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

[P Boy]

Okay, okay, okay. So, will anyone please tell me one things, please. What does eveyone like about Fargas? Please DO NOT include any of the following in the answer:

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

5. Physical Abilities

6. Talent

7. Opportunity

8. Age

9. Race

10. Gender

11. Nationality

12. Sexual orientation

 

[Foosball God]

Okay, okay, okay. So, will anyone please tell me one things, please. What does eveyone like about Fargas? Please DO NOT include any of the following in the answer:

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

5. Physical Abilities

6. Talent

7. Opportunity

8. Age

9. Race

10. Gender

11. Nationality

12. Sexual orientation

:rotflmao: :foos:

 

[Colin Dowling]

I'm still wondering what all the excitement is about myself. Colin

 

[bueno]

Because Donkey Boy says so! :rotflmao: If you're in a market where you saw a lot of him in college and in the pros, I don't see how you can forecast him as starting quality. I've said it before, he reminds me a lot of a Steve Sewell, not a Marcus Allen. The idea of feeding Hambrick a dozen Krispy Kremes a day and converting him to a FB has merit, except that he might not be worth much as a pass-catching FB.Zereoue might provide some competition for Wheatley, but not much. He does have a better pass-catching history though, and might be in more on obvious passing downs.If Fargas was any good, he'd have touched the ball more. Even Crockett got more touches than Fargas did.The bottom line, IMO, is none of these guys will set the world on fire. Wheatley is simply the best of many very bad options.

 

[bueno]

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.

Doc:But it's fun going off on Donkey Boy. A lot like fishing in a small pond overpopulated by sunfish, but fun nonetheless. I just hope some of my competition listens to the Newbie.Anyway, I see YPC as one of several indications of a back's worth. It's a stat you have to be careful with however. Is the average of 42 carries meaningful if there are some long runs in there, compared to the average of 250 with the same number of breakaway runs? I would argue no. There is more to the story in Seattle too - Alexander's problem there has more to do with his erratic production (has multiple TD games then vanishes). I watched the Seattle games a lot when I lived near Spokane (prior to moving to the Granola State where I get mainly Raiders or Chargers). I guess I never saw Morris as a serious threat to Alexander. Shopping Alexander might have had more to do with building the defense and settling for Morris than the stated opinion.Anyway, the thread is about Fargas.I tend to discount Fargas' ypc because of the number of carries he got and the situations in which he got them. Certainly though, Wheatley has put up better ypc numbers than the other three.Certainly how much a team is willing to pay him is an indication of the team's (in this case Davis') perception of value. Wheatley is the highest paid RB and was given a multiple year contract (which he'll have to renegotiate at some time, obviously). Perception of value does translate into better opportunity to strut your stuff, and is independent of actual potential. One can argue that signing Hambrick and Zereoue reflects negatively on that value, but does it reflect negatively on Wheatley as a starter, or on fargas as a back-up? Interesting question. Then there is where Fargas is buried on the depth chart. Right now Ourlads has him second (behind Wheatley), but I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall to third in terms of fanatsy value (behind Zereoue, who has a better receiving history). I think the Raiders will have either their best blockers or best receivers at RB for many of their minutes this year. Fargas was only a pass target 3 times last year. Crockett was targeted 12 times and Wheatley 19. Zereoue was targeted 52 times on a Steelers team that featured Randle El as the third down guy. Hambrick was targeted 24 times, but the Cowboys used their fullback as the primary backfield receiving threat, so it's hard to read much into that number.Fargas was used only once on the goal line last year (inside the 5 and not including the preseason fumble on the goal line). Granted Wheatley was used there only twice, but we all know that Crockett will carry that load.So I see Wheatley as the starter, Crockett as the goal line specialist, Hambrick as the blocking back, Zereoue as the receiving back and Fargas on special teams, not seeing much duty unless Wheatley gets hurt. That's assuming they keep everybody.

 

[JAA]

Physical AbilitiesTalentOpportunity:foos:

You have to be kidding? He has been injury ridden, has never shown any NFL talent, and is on a team with 4 other RBs.Sorry if I didnt see the sarcaism smilieJAA

 

[Peens]

You have to be kidding? He has been injury ridden, has never shown any NFL talent, and is on a team with 4 other RBs.Sorry if I didnt see the sarcaism smilie

He has only played one year in the Pros. I dont know how that qualifies as injury ridden. As far as never shown any NFL talent I would think Al Davis would know a little something about that. He has been doing this ALOT longer then you or me. He thought High enough of Fargas to draft him in rd3 for a reason. He is on a team with 4 RB's that have HAD the opportunity to be a starter and did nothing with it. Fargas is the ONLY one of the bunch that hasnt been given his shot. So he is basically my favorite to win the starting RB job just by Default on the slugs he is competing against.

