What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

What's up with the McFadden hate? (1 Viewer)

LawFitz

Footballguy
I think all of these these are combining to create some serious value for this guy in many drafts. DMC looked like his old self last season. And that old self was one of the most dominant college football RBs of the last couple decades. Last year he was doing the same things he routinely did to the SEC to NFL defenders.

Based on how good he was last year, I thought he would climb to as high as sixth overall once the drafts and preseason came, but I think the orbital injury that's kept him out of the preseason has kept him off the radar and undervalued. I watched an interview with him about a week after the injury and his face looked fine. Not even bruised. It cost him practice time, but this guy doesn't need that as much as some others. If anything that time off was probably good for his body, which he is notoriously known to push to the limits with offseason conditioning work.

Injury risk is legit as is Raider meltdown risk, but the upside is silly elite. Good news is Michael Bush can dramatically mitigate the injury risk and he comes cheap other than the roster spot.

If you're down on the Raiders, I won't argue b/c Hue Jackson has a lot to prove. But don't pass without taking a closer look. There is something here.

 
he's in a tier with Gore and Turner right now for me and i'm having trouble separating them.
Oof. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Gore I can see an argument for, but his age and mileage are pretty big separators for me. Turner is no where near DMC in terms of talent or even opportunity. Falcons hate passing the ball to him and that just kills his value, especially relative to a younger, faster, hungrier all purpose stud like DMC.
 
What he did last year was ridiculous... I think he'll be better this year. Took him at 9 last night of a 12 team .5 ppr because i didnt want to risk him not coming back to me in the second. I believe he'll have a monster year this year. Left cj2k on the board to take him

 
I have him in a Tier with other injury risk RBs near the end of round 1 or early round 2 but when its a tie I grab the east coast or midwest player. That leaves me more options in case he doesn't play.

 
I don't think people are "hating" on him. But when you compare the risk to other top 10 RBs, there is greater risk than some of the others.

1) He plays for the Raiders. Personally, I am not optimistic about the Raider's offense in 2011. They have one of the worst group of recievers and they lost a key offensive lineman and TE. New coaching staff that has had little time to work with team.

2) In this already shortened off season, McFadden has missed more time to work with team because of the injury. I don't think anyone thinks the orbital injury is going to affect his play--but it has meant that he is on the sidelines while the team installs a new offense.

3) He has had one great, but again, incoomplete season, and two poor seasons. Which one will he have this season? Was last year his ceiling or his break out year? While there is reason to be optimistic about his talent based on last year, why would I take him over a guy who has put up multiple years of top production?

4) Injury risk. It isn't just that he has been injured each of his years in the NFL so far, but minor injuries seem to sideline him. He can't play injured and be productive.

5) How many goal line TDs will Bush vulture?

I DO like him in PPR. I think he will get a ton of receptions because I don't think Oakland has too many legit receivers and I question the QB's ability to get the ball downfield to the open man consistently. But in standard scoring I wouldn't want him as my RB1. In PPR, I would be happy to get him near the end of the first round and then handcuff with Bush.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"He plays on the Raiders" basically sums it up well.I'd still draft him at the end of round 1 though.
Can't argue with the pre-Hue Jackson era at all, but to his credit, last year despite major growing pains installing his offense and a new QB, they finished top ten in scoring and yardage. Not bad at all.
 
I don't think people are "hating" on him. But when you compare the risk to other top 10 RBs, there is greater risk than some of the others.1) He plays for the Raiders. Personally, I am not optimistic about the Raider's offense in 2011. They have one of the worst group of recievers and they lost a key offensive lineman and TE. New coaching staff that has had little time to work with team.2) In this already shortened off season, McFadden has missed more time to work with team because of the injury. I don't think anyone thinks the orbital injury is going to affect his play--but it has meant that he is on the sidelines while the team installs a new offense. 3) He has had one great, but again, incoomplete season, and two poor seasons. Which one will he have this season? Was last year his ceiling or his break out year? While there is reason to be optimistic about his talent based on last year, why would I take him over a guy who has put up multiple years of top production?4) Injury risk. It isn't just that he has been injured each of his years in the NFL so far, but minor injuries seem to sideline him. He can't play injured and be productive.5) How many goal line TDs will Bush vulture?I DO like him in PPR. I think he will get a ton of receptions because I don't think Oakland has too many legit receivers and I question the QB's ability to get the ball downfield to the open man consistently. But in standard scoring I wouldn't want him as my RB1. In PPR, I would be happy to get him near the end of the first round and then handcuff with Bush.
Not much more needs to said. :goodposting:
 
I don't think people are "hating" on him. But when you compare the risk to other top 10 RBs, there is greater risk than some of the others.1) He plays for the Raiders. Personally, I am not optimistic about the Raider's offense in 2011. They have one of the worst group of recievers and they lost a key offensive lineman and TE. New coaching staff that has had little time to work with team.2) In this already shortened off season, McFadden has missed more time to work with team because of the injury. I don't think anyone thinks the orbital injury is going to affect his play--but it has meant that he is on the sidelines while the team installs a new offense. 3) He has had one great, but again, incoomplete season, and two poor seasons. Which one will he have this season? Was last year his ceiling or his break out year? While there is reason to be optimistic about his talent based on last year, why would I take him over a guy who has put up multiple years of top production?4) Injury risk. It isn't just that he has been injured each of his years in the NFL so far, but minor injuries seem to sideline him. He can't play injured and be productive.5) How many goal line TDs will Bush vulture?I DO like him in PPR. I think he will get a ton of receptions because I don't think Oakland has too many legit receivers and I question the QB's ability to get the ball downfield to the open man consistently. But in standard scoring I wouldn't want him as my RB1. In PPR, I would be happy to get him near the end of the first round and then handcuff with Bush.
1. The WRs are not nearly as bad as you think. Ford, Murphy, Schilens, Moore are better than a lot of NFL WR corps. And that's assuming nothing from DHB. Gallery and Miller are far from irreplaceable.2. The are not installing a new offense. They're using Hue's offense from last season and adding new wrinkles from Al Saunders who has run the same offense for the last three decades.3. This is the snake bitten analysis. I guess some wounds take longer than others to heal.4. I agree with this, though the presence of Bush will mitigate on multiple levels.5. DMC was at his best when he and Bush were playing last season. One is a transcendent talent. The other is simply good. And the coaches know it.
 
