at all given the way he carries the rock.Repeat after me - Special teams!
 
I'm curious as to how the Hambrick signing somehow "proves" the original poster's point that Fargas is garbage.Fargas is starting material, IMO. Maybe not a "stud", but he should be a very productive back given the opportunity.Deuce McAllister was once called "fragile" at one time. That stuff is just ignorance.

 
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. He is not only the highest paid, but most productive of the lot.
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.
 
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.
I can agree with this, As a Cowboy fan you can say the very same thing about Hambrick. That guy is horrible!! :(
 
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. He is not only the highest paid, but most productive of the lot.
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.
 
Nice of you to pick and chose which points of mine you'll answer, rather than consider the entire argument.
LOFL! Mr. Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle:
Justin Fargas' contract:

2004 305,000.00

2005 380,000.00

2006 460,000.00

2007 545,000.00

Fargas on the other hand is being paid like the special teams player that he is.
That looks like a pretty standard rookie deal for a 3rd round pick to me. It has nothing to do with whether he is projected to be a starter or special teamer. That was a pretty nonsensical statement, quite frankly.
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.

I would attribute that to a rookie learning the system, then getting tweaked.

Wouldn't you?

And you were the one using the ypc argument as some kind of barometer for which player is the best RB, as well as salary being a barometer for RB success also. I just used the numbers to refute your argument.

You don't like that, make a more bullet-proof argument. Whining is unbecoming.

 
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. He is not only the highest paid, but most productive of the lot.
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.
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.
 
Im back and I have one question:

Someone please explain to me why I should believe Fargas is going to amount to anything in the NFL? You may not answer this question with the following responses:

1. Look at his college career

2. Its a gut feeling

3. He is better than Wheat, Zereoue, Hambrick

4. He was picked in X round

Thanks,

JAA

 
Im back and I have one question:

Someone please explain to me why I should believe Fargas is going to amount to anything in the NFL? You may not answer this question with the following responses:

1. Look at his college career

2. Its a gut feeling

3. He is better than Wheat, Zereoue, Hambrick

4. He was picked in X round

Thanks,

JAA
Physical AbilitiesTalent

Opportunity

:foos:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top