 

[JAA]

You have to be kidding? He has been injury ridden, has never shown any NFL talent, and is on a team with 4 other RBs.Sorry if I didnt see the sarcaism smilie

He has only played one year in the Pros. I dont know how that qualifies as injury ridden. As far as never shown any NFL talent I would think Al Davis would know a little something about that. He has been doing this ALOT longer then you or me. He thought High enough of Fargas to draft him in rd3 for a reason.

You are not thinking logically. If all of what you said is true, why did they sign Amos and Hambrick while they already had Wheatley, Fargas, and Crockett?Injury includes college days as well as Raiders roster. Which I only bring up because someone mentioned his talent ... what talent? Where? The only talent I have seen was at the combine.I am not down on Fargas. I own him in 1 dynasty league. That does not mean he is the second coming though.JAA

 

[Peens]

I am not down on Fargas. I own him in 1 dynasty league. That does not mean he is the second coming though.

I never said he was the second coming. I just said I like his chances since he is competing against the likes of Wheatley, zeroue and Hambrick. By all means if you think Wheatley is the guy than by all means draft him, I'll take my chances with Fargas.

 

[JAA]

I am not down on Fargas. I own him in 1 dynasty league. That does not mean he is the second coming though.

I never said he was the second coming. I just said I like his chances since he is competing against the likes of Wheatley, zeroue and Hambrick. By all means if you think Wheatley is the guy than by all means draft him, I'll take my chances with Fargas.

This is the point of all my posts. I am not saying Fargas is a stud or dud. I am saying he doesnt deserver to be ranked ahead of any of the other RBs on the team soley because he is younger, or people think he is a super-duper athlete. If that was true, the team would have never kept around or signed "4 RB's that have HAD the opportunity to be a starter and did nothing with it".JAA

 

[Peens]

This is the point of all my posts. I am not saying Fargas is a stud or dud. I am saying he doesnt deserver to be ranked ahead of any of the other RBs on the team soley because he is younger, or people think he is a super-duper athlete. If that was true, the team would have never kept around or signed "4 RB's that have HAD the opportunity to be a starter and did nothing with it".

I understand your thinking on this JAA, really I do. I'm going off what I saw from Fargas last year in preseason when he was healthy. He ran with power and speed, So I'm going on the assumption that he "Will" be healthy this year and if so I like his chances over the guys they have now. Obviously if he is hurt all year AGAIN then all bets are off.My backing of Fargas is more of a lack of confidence in the guys he is competing against.

 

[The Carnage]

Okay, okay, okay. So, will anyone please tell me one things, please. What does eveyone like about Fargas? Please DO NOT include any of the following in the answer:

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

5. Physical Abilities

6. Talent

7. Opportunity

8. Age

9. Race

10. Gender

11. Nationality

12. Sexual orientation

'Cause Magic 8 Head said he's the starter!Will Justin Fargas be the starter in Oakland?

Come on, if you eliminate all of those reasons, you couldn't make a case for Barry Sanders.

 

[JAA]

Okay, okay, okay. So, will anyone please tell me one things, please. What does eveyone like about Fargas? Please DO NOT include any of the following in the answer:

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

5. Physical Abilities

6. Talent

7. Opportunity

8. Age

9. Race

10. Gender

11. Nationality

12. Sexual orientation

'Cause Magic 8 Head said he's the starter!Will Justin Fargas be the starter in Oakland?

Come on, if you eliminate all of those reasons, you couldn't make a case for Barry Sanders.

Anyone who claimed they knew Sanders would break all the record he did coming out of college would have been labled a quack, rightfully so. barry had a lot of things going against him. No one was able to predict what he did.

 

[Gringoloco]

But it's fun going off on Donkey Boy. A lot like fishing in a small pond overpopulated by sunfish, but fun nonetheless. I just hope some of my competition listens to the Newbie.

LOL @ calling Pony Boy a newbie. My guess is that he's been around boards such as this one for a lot longer than you Bueno.

 

[Gringoloco]

He has been injury ridden, has never shown any NFL talent, and is on a team with 4 other RBs.

I think his inability to stay on the field hurt him. It certainly did last year, especially considering that had he stayed healthy his propects would at the very least be better this year. He scares me because of this and in a redraft I would take a real late flyer on him in a deep league.I believe he has NFL talent. What little he played last preseason and season impressed me. I saw a lot ofthe same things I saw in college (ironically, being hurt was one of them, but so was his strength and speed).The other RB's don't do much for me. Fargas doesn't really either. That's why the debate. I believe Wheatley has absolutely no chance to a big full load RB this year. He's too old and doesn't have the hands. If he starts all year, it's not only bad news for Raider fans, but bad news for FF owners, as it will mean that nobody will mean squat on that team. Zereoue seems most likely to be a third down back at best. Hambrick never impressed me and is not a full load back anyway. The talk about him being a potential FB on some plays makes me want to write him off.So that leaves Fargas who, despite your opinion, I believe is very talented, based on what I have seen both in college and limited time in the pros (granted some of that pro action was in preseason against 4th string D's). But do I think he's all that? Hardly.