All of that said, there is still major organizational risk as long as Al Davis is running the ship. And I acknowledge that. But at some point you have to swing for the fences with DMC. I suppose this is a question about risk tolerance and faith, and I suppose that's valid enough of an answer to my original post question.

But here's his highlight video from last season. If you haven't watched this prior to your draft and you think you'll be a position to grab him at a value spot, you should spend the five minutes to look...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYmj2NGjBnw&feature=related

 
No problem sccoring points with those receivers last year.

The Gallery loss is the most overrated loss in the history of offensive linemen. My god.

But the injury risk makes me real nervous.

 
But the injury risk makes me real nervous.
Mass, if Hue Jax can do it again, Bush makes all the difference in the world in this regard.a. Less is more with DMC. Had they lost Bush this offseason and had no other viable alternative to DMC, he would have been overutilized and that would've increased his risk of injury. Now they can utilize Bush to help DMC become the best he can be.

b. If you can get Bush on your fantasy team as the handcuff and you believe in Hue Jax, then you are set. In this offense a feature back role (20+ avg touches per game) for Bush is a top ten fantasy RB. DMC doesn't even need feature back status to be top ten. And if he does get feature back touches somehow, then he'll push for #1 fantasy RB on a PPG basis if Hue is for real.

 
The Raiders will be losing big a lot more this year, having lost the best player on their team to Philadelphia. They will not be in the top 5 in rushing attempts, and they're very unlikely to average 4.9 yards per carry again. As a team, they rushed for over 200 yards five times, all wins, most of them big; do you see them beating Denver 59-14 again? McFadden had four of his 10 TDs in that game.

 
The Raiders will be losing big a lot more this year, having lost the best player on their team to Philadelphia. They will not be in the top 5 in rushing attempts, and they're very unlikely to average 4.9 yards per carry again. As a team, they rushed for over 200 yards five times, all wins, most of them big; do you see them beating Denver 59-14 again? McFadden had four of his 10 TDs in that game.
Hes a big part of the passing game as well. Hell, he'll probably lead the team in receptions.
 
Has a RB ever been unsuccessful under Saunders?

2010 Ray Rice over 1,700 yards

2009 Ray Rice over 2,000 yards

2008 Steven Jackson over 1,400 yards in 12 games

2007 Clinton Portis over 1,600 yards

2006 Ladell Betts with 1,600 yards and an injured Portis with over 700 yards

2005 Larry Johnson rushes for over 1,750 Priest and LJ combine for 2,600 yards and 28 tds

2004 Priest Holmes Over 1,000 yards and 15 tds in 8 games then another 1,000 yards rushing from Larry Johnson and a dude named Blaylock

2003 Priest Holmes Over 2,100 yards

2002 Priest Holmes Nearly 2,300 yards

2001 Priest Holmes 2,100 plus yards

2000 Marshall Faulk Over 2,100 yards and 26 tds

1999 Marshall Faulk 0 Over 2,400 yards (Over 1,000 receiving yards)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Has Al Saunders ever had an unsuccessful running game?•2010 – Ray Rice over 1,700 yards•2009 – Ray Rice over 2,000 yards•2008 – Steven Jackson over 1,400 yards in 12 games•2007 – Clinton Portis over 1,600 yards•2006 – Ladell Betts with 1,600 yards and an injured Portis with over 700 yards•2005 – Larry Johnson rushes for over 1,750 – Priest and LJ combine for 2,600 yards and 28 td’s•2004 – Priest Holmes – Over 1,000 yards and 15 td’s in 8 games – then another 1,000 yards rushing from Larry Johnson and a dude named Blaylock•2003 – Priest Holmes – Over 2,100 yards•2002 – Priest Holmes – Nearly 2,300 yards•2001 – Priest Holmes – 2,100 plus yards•2000 – Marshall Faulk – Over 2,100 yards and 26 td’s•1999 – Marshall Faulk 0 Over 2,400 yards (Over 1,000 receiving yards)
Excellent point.And I'll add to it by asking how DMC compares talent wise to each of these RBs? The only one who is in the same class IMO is Faulk.
 
I don't think people are "hating" on him. But when you compare the risk to other top 10 RBs, there is greater risk than some of the others.

1) He plays for the Raiders. Personally, I am not optimistic about the Raider's offense in 2011. They have one of the worst group of recievers and they lost a key offensive lineman and TE. New coaching staff that has had little time to work with team.

2) In this already shortened off season, McFadden has missed more time to work with team because of the injury. I don't think anyone thinks the orbital injury is going to affect his play--but it has meant that he is on the sidelines while the team installs a new offense.

3) He has had one great, but again, incoomplete season, and two poor seasons. Which one will he have this season? Was last year his ceiling or his break out year? While there is reason to be optimistic about his talent based on last year, why would I take him over a guy who has put up multiple years of top production?

4) Injury risk. It isn't just that he has been injured each of his years in the NFL so far, but minor injuries seem to sideline him. He can't play injured and be productive.

5) How many goal line TDs will Bush vulture?

I DO like him in PPR. I think he will get a ton of receptions because I don't think Oakland has too many legit receivers and I question the QB's ability to get the ball downfield to the open man consistently. But in standard scoring I wouldn't want him as my RB1. In PPR, I would be happy to get him near the end of the first round and then handcuff with Bush.
1. The WRs are not nearly as bad as you think. Ford, Murphy, Schilens, Moore are better than a lot of NFL WR corps. And that's assuming nothing from DHB. Gallery and Miller are far from irreplaceable.2. The are not installing a new offense. They're using Hue's offense from last season and adding new wrinkles from Al Saunders who has run the same offense for the last three decades.

3. This is the snake bitten analysis. I guess some wounds take longer than others to heal.

4. I agree with this, though the presence of Bush will mitigate on multiple levels.

5. DMC was at his best when he and Bush were playing last season. One is a transcendent talent. The other is simply good. And the coaches know it.
Have to disagree slightly LawFitz.
[*]I think the loss of Gallery will hurt more than you think. He has played fairly solid for them and IMO his loss will be felt.