 

[Gringoloco]

That does not mean he is the second coming though.

I believe everyone here would agree with this. I have not seen one post to indicate that anyone believed he was the second coming.

 

[P Boy]

Doc:But it's fun going off on Donkey Boy. A lot like fishing in a small pond overpopulated by sunfish, but fun nonetheless. I just hope some of my competition listens to the Newbie.

rotflmfao!Newbie! That's really rich. Some of the more educated & wiley vets know whom I am exactly. I'm the bad penny that you never can quite get rid of.

 

[Gringoloco]

If that was true, the team would have never kept around or signed "4 RB's that have HAD the opportunity to be a starter and did nothing with it".

I believe OAK signed the other RB's because they aren't sure what they have with Fargas. Can he hang on to the ball? Can he stay healthy? Can he learn to block better? There are enough question marks that caused the Raiders to look for more help. Sure, Fargas might have the strength and speed forthe NFL, but that's not enough right now to just dump the full time job to him until he answers those questions. They know that Wheatley is 32. Not many RB's have ever been able to carry a full load at that age, and Wheatley was never a superstar to begin with.I think getting Hambrick and Zereoue cheaply is a decent enough move for them, although I am no Raider fan.

 

[dcgangstas]

Jeez, this has just become the "thread that wouldn't die", hasn't it? Being a devoted Raider fan, I can honestly say that the Beloved Silver and Black RB situation just gets muddier by the day, even with the recent reports that Norv Turner trying to get Troy Hambrick to accept a blocking back role with the team. The way I see it, this is going to be RBBC at its very worst. And Colin's right; until the role of the Vulture (Zack Crockett) is reduced as the goal-line runner, NONE of these guys have any real value. And that's a real shame, with the revamping of the offensive line with Ron Stone's acquisition, and the drafting of Robert Gallery and Jake Grove. Moving Barry Sims to his more natural position of OG makes this potentially a very dominant offensive line that could open big holes for a feature RB. Justin Fargas' speed and explosiveness makes him an appealing candidate, but his injury history, reputation as a fumbler, and the fact that he doesn't seem to break tackles and goes down on first contact are troublesome, to say the least. But you'd think that Fargas could beat out a couple of stiffs like Amos Zereoue and Troy Hambrick, and an aging veteran like Ty Wheatley. Wheatley's so old, he probably took Harriet Tubman to his high school prom, for God's sake.

 

[JohnnyU]

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.

Doc:But it's fun going off on Donkey Boy. A lot like fishing in a small pond overpopulated by sunfish, but fun nonetheless. I just hope some of my competition listens to the Newbie.Anyway, I see YPC as one of several indications of a back's worth. It's a stat you have to be careful with however. Is the average of 42 carries meaningful if there are some long runs in there, compared to the average of 250 with the same number of breakaway runs? I would argue no. There is more to the story in Seattle too - Alexander's problem there has more to do with his erratic production (has multiple TD games then vanishes). I watched the Seattle games a lot when I lived near Spokane (prior to moving to the Granola State where I get mainly Raiders or Chargers). I guess I never saw Morris as a serious threat to Alexander. Shopping Alexander might have had more to do with building the defense and settling for Morris than the stated opinion.Anyway, the thread is about Fargas.I tend to discount Fargas' ypc because of the number of carries he got and the situations in which he got them. Certainly though, Wheatley has put up better ypc numbers than the other three.Certainly how much a team is willing to pay him is an indication of the team's (in this case Davis') perception of value. Wheatley is the highest paid RB and was given a multiple year contract (which he'll have to renegotiate at some time, obviously). Perception of value does translate into better opportunity to strut your stuff, and is independent of actual potential. One can argue that signing Hambrick and Zereoue reflects negatively on that value, but does it reflect negatively on Wheatley as a starter, or on fargas as a back-up? Interesting question. Then there is where Fargas is buried on the depth chart. Right now Ourlads has him second (behind Wheatley), but I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall to third in terms of fanatsy value (behind Zereoue, who has a better receiving history). I think the Raiders will have either their best blockers or best receivers at RB for many of their minutes this year. Fargas was only a pass target 3 times last year. Crockett was targeted 12 times and Wheatley 19. Zereoue was targeted 52 times on a Steelers team that featured Randle El as the third down guy. Hambrick was targeted 24 times, but the Cowboys used their fullback as the primary backfield receiving threat, so it's hard to read much into that number.Fargas was used only once on the goal line last year (inside the 5 and not including the preseason fumble on the goal line). Granted Wheatley was used there only twice, but we all know that Crockett will carry that load.So I see Wheatley as the starter, Crockett as the goal line specialist, Hambrick as the blocking back, Zereoue as the receiving back and Fargas on special teams, not seeing much duty unless Wheatley gets hurt. That's assuming they keep everybody.