[*]In regards to the WR squad, I am a believer that they will have a lot of looks, as the OAK defense took a huge blow with the loss of Asomogh. They are going to have to throw, which makes the receivers more valuable. What hurts is that Miller has consistently been the "go-to" WR. Now we have a new TE, some more rookies, and a shortened training camp. Those factors do not bode well for a good season. So if they are out of it early, they have to throw which is a plus for DMC, but will hurt him from a pure rushing standpoint.

[*]Agreed with Michael Bush statements. Bush is the TD vulture here. He played well with DMC and I don't really see any change in that setup.

[*]DMC had a fantastic year last year. I drafted him late as I saw great potential as he has been written off over the last few years. But let's be honest, to think opposing defenses aren't going to game plan for this guy is ridiculous. They are going to plan for DMC and with the loss of Gallery, some new WRs who will make some basic mistakes, means DMC is not going to have a lot of holes.

So do I like DMC. Sure, he's an explosive runner. Is he worth a first rd or 2nd round pick? IMO, no way. I think he is overvalued. Just too many risk and concerns with the OAK Offense. Maybe I'm wrong, and then so be it, but I'm not touching him in the first round and I'd consider late second, but I am sure most people will overreach and take that decision away.

 
Has Al Saunders ever had an unsuccessful running game?•2010 – Ray Rice over 1,700 yards•2009 – Ray Rice over 2,000 yards•2008 – Steven Jackson over 1,400 yards in 12 games•2007 – Clinton Portis over 1,600 yards•2006 – Ladell Betts with 1,600 yards and an injured Portis with over 700 yards•2005 – Larry Johnson rushes for over 1,750 – Priest and LJ combine for 2,600 yards and 28 td’s•2004 – Priest Holmes – Over 1,000 yards and 15 td’s in 8 games – then another 1,000 yards rushing from Larry Johnson and a dude named Blaylock•2003 – Priest Holmes – Over 2,100 yards•2002 – Priest Holmes – Nearly 2,300 yards•2001 – Priest Holmes – 2,100 plus yards•2000 – Marshall Faulk – Over 2,100 yards and 26 td’s•1999 – Marshall Faulk 0 Over 2,400 yards (Over 1,000 receiving yards)
Excellent point.And I'll add to it by asking how DMC compares talent wise to each of these RBs? The only one who is in the same class IMO is Faulk.
Priest Holmes and Steven Jackson were just as good or better than McFadden in their primes. Ray Rice may not be as explosive but you can count on him week in week out.
 
Has Al Saunders ever had an unsuccessful running game?•2010 – Ray Rice over 1,700 yards•2009 – Ray Rice over 2,000 yards•2008 – Steven Jackson over 1,400 yards in 12 games•2007 – Clinton Portis over 1,600 yards•2006 – Ladell Betts with 1,600 yards and an injured Portis with over 700 yards•2005 – Larry Johnson rushes for over 1,750 – Priest and LJ combine for 2,600 yards and 28 td’s•2004 – Priest Holmes – Over 1,000 yards and 15 td’s in 8 games – then another 1,000 yards rushing from Larry Johnson and a dude named Blaylock•2003 – Priest Holmes – Over 2,100 yards•2002 – Priest Holmes – Nearly 2,300 yards•2001 – Priest Holmes – 2,100 plus yards•2000 – Marshall Faulk – Over 2,100 yards and 26 td’s•1999 – Marshall Faulk 0 Over 2,400 yards (Over 1,000 receiving yards)
Excellent point.And I'll add to it by asking how DMC compares talent wise to each of these RBs? The only one who is in the same class IMO is Faulk.
Priest Holmes and Steven Jackson were just as good or better than McFadden in their primes. Ray Rice may not be as explosive but you can count on him week in week out.
All of the guys you mention were arguably more durable and well rounded, but I don't think any of them were nearly as explosive. But your point is well taken in that there are many other aspects to being a RB than first step explosion and I was probably too quick to dismiss talents like Holmes and Jackson. I do think Faulk was the best of them all and comparing DMC to him is extremely premature, even after last year.
 
As I have posted elsewhere, if you can pair him with Bush, it is an outstanding combo. Last year, that combo (counting all of McFadden's games and the 3 games Bush started when McFadden was out) combined for fantasy points that would have ranked as the #2 RB by a fairly wide margin. I realize there are issues with combining their numbers but not doing it for other RBs, but it gives a feel for the potential there.

Now, it may not be easy or desirable based on the pick it would require to pair the two of them...

 
'butcher boy said:
Were defenses stacking the box against the Raiders last year? Either way, they surely will be this year.
Exactly. I don't know if the guy above watched Miller, but he is not "easily replaceable." He may not be Gates, but he was a top 10 TE and the leading receiver. Their receiving corps has potential,,,,but to try and say that guys like Ford (nice upside but still a very raw talent), Murphy (the epitome of replaceable), and Schilens (is he on the field or in the training room)are a decent receiving corps is ridiculous. KC has Bowe. SD has VJ. Even Denver has Llloyd. And none of those teams even have a great receiving corps beyond their WR1. I would be hard pressed to find too many teams with worst receiving corps than Oakland: Seattle (but they at least have Miller! Wait, forget it--they also have Sidney Rice); Jacksonville (ok). That's about it. Jacksonville.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Three things to note.

1. He is a great receiver. Even when losing, he will get yards and fantasy points.

2. They will get him the ball early and often to try to keep games close.

3. They added one of the best blocking tight ends, Kevin Boss.

Just a couple things I wanted to add to the discussion. His upside is ridiculous. It goes without saying. If he's there at number 8, he's on my team.

edit: Boss may miss some regular season games. Get well soon Kevin

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand where this 'hate' is coming from. Still consistently going in the first round, so enough people love his game not to wait on him. To me, any guy who gets consistently picked in the first round is getting respect.