I don't see how you can use number of carries last year to judge how the Raiders will use him this year. He was a rookie last year and got hurt for crying out loud. I do know one thing and that is Fargas was hand picked by Al Davis and he will get his shot. My guess is that if he stays injury free and has a good preseason, he will get his shot this year. If not, then all bets are off.

 

[Foosball God]

Physical AbilitiesTalentOpportunity:foos:

You have to be kidding? He has been injury ridden, has never shown any NFL talent, and is on a team with 4 other RBs.Sorry if I didnt see the sarcaism smilieJAA

injury ridden?He's been in the league 1 year and he's injury ridden?His YPC doesn't show any NFL talent?He's on a team with 4 other bad RB, one of which will be converted to FB.Excuse me if I don't use the sarcasm smilie on you. :foos:

 

[Foosball God]

Injury includes college days as well as Raiders roster. Which I only bring up because someone mentioned his talent ... what talent? Where? The only talent I have seen was at the combine.

Pardon me, I didn't realize you were allowed to use his college career and we weren't. :foos:

 

[JohnnyU]

Injury includes college days as well as Raiders roster. Which I only bring up because someone mentioned his talent ... what talent? Where? The only talent I have seen was at the combine.

Pardon me, I didn't realize you were allowed to use his college career and we weren't. :foos:

All of this is bull####. Fargas will get his shot real soon. He was only a rookie last year, so the Raiders will want to see what they have. If it works out, good, if not, move on. The fact remains, the Raiders don't know what they have in Fargas.

 

[bueno]

Doc:

But it's fun going off on Donkey Boy. A lot like fishing in a small pond overpopulated by sunfish, but fun nonetheless. I just hope some of my competition listens to the Newbie.

rotflmfao!Newbie! That's really rich. Some of the more educated & wiley vets know whom I am exactly. I'm the bad penny that you never can quite get rid of.

And it just doesn't matter to the rest of us! I certainly don't care who he is. I can die happily not knowing any of the posters here personally. (Though I suspect he's a recycled Huddle poster, or someone who was banned coming back under a nom de plume.) P.B. - that means pseudonym. Somewhere in there is a joke about a bad penny not being worth two cents.

Anyway, he is fun to pick on, and I'm sure he takes my barbs as lightly and impersonally as I take his.

Anybody remember which came first - the 2003 draft or Wheatley's multi-year contract?

Let's remember that he was taken 96th overall in a draft not known for the quality of rb talent. I believe he was the fifth or sixth back taken out of that group, and at the time we were all speculating that McGahee would be going to Oakland because he would have a year to recover before Garner left. Just because you draft a back late doesn't mean you have a world of confidence in him. fargas was a gamble. I just don't think he'll pay big dividends.

 

[P Boy]

Somewhere in there is a joke about a bad penny not being worth two cents. Anyway, he is fun to pick on, and I'm sure he takes my barbs as lightly and impersonally as I take his.

:cX: :reg:

 

[Gringoloco]

Just because you draft a back late doesn't mean you have a world of confidence in him.

Did anyone here speculate that Oakland had/has a world of confidence in him? Not that I'm aware.After his combine workouts, which were extraordinary, many believed he would vault to first round status. Instead, he went exactly where most originally predicted...the third round. He just had too many question marks coming out of college, both with his knee and in turn the fact that he had so little recent running experience. He always had that huge reputation, though, as one the finest runners around. He came out of high school as the number 1 RB in many scouts eyes. Thrashing his knee at Michigan changed that though.Anyway, Oakland clearly does not have a world of confidence in Fargas. But that doesn't mean that out of those backs he does not have the most intriguing possibility to break through as a playmaking RB. Late draft flyer only, to be sure. But perhaps worth the risk.

 

[EastBayFunk]

I've made my stance clear, but I'll post my thoughts on the matter again just to try to drive home the pont.What I think I know:- Tyrone Whatley is old, relatively mediocre, and was apparently involved in the BALCO scandal.- Amos Zereoue is mediocre.- Troy Hambrick is mediocre .- Justin Fargas had solid YPC numbers as a rookie and was one of the most impressive players I saw last preseason (and I saw every one of Oakland's games). Based on this knowledge, I'm inclined to believe that the most intriguing Raider RB is none other than Fargas. Tyrone Wheatley has been decent at times, but he's 32 years old and I have a hard time getting excited about his prospects of becoming a decent fantasy contributor. Zereoue and Hambrick both had their chances last year and neither showed anything. While Fargas has had injury issues and is a bit of an unkown, based on what I've seen from all of these players I still think that he has the most upside and would be the best draft pick in a redraft or dynasty league. Time will tell.

 

[JohnnyU]

I've made my stance clear, but I'll post my thoughts on the matter again just to try to drive home the pont.What I think I know:- Tyrone Whatley is old, relatively mediocre, and was apparently involved in the BALCO scandal.- Amos Zereoue is mediocre.- Troy Hambrick is mediocre .- Justin Fargas had solid YPC numbers as a rookie and was one of the most impressive players I saw last preseason (and I saw every one of Oakland's games). Based on this knowledge, I'm inclined to believe that the most intriguing Raider RB is none other than Fargas. Tyrone Wheatley has been decent at times, but he's 32 years old and I have a hard time getting excited about his prospects of becoming a decent fantasy contributor. Zereoue and Hambrick both had their chances last year and neither showed anything. While Fargas has had injury issues and is a bit of an unkown, based on what I've seen from all of these players I still think that he has the most upside and would be the best draft pick in a redraft or dynasty league. Time will tell.

Well said EastBay. One thing I've been trying to convey is that Fargas may or may not be successful, but he has to get his shot first for anyone to know, correct?

 

[EastBayFunk]

I tend to agree with that.

 

[rotodcf]

Two things to consider1. If the raiders stink it up this year (and there's reason to think they will) it would make sense for turner to see if any of this young players have some worth, and Justin's going to get a shot. At best, he's part of rbbc early in the year, but if you can afford to keep him around, I think he's going to get a shot midseason.2. The run defense in that division STINKS!!! the chiefs didn't add much substance, denver's not known for killing the run and San Diego has struggled in that regard.I suspect Fargas starts off as the third down back, then gets more carries as the season rolls on...sort of like Kevin Faulk for the past two years...just my thought

 

[JohnnyU]

Two things to consider1. If the raiders stink it up this year (and there's reason to think they will) it would make sense for turner to see if any of this young players have some worth, and Justin's going to get a shot. At best, he's part of rbbc early in the year, but if you can afford to keep him around, I think he's going to get a shot midseason.2. The run defense in that division STINKS!!! the chiefs didn't add much substance, denver's not known for killing the run and San Diego has struggled in that regard.I suspect Fargas starts off as the third down back, then gets more carries as the season rolls on...sort of like Kevin Faulk for the past two years...just my thought

Not an unreasonable analysis. The way I see it is the preseason is more critical for the Oakland running game than for any other team. However, if Fargas wins the job in preseason, his overall carries for half the year will be greatly reduced because of the other backs. It doesn't matter how mediocre they are. As a starting RB this year, the best he can do is about 12-15 carries a game for half the season, then maybe that will change in the 2nd half. If he flops in the preseason or one of the other backs plays over his head, Fargas may not see much of the field. That is how unpredictable the Oak running game is. It is useless to speculate.

 

[P Boy]

However, if Fargas wins the job in preseason, his overall carries for half the year will be greatly reduced because of the other backs.  It doesn't matter how mediocre they are.  As a starting RB this year, the best he can do is about 12-15 carries a game for half the season, then maybe that will change in the 2nd half.  If he flops in the preseason or one of the other backs plays over his head, Fargas may not see much of the field.  That is how unpredictable the Oak running game is.  It is useless to speculate.

Okay, I've asked this a couple of times before, but apparently it either is uncomprehensible to others or I'm just stupid:Why does anyone think that the Raiders have to carry either Hambrick or Zeroue? They are both signed to one year make-good contracts that have very small signing bonuses. OAK can cut both before regular season rosters are set with a total cost out of pocket & against the cap of about $100,000.

 

[bueno]

It's incomprehensible!

Anyway, there is nothing to say that either of these guys will make the team, and I believe I did add that as a caveat.

I do see a role for each though. Zereoue brings the Krisy Kremes to practice, and Hambrick eats them.

Just to beat that dead horse some more, let's address the age issue. Just because he's 32, people are thinking he's as beat up as George and Bettis.

Wheatley has less than 1200 carries in his career. That's as many as a 4th or 5th year continuous starter, so you can't say he's beat up. That's more than 200 less than Holmes. (Now I'm not comparing the talent level of the 2 players, so don't even go there! ) Other than the obvious diference in talent level, why are people saying that Holmes isn't beat up, but Wheatley is? It certainly can't have anything to do with the number of hits he's taken.

BTW - Wheatley resigned in March, 2003, before the draft.

 

[joffer]

I wouldn't be surprised if Hambrick doesn't make the opening day roster

 

[Warpig]

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....

Don't forget Ricky Watters!

Oh...my...God...Barry Sanders just walked into Al's office and slapped Watters off the leather sofa like it was his!