McFadden has the all the intangibles of any of the top tier RB's, and always did. He just needed to pair up with Hue Jackson to re-discover them. There was an interesting interview where Hue asked DMAC about why his first 2 years were so dissapointing. Where was that uberstud SEC running back that used to shred defenses at Arkansas. DMAC told him he liked running certain types of plays. And that's when the offense changed. Hue started calling DMAC's favorite plays, and then he changed the ZBS to a power blocking system. The results are seen in last year's performance. And it is not an aberration, but a sign of things to come.

Having said all that, there is always concern for caution. But let me dispel here some of the anti-DMC arguments.

1. Michael Bush as a vulture: His stats came mostly when DMC was hurt or when DMC was taking a breather. Typically, DMC will finish out a drive that he starts. Bush if anything is a valuable guy to roster for DMC owners, because if/when DMC has a week or two here or there off because he's 'nicked' up, Bush will be there to make sure you get 90% of the points you would have had with DMC. Bush is just that good.

2. Fluke performance: "10 TD's, but he got 4 in one game last year in a 59-14 blowout!, like that's going to happen again!" - I don't understand the reasoning behind this. If anything, it tells you of his relative upside that he hasn't hit yet. If he has a great game, it's supposed to be discounted or statistically thrown out? If that's all you have to go on, and you need another "wow" game, then pull up the highlights of DMC against Jacksonville last year. The highlights are just silly good. People who try to paint him as an abberation don't watch him game in and game out.

3. The loss of Tom Cable and Robert Gallery: Mentioned earlier in Hue Jackson's paraphrased interview about DMC, but the reason Tom Cable is gone (at least partly) is that his zone blocking system was not working for DMC. Hue Jackson's power blocking system was installed as hybrid with the ZBS, and DMC's production took off. Ironically Cable's best attribute of being a line czar/coach was what got him canned. That he was ever a head coach at the NFL level was a testament to him being in the right place at the right time and being extremly loyal to Al Davis. Robert Gallery was former #2 overall draft pick who never panned out. He was supposed to be a LT for the next decade when they picked him. But his alligator arms got him moved inside to LG to hide his weaknesses. He turned out to be pretty decent at LG, but way overpaid for that position. A lot of people think Gallery was a huge loss, but they don't see that he was pretty much a turnstile in pass protection, and to be nice he "held his own" on run blocking. He never had the meanstreak that belied his gruff, heavily tattoed looks. He was a softie and DT's regularly abused him on the way to the QB. It's safe to call this pick a "bust" for the relative meager return on investment. Seattle got a good line coach in Cable, and an overrated guard in Gallery. It's funny he left the Raiders and he gets all this love. He never got that kind of love in Oakland.

Now let me give you some reason for real concern.

The O-line: It's a mess right now. I am not going to sugarcoat it. Maybe it's the lockout. Maybe it's lack of signing the right free agent. Other than second year LT Veldheer, there is no one on the line who hasn't been shuffled around looking for the answer. The unit as a whole has to be downgraded from last year, but not in any specific measure owing to Bob Gallery. Their former starting RT, Mario Henderson ate his way out of the league (failing a physical - too fat), that may have been about not taking care of himself during the lockout. Some of the other guys who filled in last year like LG Loper and RG/RT Barnes have regressed. RT Langston Walker, played perhaps his last meaningful ball last year. The rookies drafted this year, Wisniewski and Barksdale have a lot of work to do to get to NFL speed. Last year's uber-beast adonis LT Bruce Campbell is still very raw and is still learning technique. The line is the #1 problem with this team right now.

 
'fruity pebbles said:
Has a RB ever been unsuccessful under Saunders?•2010 – Ray Rice over 1,700 yards•2009 – Ray Rice over 2,000 yards•2008 – Steven Jackson over 1,400 yards in 12 games•2007 – Clinton Portis over 1,600 yards•2006 – Ladell Betts with 1,600 yards and an injured Portis with over 700 yards•2005 – Larry Johnson rushes for over 1,750 – Priest and LJ combine for 2,600 yards and 28 td’s•2004 – Priest Holmes – Over 1,000 yards and 15 td’s in 8 games – then another 1,000 yards rushing from Larry Johnson and a dude named Blaylock•2003 – Priest Holmes – Over 2,100 yards•2002 – Priest Holmes – Nearly 2,300 yards•2001 – Priest Holmes – 2,100 plus yards•2000 – Marshall Faulk – Over 2,100 yards and 26 td’s•1999 – Marshall Faulk 0 Over 2,400 yards (Over 1,000 receiving yards)
:goodposting: sums it up,really..
 
I don't understand where this 'hate' is coming from. Still consistently going in the first round, so enough people love his game not to wait on him. To me, any guy who gets consistently picked in the first round is getting respect.McFadden has the all the intangibles of any of the top tier RB's, and always did. He just needed to pair up with Hue Jackson to re-discover them. There was an interesting interview where Hue asked DMAC about why his first 2 years were so dissapointing. Where was that uberstud SEC running back that used to shred defenses at Arkansas. DMAC told him he liked running certain types of plays. And that's when the offense changed. Hue started calling DMAC's favorite plays, and then he changed the ZBS to a power blocking system. The results are seen in last year's performance. And it is not an aberration, but a sign of things to come. Having said all that, there is always concern for caution. But let me dispel here some of the anti-DMC arguments. 1. Michael Bush as a vulture: His stats came mostly when DMC was hurt or when DMC was taking a breather. Typically, DMC will finish out a drive that he starts. Bush if anything is a valuable guy to roster for DMC owners, because if/when DMC has a week or two here or there off because he's 'nicked' up, Bush will be there to make sure you get 90% of the points you would have had with DMC. Bush is just that good.2. Fluke performance: "10 TD's, but he got 4 in one game last year in a 59-14 blowout!, like that's going to happen again!" - I don't understand the reasoning behind this. If anything, it tells you of his relative upside that he hasn't hit yet. If he has a great game, it's supposed to be discounted or statistically thrown out? If that's all you have to go on, and you need another "wow" game, then pull up the highlights of DMC against Jacksonville last year. The highlights are just silly good. People who try to paint him as an abberation don't watch him game in and game out. 3. The loss of Tom Cable and Robert Gallery: Mentioned earlier in Hue Jackson's paraphrased interview about DMC, but the reason Tom Cable is gone (at least partly) is that his zone blocking system was not working for DMC. Hue Jackson's power blocking system was installed as hybrid with the ZBS, and DMC's production took off. Ironically Cable's best attribute of being a line czar/coach was what got him canned. That he was ever a head coach at the NFL level was a testament to him being in the right place at the right time and being extremly loyal to Al Davis. Robert Gallery was former #2 overall draft pick who never panned out. He was supposed to be a LT for the next decade when they picked him. But his alligator arms got him moved inside to LG to hide his weaknesses. He turned out to be pretty decent at LG, but way overpaid for that position. A lot of people think Gallery was a huge loss, but they don't see that he was pretty much a turnstile in pass protection, and to be nice he "held his own" on run blocking. He never had the meanstreak that belied his gruff, heavily tattoed looks. He was a softie and DT's regularly abused him on the way to the QB. It's safe to call this pick a "bust" for the relative meager return on investment. Seattle got a good line coach in Cable, and an overrated guard in Gallery. It's funny he left the Raiders and he gets all this love. He never got that kind of love in Oakland.Now let me give you some reason for real concern. The O-line: It's a mess right now. I am not going to sugarcoat it. Maybe it's the lockout. Maybe it's lack of signing the right free agent. Other than second year LT Veldheer, there is no one on the line who hasn't been shuffled around looking for the answer. The unit as a whole has to be downgraded from last year, but not in any specific measure owing to Bob Gallery. Their former starting RT, Mario Henderson ate his way out of the league (failing a physical - too fat), that may have been about not taking care of himself during the lockout. Some of the other guys who filled in last year like LG Loper and RG/RT Barnes have regressed. RT Langston Walker, played perhaps his last meaningful ball last year. The rookies drafted this year, Wisniewski and Barksdale have a lot of work to do to get to NFL speed. Last year's uber-beast adonis LT Bruce Campbell is still very raw and is still learning technique. The line is the #1 problem with this team right now.
This alone from a diehard raiders fan should be enough to choose safer upside options...their line was not terrible last yr and with boss missing time this is a huge red flag IMHO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How is a 1st round pick value?
When he falls out of the first. I got him at 2.6 in a ten team redraft this weekend. I don't think it's going to be the only draft where he falls that far based on my league mates' reactions and some of the posts in this thread.
Also, if you take him as #8-10 overall, and he beats that. He already has, and has crushed it in PPG (#2 last year). At a certain point your returns on first rounders are limited, but you still have to pick someone there.I'm a believer. I think Jackson and Saunders are good enough run game coaches that they'll be able to tweak the scheme and personnel to mitigate some of the big weaknesses Oakland currently has up front. DMC might not quite hit last year's YPC numbers, but I expect a slight increase in usage given the addition of Saunders.
 
I don't think there is any "hate" going on with DMC. The guy is an elite talent.

The issue is that once you get past the top 4 guys (Foster, AP, RR and JC), then RB's 5-10+ all have strong cases to finish near the top at the end of the season.

CJ2K - holdout?

McCoy - PPR or no? Ronnie Brown impact?

MJD - proven but what about injury?

Mendenhall - bell cow, cake schedule, PPR?

Gore - bell cow, run-oriented offense developing

Turner - should be a TD machine. PPR?

Hillis - how can you discount last year's number two?

Even SJax has a great situation this year with McD

The video was nice. But it seemed 80% of those runs were against pitiful HOU, DEN and JAX when he had a ton of space and could turn on the jets to get to the second level.

There are enough open questions about 1) how the OAK offense will be impacted by offseason moves, 2) injury history, 3) M. Bush vulturing and 4) a little tougher schedule that any reasonable person could place him above or below any of the top 10 guys.

No hate here. But not a slam dunk lovefest either.

 
I don't understand where this 'hate' is coming from. Still consistently going in the first round, so enough people love his game not to wait on him. To me, any guy who gets consistently picked in the first round is getting respect.McFadden has the all the intangibles of any of the top tier RB's, and always did. He just needed to pair up with Hue Jackson to re-discover them. There was an interesting interview where Hue asked DMAC about why his first 2 years were so dissapointing. Where was that uberstud SEC running back that used to shred defenses at Arkansas. DMAC told him he liked running certain types of plays. And that's when the offense changed. Hue started calling DMAC's favorite plays, and then he changed the ZBS to a power blocking system. The results are seen in last year's performance. And it is not an aberration, but a sign of things to come. Having said all that, there is always concern for caution. But let me dispel here some of the anti-DMC arguments. 1. Michael Bush as a vulture: His stats came mostly when DMC was hurt or when DMC was taking a breather. Typically, DMC will finish out a drive that he starts. Bush if anything is a valuable guy to roster for DMC owners, because if/when DMC has a week or two here or there off because he's 'nicked' up, Bush will be there to make sure you get 90% of the points you would have had with DMC. Bush is just that good.2. Fluke performance: "10 TD's, but he got 4 in one game last year in a 59-14 blowout!, like that's going to happen again!" - I don't understand the reasoning behind this. If anything, it tells you of his relative upside that he hasn't hit yet. If he has a great game, it's supposed to be discounted or statistically thrown out? If that's all you have to go on, and you need another "wow" game, then pull up the highlights of DMC against Jacksonville last year. The highlights are just silly good. People who try to paint him as an abberation don't watch him game in and game out. 3. The loss of Tom Cable and Robert Gallery: Mentioned earlier in Hue Jackson's paraphrased interview about DMC, but the reason Tom Cable is gone (at least partly) is that his zone blocking system was not working for DMC. Hue Jackson's power blocking system was installed as hybrid with the ZBS, and DMC's production took off. Ironically Cable's best attribute of being a line czar/coach was what got him canned. That he was ever a head coach at the NFL level was a testament to him being in the right place at the right time and being extremly loyal to Al Davis. Robert Gallery was former #2 overall draft pick who never panned out. He was supposed to be a LT for the next decade when they picked him. But his alligator arms got him moved inside to LG to hide his weaknesses. He turned out to be pretty decent at LG, but way overpaid for that position. A lot of people think Gallery was a huge loss, but they don't see that he was pretty much a turnstile in pass protection, and to be nice he "held his own" on run blocking. He never had the meanstreak that belied his gruff, heavily tattoed looks. He was a softie and DT's regularly abused him on the way to the QB. It's safe to call this pick a "bust" for the relative meager return on investment. Seattle got a good line coach in Cable, and an overrated guard in Gallery. It's funny he left the Raiders and he gets all this love. He never got that kind of love in Oakland.Now let me give you some reason for real concern. The O-line: It's a mess right now. I am not going to sugarcoat it. Maybe it's the lockout. Maybe it's lack of signing the right free agent. Other than second year LT Veldheer, there is no one on the line who hasn't been shuffled around looking for the answer. The unit as a whole has to be downgraded from last year, but not in any specific measure owing to Bob Gallery. Their former starting RT, Mario Henderson ate his way out of the league (failing a physical - too fat), that may have been about not taking care of himself during the lockout. Some of the other guys who filled in last year like LG Loper and RG/RT Barnes have regressed. RT Langston Walker, played perhaps his last meaningful ball last year. The rookies drafted this year, Wisniewski and Barksdale have a lot of work to do to get to NFL speed. Last year's uber-beast adonis LT Bruce Campbell is still very raw and is still learning technique. The line is the #1 problem with this team right now.
This alone from a diehard raiders fan should be enough to choose safer upside options...their line was not terrible last yr and with boss missing time this is a huge red flag IMHO
A lot of people say that Minnesota as the worst line in the NFL.Should people pass on Peterson in the top few picks for safer options solely because of this?I say no.
 