 

[P Boy]

Just to beat that dead horse some more, let's address the age issue. Just because he's 32, people are thinking he's as beat up as George and Bettis.

Wheatley has less than 1200 carries in his career. That's as many as a 4th or 5th year continuous starter, so you can't say he's beat up. That's more than 200 less than Holmes. (Now I'm not comparing the talent level of the 2 players, so don't even go there! ) Other than the obvious diference in talent level, why are people saying that Holmes isn't beat up, but Wheatley is? It certainly can't have anything to do with the number of hits he's taken.

BTW - Wheatley resigned in March, 2003, before the draft.

I don't think he's beat up, and I don't think I ever made that statement, nor have many others enjoined in this argument. I do think he is old for an RB - and RBs take more punishment than any other player on the field. It takes older people longer to recover from injuries - even the small game-to-game type. That's just human physiology 101.As far as less than 1200 carries in his career, I would submit that as direct evidence that he doesn't have featured RB ability. A talented RB in the NFL would be well used up after 9 years. However, because Wheatley isn't very talented, he doesn't get a lot of carries, and therefore his total carries are down.

But then I'm sure you have an valid, solid argument as to why you know a lot more than the myriad of NFL coaches who have seen Wheatley play day in & day out in practice and games over 9 years and determined that he is no more than mediocre, thereby limiting his touches. Or maybe it's just the Man keeping ol' Wheatley down.

*** Post edit - forgot to thank bueno for helping to enhance my argument, even if it was completely unintentional, short-sighted, & irrational on his part.

 

[JAA]

Injury includes college days as well as Raiders roster. Which I only bring up because someone mentioned his talent ... what talent? Where? The only talent I have seen was at the combine.

Pardon me, I didn't realize you were allowed to use his college career and we weren't. :foos:

Now your just being silly.

 

[JAA]

However, if Fargas wins the job in preseason, his overall carries for half the year will be greatly reduced because of the other backs.  It doesn't matter how mediocre they are.  As a starting RB this year, the best he can do is about 12-15 carries a game for half the season, then maybe that will change in the 2nd half.  If he flops in the preseason or one of the other backs plays over his head, Fargas may not see much of the field.  That is how unpredictable the Oak running game is.  It is useless to speculate.

Okay, I've asked this a couple of times before, but apparently it either is uncomprehensible to others or I'm just stupid:Why does anyone think that the Raiders have to carry either Hambrick or Zeroue? They are both signed to one year make-good contracts that have very small signing bonuses.

OAK can cut both before regular season rosters are set with a total cost out of pocket & against the cap of about $100,000.

This is very resonable, bring some backs in to compete for the spots. However, I think it is more logical that the Raiders will cut internally before the new guys. I say that because Zereoue and Hambrick Im sure had other offers. Not $$, but backup roles somewhere. The worst thing for a RB would be to be cut before week 1 and need to look for a job elsewhere. I would be more inclined to think Zereoue and Hambrick got some sort of assurances. I do not know this for a fact, it just makes more sense to me.JAA

 

[Gringoloco]

...I think it is more logical that the Raiders will cut internally before the new guys. I say that because Zereoue and Hambrick Im sure had other offers...I would be more inclined to think Zereoue and Hambrick got some sort of assurances.

I thought of that too. But I would think that they (Hambrick and Zereoue) agreed to deals with OAK with the only assurance being that they would have a chance at the #1 spot, something they are unlikely to have with many other teams, as opposed to given assurances of making the team. I agree that it would a bad move for them if they were cut just prior to opening day, but they weighed that into their decision for a shot at a larger role.

 

[P Boy]

I agree with the Crazy White Boy (dammit!).They could have taken the same or slightly lower offers elsewhere, but in OAK they were offered a shot at the #1 RB spot. If they don't get the #1 slot, it would make sense to cut them, as they very well could be a cancer on a team that hardly needs more complainers.They'll get their shots, but I don't see either as being head & shoulders better than a healthy Fargas, and they'll have to be better than him, not equal to him, with years in the NFL (mileage on the chassis), the fact that Davis drafted Fargas (the Davis ego factor), and sketchy past performance, in order to take the #1 spot away.

 

[rotodcf]

Have any of you ever had a league, where for some reason or another, you didn't get any of the running backs you wanted, and you were left playing mix and match the entire season, picking up guys left and right and hoping, just hoping , one of them would pan out. I present to you the real life reality of Al Davis right now. Four guys who have plenty of reasons to fold up the tent and do nothing, but maybe, just maybe, one of them blows up and has a big year. Thank goodness the NFL Network is airing a bunch of pre-season games, because we'll need to see them all before figuring out what's going on over there. And while I think Fargas will suprise folks, I'de feel iffy pulling the trigger on him in a late round over some injury prone stud rb's backup

 

[kupcho1]

Pony Kid = obvious Fargas ownerIt's quite laughable.