'LawFitz said:
'fruity pebbles said:
Has Al Saunders ever had an unsuccessful running game?•2010 – Ray Rice over 1,700 yards•2009 – Ray Rice over 2,000 yards•2008 – Steven Jackson over 1,400 yards in 12 games•2007 – Clinton Portis over 1,600 yards•2006 – Ladell Betts with 1,600 yards and an injured Portis with over 700 yards•2005 – Larry Johnson rushes for over 1,750 – Priest and LJ combine for 2,600 yards and 28 td’s•2004 – Priest Holmes – Over 1,000 yards and 15 td’s in 8 games – then another 1,000 yards rushing from Larry Johnson and a dude named Blaylock•2003 – Priest Holmes – Over 2,100 yards•2002 – Priest Holmes – Nearly 2,300 yards•2001 – Priest Holmes – 2,100 plus yards•2000 – Marshall Faulk – Over 2,100 yards and 26 td’s•1999 – Marshall Faulk 0 Over 2,400 yards (Over 1,000 receiving yards)
Excellent point.And I'll add to it by asking how DMC compares talent wise to each of these RBs? The only one who is in the same class IMO is Faulk.
Just when I was beginning to think it sounded like a reasonable presentation of facts, you had to go and say this. lol
 
I don't understand where this 'hate' is coming from. Still consistently going in the first round, so enough people love his game not to wait on him. To me, any guy who gets consistently picked in the first round is getting respect.McFadden has the all the intangibles of any of the top tier RB's, and always did. He just needed to pair up with Hue Jackson to re-discover them. There was an interesting interview where Hue asked DMAC about why his first 2 years were so dissapointing. Where was that uberstud SEC running back that used to shred defenses at Arkansas. DMAC told him he liked running certain types of plays. And that's when the offense changed. Hue started calling DMAC's favorite plays, and then he changed the ZBS to a power blocking system. The results are seen in last year's performance. And it is not an aberration, but a sign of things to come. Having said all that, there is always concern for caution. But let me dispel here some of the anti-DMC arguments. 1. Michael Bush as a vulture: His stats came mostly when DMC was hurt or when DMC was taking a breather. Typically, DMC will finish out a drive that he starts. Bush if anything is a valuable guy to roster for DMC owners, because if/when DMC has a week or two here or there off because he's 'nicked' up, Bush will be there to make sure you get 90% of the points you would have had with DMC. Bush is just that good.2. Fluke performance: "10 TD's, but he got 4 in one game last year in a 59-14 blowout!, like that's going to happen again!" - I don't understand the reasoning behind this. If anything, it tells you of his relative upside that he hasn't hit yet. If he has a great game, it's supposed to be discounted or statistically thrown out? If that's all you have to go on, and you need another "wow" game, then pull up the highlights of DMC against Jacksonville last year. The highlights are just silly good. People who try to paint him as an abberation don't watch him game in and game out. 3. The loss of Tom Cable and Robert Gallery: Mentioned earlier in Hue Jackson's paraphrased interview about DMC, but the reason Tom Cable is gone (at least partly) is that his zone blocking system was not working for DMC. Hue Jackson's power blocking system was installed as hybrid with the ZBS, and DMC's production took off. Ironically Cable's best attribute of being a line czar/coach was what got him canned. That he was ever a head coach at the NFL level was a testament to him being in the right place at the right time and being extremly loyal to Al Davis. Robert Gallery was former #2 overall draft pick who never panned out. He was supposed to be a LT for the next decade when they picked him. But his alligator arms got him moved inside to LG to hide his weaknesses. He turned out to be pretty decent at LG, but way overpaid for that position. A lot of people think Gallery was a huge loss, but they don't see that he was pretty much a turnstile in pass protection, and to be nice he "held his own" on run blocking. He never had the meanstreak that belied his gruff, heavily tattoed looks. He was a softie and DT's regularly abused him on the way to the QB. It's safe to call this pick a "bust" for the relative meager return on investment. Seattle got a good line coach in Cable, and an overrated guard in Gallery. It's funny he left the Raiders and he gets all this love. He never got that kind of love in Oakland.Now let me give you some reason for real concern. The O-line: It's a mess right now. I am not going to sugarcoat it. Maybe it's the lockout. Maybe it's lack of signing the right free agent. Other than second year LT Veldheer, there is no one on the line who hasn't been shuffled around looking for the answer. The unit as a whole has to be downgraded from last year, but not in any specific measure owing to Bob Gallery. Their former starting RT, Mario Henderson ate his way out of the league (failing a physical - too fat), that may have been about not taking care of himself during the lockout. Some of the other guys who filled in last year like LG Loper and RG/RT Barnes have regressed. RT Langston Walker, played perhaps his last meaningful ball last year. The rookies drafted this year, Wisniewski and Barksdale have a lot of work to do to get to NFL speed. Last year's uber-beast adonis LT Bruce Campbell is still very raw and is still learning technique. The line is the #1 problem with this team right now.
This alone from a diehard raiders fan should be enough to choose safer upside options...their line was not terrible last yr and with boss missing time this is a huge red flag IMHO
A lot of people say that Minnesota as the worst line in the NFL.Should people pass on Peterson in the top few picks for safer options solely because of this?I say no.
Agreed. Seems weird to downgrade McFadden because of the team he plays for and yet still consider AP safe.
 
'LawFitz said:
'fruity pebbles said:
Has Al Saunders ever had an unsuccessful running game?

•2010 – Ray Rice over 1,700 yards

•2009 – Ray Rice over 2,000 yards

•2008 – Steven Jackson over 1,400 yards in 12 games

•2007 – Clinton Portis over 1,600 yards

•2006 – Ladell Betts with 1,600 yards and an injured Portis with over 700 yards

•2005 – Larry Johnson rushes for over 1,750 – Priest and LJ combine for 2,600 yards and 28 td’s

•2004 – Priest Holmes – Over 1,000 yards and 15 td’s in 8 games – then another 1,000 yards rushing from Larry Johnson and a dude named Blaylock

•2003 – Priest Holmes – Over 2,100 yards

•2002 – Priest Holmes – Nearly 2,300 yards

•2001 – Priest Holmes – 2,100 plus yards

•2000 – Marshall Faulk – Over 2,100 yards and 26 td’s

•1999 – Marshall Faulk 0 Over 2,400 yards (Over 1,000 receiving yards)
Excellent point.And I'll add to it by asking how DMC compares talent wise to each of these RBs? The only one who is in the same class IMO is Faulk.
Just when I was beginning to think it sounded like a reasonable presentation of facts, you had to go and say this. lol
Well I did back off that stance a couple posts later.And it seems I'm not the only one making premature Faulk comparisons:

Darren McFadden shows Oakland Raiders star power when healthy

By Jerry McDonald

NAPA -- For once, Darren McFadden wasn't fast enough.

A long pass sailed over McFadden's head, prompting Raiders free safety and resident court jester Michael Huff to ask, "You lost a step?"

It was earlier this week in the second practice for McFadden since he broke a bone in his left eye socket Aug. 3, and his presence pushed the session into a second gear.

In each of the past four training camps, McFadden has been the best player on the field, displaying what might be the most complete skill set of any NFL running back.

"He can do everything," reserve running back Rock Cartwright said. "He pass protects. He runs over guys. He makes guys miss. You can put him at wide receiver."

Yet it wasn't until Year 3 that McFadden's production in the fall approached his work in the summer.

McFadden rushed for 1,157 yards, averaged 5.2 yards per carry and caught 47 passes for 507 yards in 2010. He did it all in 13 games, missing Weeks 5, 6 and 17 because of hamstring and turf-toe injuries.

The breakout season came after McFadden combined for 856 yards rushing and averaged 3.9 yards per carry his first two NFL seasons after being the No. 4 overall pick out of Arkansas in the 2008 draft.

With just five runs of 20 or more yards and one of more than 40 his first two seasons, McFadden had 14 runs of 20-plus yards or more and four of 40 or more in 2010. He got better with more work, averaging 7.3 yards per attempt on

Advertisement

carries 11 through 20.

What turned McFadden from a tentative back derisively nicknamed "McFalldown" by some elements of the fan base into a robust finisher of runs?

The easy answer is being healthy. McFadden had turf-toe injuries on both feet as a rookie and in his second year needed in-season minor knee surgery and postseason shoulder surgery.

But something else was missing, and Raiders coach Hue Jackson approached McFadden in the weight room not long after taking over as offensive coordinator before last season to find out what it was.

Jackson recalled asking McFadden what made him a Heisman Trophy finalist at Arkansas, and McFadden said some of his favorite runs were not in the Oakland playbook.

"He rattled off about three or four runs that he really enjoys, and I said, 'OK, they're in,' " Jackson said. "And he looked at me and said, 'Oh, no they're not.' And I said, 'Yes they are.' And that's what we did. And 1,157 yards later, that's who Darren McFadden is."

Under former coach Tom Cable, the Raiders were strictly a zone-blocking team, a style that calls for running backs to exercise patience before cutting back hard against the grain.

Jackson instituted more gap and power blocking, in part to benefit McFadden.

"I like to get downhill, make a move and go," McFadden said. "Every running back has certain plays and things they feel more comfortable running."

Reserve running back Michael Bennett, an 11-year veteran, compares McFadden's ability to recent Hall of Fame inductee Marshall Faulk -- a name also invoked by offensive coordinator Al Saunders, who coached Faulk with the St. Louis Rams.

"He hasn't had the numbers that a Marshall Faulk has had because he's still young and his career is in its early stages, but you can line this guy up anywhere, and it's a mismatch and a home run," Bennett said. "His skills are unbelievable."

As quick as McFadden is on the field, he is slow to say "I told you so" and outwardly displays no sense of pretense or entitlement.

Bennett and Cartwright call him "humble," and it's not uncommon to see McFadden give the same courtesy to a first-timer with a notepad or microphone as he would to a national media figure.

"That's the country boy in him. You treat everyone how you want to be treated," defensive tackle Tommy Kelly said. "With a game as loud as his, you don't have to talk. You've just got to go out and play."

Given McFadden's value, Jackson conceded it's possible McFadden won't play at all in the exhibition season. The broken eye socket was a bit of a fluke, coming during a pass-blocking drill when McFadden's helmet was pushed downward.

It was a minor setback and didn't prevent McFadden from conditioning and keeping his lower body in shape.

Injuries, which have taken away small parts of his three NFL seasons, seemingly are the only thing keeping McFadden from being in the forefront of any conversation about the NFL's elite running backs.

"I can see him having 2,000 to 2,200 all-purpose yards and 1,500 to 1,600 yards rushing," Cartwright said. "His main thing is to stay healthy. I think he's going to do like that. He puts in the work."