One of the reasons I think Fargas has an excellent chance of becoming a no-brainer RB2/solid RB1 is ...oopswait a minuteI forgot. I have Fargas on one of my rosters. So I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to recuse myself from this discussion. I don't want to be "laughable"

 

[bueno]

Just to beat that dead horse some more, let's address the age issue.  Just because he's 32, people are thinking he's as beat up as George and Bettis.

Wheatley has less than 1200 carries in his career.  That's as many as a 4th or 5th year continuous starter, so you can't say he's beat up.  That's more than 200 less than Holmes.  (Now I'm not comparing the talent level of the 2 players, so don't even go there! ) Other than the obvious diference in talent level, why are people saying that Holmes isn't beat up, but Wheatley is?  It certainly can't have anything to do with the number of hits he's taken.

BTW - Wheatley resigned in March, 2003, before the draft.

I don't think he's beat up, and I don't think I ever made that statement, nor have many others enjoined in this argument. I do think he is old for an RB - and RBs take more punishment than any other player on the field. It takes older people longer to recover from injuries - even the small game-to-game type. That's just human physiology 101.As far as less than 1200 carries in his career, I would submit that as direct evidence that he doesn't have featured RB ability. A talented RB in the NFL would be well used up after 9 years. However, because Wheatley isn't very talented, he doesn't get a lot of carries, and therefore his total carries are down.

But then I'm sure you have an valid, solid argument as to why you know a lot more than the myriad of NFL coaches who have seen Wheatley play day in & day out in practice and games over 9 years and determined that he is no more than mediocre, thereby limiting his touches. Or maybe it's just the Man keeping ol' Wheatley down.

*** Post edit - forgot to thank bueno for helping to enhance my argument, even if it was completely unintentional, short-sighted, & irrational on his part.

Sigh. Hold out an olive branch and donkey boy eats it.....Yes it does take longer to recover from injuries, and age does catch up to you - but the rigors of the game do too. The point is that he hasn't been beat up as much, mainly because of fewer carries (because he spent the last two years behind Garner). Old running backs include Holmes, CMart, George, Bettis, Dunn, Stephen Davis, Garner, Hearst, and Marshall Faulk.

Of that group (include Wheatley), 50% are the likely starters for their team, another 40% are currently listed as the starter, and only Bettis is a backup. So it seems a lot of 30+ backs can be successful in the NFL. All RBs slow down with age to be sure, but it doesn't mean they slow down to a walk! The fact that Wheatley hasn't taken the pounding others have does work in his favor and partly nullifies the age concern.

FYI Holmes passed the 1200 carries plateau last year (his 7th in the league). I guess he just didn't have featured RB ability before then....

But then I'm sure Donkey Boy knows Al Davis personally and he's told him what a stud Fargas is.....

 

[EastBayFunk]

Tyrone Wheatley just isn't that good. I've seen him play enough to know that. I will be stunned if he rushes for over 900 yards next year. I'm not saying Fargas will beat him out, but he is the more explosive back by far and his ceiling is quite a bit higher.

 

[P Boy]

FYI Holmes passed the 1200 carries plateau last year (his 7th in the league). I guess he just didn't have featured RB ability before then....

LOL! If you did any research on Holmes before he went to KC, you would have had a good argument that he was going to perform well, especially when you added his previous stats to Vermeil's history of offensive production.You aren't picking a good basis for your argument (again) bueno. I'd stop with the Holmes tact/comparision right now, if I were in your shoes.

 

[Gringoloco]

Old running backs include Holmes, CMart, George, Bettis, Dunn, Stephen Davis, Garner, Hearst, and Marshall Faulk. Of that group (include Wheatley), 50% are the likely starters for their team, another 40% are currently listed as the starter, and only Bettis is a backup. So it seems a lot of 30+ backs can be successful in the NFL.

The only RB's you mentioned that are as old as Wheatley are Hearst, Bettis and Garner. And of that entire list, Wheatley was never as good as any of them.Your point might be true that simply because Wheatley is 32 does not mean he is done. But the chances of a RB obtaining quality numbers at that age are extremely slim, regardless of the miles on them. Historical data does not support Wheatley's chances, and neither does his talent level. I would imagine you could count on one hand the number of RB's in the last 20 years who have achieved substantial FF numbers at the age of 32 or beyond. And the few that might have would almost assured be of a much better quality RB than Wheatley.As I've argued before, Wheatley might very well have a decent contribution to the Oak running game this year, but if he does it means disaster for FF owners, as it means a serious RBBC.

 

[bueno]

Old running backs include Holmes, CMart, George, Bettis, Dunn, Stephen Davis, Garner, Hearst, and Marshall Faulk. Of that group (include Wheatley), 50% are the likely starters for their team, another 40% are currently listed as the starter, and only Bettis is a backup. So it seems a lot of 30+ backs can be successful in the NFL.

The only RB's you mentioned that are as old as Wheatley are Hearst, Bettis and Garner. And of that entire list, Wheatley was never as good as any of them.Your point might be true that simply because Wheatley is 32 does not mean he is done. But the chances of a RB obtaining quality numbers at that age are extremely slim, regardless of the miles on them. Historical data does not support Wheatley's chances, and neither does his talent level. I would imagine you could count on one hand the number of RB's in the last 20 years who have achieved substantial FF numbers at the age of 32 or beyond. And the few that might have would almost assured be of a much better quality RB than Wheatley.As I've argued before, Wheatley might very well have a decent contribution to the Oak running game this year, but if he does it means disaster for FF owners, as it means a serious RBBC.

I believe they are all over 30 though. Conventional wisdom says that a RB is on the downhill side of his career by then.But we're not arguing that Wheatley will be a stud. I think he'll be the starter, and that Fargas will be thge backup.

 

[bueno]

FYI Holmes passed the 1200 carries plateau last year (his 7th in the league).  I guess he just didn't have featured RB ability before then....

LOL! If you did any research on Holmes before he went to KC, you would have had a good argument that he was going to perform well, especially when you added his previous stats to Vermeil's history of offensive production.You aren't picking a good basis for your argument (again) bueno. I'd stop with the Holmes tact/comparision right now, if I were in your shoes.

You know sometimes you are so arrogant. Fact is, I probably was studying or playing football while your mama was changing your diapers and wiping your nose.Holmes made it in the league by being addicted to studying film and working out. It took him a long time and being in the right system.

Previous stats? What are you smoking?

In four years with Baltimore, he didn;'t even play the first year, and then had a good year his sophomore season (1008 yards, 7 tds). The next 2 years, he had 1094 yards and 3 tds. I don;t see how anyone could have predicted he would do as well in KC as he had from his previous production.

I don't care if you are in Ironman, P.B., when you become Horse Man maybe you'll learn something about logic.

 

[P Boy]

You know sometimes you are so arrogant.  Fact is, I probably was studying or playing football while your mama was changing your diapers and wiping your nose.

Holmes made it in the league by being addicted to studying film and working out.  It took him a long time and being in the right system.

Previous stats?  What are you smoking?

In four years with Baltimore, he didn;'t even play the first year, and then had a good year his sophomore season (1008  yards, 7 tds).  The next 2 years, he had 1094 yards and 3 tds.  I don;t see how anyone could have predicted he would do as well in KC as he had from his  previous production. 

I don't care if you are in Ironman, P.B., when you become Horse Man maybe you'll learn something about logic.

Arrogant? Probably so. That doesn't change the facts about players, though.If you would have done your research on Holmes, you would have seen this:

He had 12 games with 14 or more carries with BAL (remember that 14 carry threshold & how well your boy Wheatley has done in his career?). In those 12 game, he had a 4.61 ypc, he cracked 100 yds rushing in half of them (& hit 99 and 95 yds in 2 others), had at least 100 total yds in 9 of them (with 99 & 94 total yds in 2 others). That's called a productive track record (completely unlike your boy Wheatley).

Then you add Vermeil & the way he affects offensive numbers for RBs once he gets his guy in place (Wilbert Montgomery w/ PHI & Faulk w/ STL), and you had a classic recipe for RB success for Holmes. Would anyone have predicted the wild streak that Holmes has been on? Only in people's wildest dreams. But the indicators were there for a RB going into what was essentially his 4th year to have the potential for being a very, very good RB.

But doing some homework gives people hints, if they know where to find the clues. Others are clueless. Those are the people who think that a 32 yr old RB going into their 10th seasons will suddenly become an effective RB, all prior history to the contrary.

So, the arrogant tag probably fits me well, if it makes you feel better to use it. Perhaps we should have a discussion on whom the clueless tag fits...

Now, do you still want to continue this discussion, or would you like to tell the class all about your stellar football career, playing in leather helmets without facemasks. You obviously have no idea about my background, judging by the assinine assumptions you listed above.

I do have one word of advice for you, if you are astute enough to take it: When you find yourself in a significant hole, stop digging.

:rotflmao:

 

[P Boy]

BTW, bueno, my good friend, lest you think I am claiming to be unusually prescient about future RB success - I actually stumbled upon Holmes' number with BAL quite by accident. In writing a series of articles about potential RB success for an upcoming season, I was analyzing the historical data of the top 75 RBs, as well as teams' offenses' use of the running game statistically, opposing run D's effectiveness, etc. Cranking the means & standard deviations and other such statistical stuff.Holmes numbers fairly jumped off the page in a few categories, much to my surprise. He actually faired very well when in comparison with some of the big name RBs at the time, despite his limited opportunities.