 
'LawFitz said:
'joffer said:
he's in a tier with Gore and Turner right now for me and i'm having trouble separating them.
Oof. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Gore I can see an argument for, but his age and mileage are pretty big separators for me. Turner is no where near DMC in terms of talent or even opportunity. Falcons hate passing the ball to him and that just kills his value, especially relative to a younger, faster, hungrier all purpose stud like DMC.
Michael Turner is not a bigger injury risk than McFadden, is a virtual lock for 300+ touches and is the unquestioned goal line back on an Atlanta team that most agree will outscore the Raiders (regardless of Oakland's sixth place scoring finish last year...Atlanta finished 5th last year). McFadden had less than 300 touches in his career year, has a superior backfield running mate to share the load (Bush>>>>Snelling/Jacquizz) and might be the fourth option at the stripe for the Raiders (behind Bush, Reece and something going horribly wrong).McFadden might go on to reproduce his 2010 numbers but I think he should still be ranked below a proven commodity like Turner at this point.
 
'LawFitz said:
'joffer said:
he's in a tier with Gore and Turner right now for me and i'm having trouble separating them.
Oof. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Gore I can see an argument for, but his age and mileage are pretty big separators for me. Turner is no where near DMC in terms of talent or even opportunity. Falcons hate passing the ball to him and that just kills his value, especially relative to a younger, faster, hungrier all purpose stud like DMC.
Michael Turner is not a bigger injury risk than McFadden, is a virtual lock for 300+ touches and is the unquestioned goal line back on an Atlanta team that most agree will outscore the Raiders (regardless of Oakland's sixth place scoring finish last year...Atlanta finished 5th last year). McFadden had less than 300 touches in his career year, has a superior backfield running mate to share the load (Bush>>>>Snelling/Jacquizz) and might be the fourth option at the stripe for the Raiders (behind Bush, Reece and something going horribly wrong).McFadden might go on to reproduce his 2010 numbers but I think he should still be ranked below a proven commodity like Turner at this point.
Turner is old and worn down, and people are depending on him to get through another 16 game season. McFadden is 23 years old and coming into his prime. (Turner is my choice for bust/most overrated back of the year). Turner may be in a potentially higher scoring offense, but he's not half the receiver as DMC. And to suggest DMC is the 4th GL option is really telling of how much or little you actually watch the Raiders.
 
'LawFitz said:
'GCP said:
'LawFitz said:
'fruity pebbles said:
Has Al Saunders ever had an unsuccessful running game?

•2010 – Ray Rice over 1,700 yards

•2009 – Ray Rice over 2,000 yards

•2008 – Steven Jackson over 1,400 yards in 12 games

•2007 – Clinton Portis over 1,600 yards

•2006 – Ladell Betts with 1,600 yards and an injured Portis with over 700 yards

•2005 – Larry Johnson rushes for over 1,750 – Priest and LJ combine for 2,600 yards and 28 td’s

•2004 – Priest Holmes – Over 1,000 yards and 15 td’s in 8 games – then another 1,000 yards rushing from Larry Johnson and a dude named Blaylock

•2003 – Priest Holmes – Over 2,100 yards

•2002 – Priest Holmes – Nearly 2,300 yards

•2001 – Priest Holmes – 2,100 plus yards

•2000 – Marshall Faulk – Over 2,100 yards and 26 td’s

•1999 – Marshall Faulk 0 Over 2,400 yards (Over 1,000 receiving yards)
Excellent point.And I'll add to it by asking how DMC compares talent wise to each of these RBs? The only one who is in the same class IMO is Faulk.
Priest Holmes and Steven Jackson were just as good or better than McFadden in their primes. Ray Rice may not be as explosive but you can count on him week in week out.
All of the guys you mention were arguably more durable and well rounded, but I don't think any of them were nearly as explosive. But your point is well taken in that there are many other aspects to being a RB than first step explosion and I was probably too quick to dismiss talents like Holmes and Jackson. I do think Faulk was the best of them all and comparing DMC to him is extremely premature, even after last year.
'LawFitz said:
'fruity pebbles said:
Has Al Saunders ever had an unsuccessful running game?

•2010 – Ray Rice over 1,700 yards

•2009 – Ray Rice over 2,000 yards

•2008 – Steven Jackson over 1,400 yards in 12 games

•2007 – Clinton Portis over 1,600 yards

•2006 – Ladell Betts with 1,600 yards and an injured Portis with over 700 yards

•2005 – Larry Johnson rushes for over 1,750 – Priest and LJ combine for 2,600 yards and 28 td’s

•2004 – Priest Holmes – Over 1,000 yards and 15 td’s in 8 games – then another 1,000 yards rushing from Larry Johnson and a dude named Blaylock

•2003 – Priest Holmes – Over 2,100 yards

•2002 – Priest Holmes – Nearly 2,300 yards

•2001 – Priest Holmes – 2,100 plus yards

•2000 – Marshall Faulk – Over 2,100 yards and 26 td’s

•1999 – Marshall Faulk 0 Over 2,400 yards (Over 1,000 receiving yards)
Excellent point.And I'll add to it by asking how DMC compares talent wise to each of these RBs? The only one who is in the same class IMO is Faulk.
Just when I was beginning to think it sounded like a reasonable presentation of facts, you had to go and say this. lol
Well I did back off that stance a couple posts later.And it seems I'm not the only one making premature Faulk comparisons:
So you did. My bad, I missed it.DMC is still too risky to take over someone like Turner / SJax, to me. As someone else mentioned, it's not that he's an injury risk, it's that any injury is enough to completely shelf him. Whereas, guys like Turner & SJax have consistently shown they can power through the nagging little stuff that consitently cost DMC entire games.

Upside is great and all, but reliable points win more games than boom or bust points.

 
DMC is still too risky to take over someone like Turner / SJax, to me. As someone else mentioned, it's not that he's an injury risk, it's that any injury is enough to completely shelf him. Whereas, guys like Turner & SJax have consistently shown they can power through the nagging little stuff that consitently cost DMC entire games.Upside is great and all, but reliable points win more games than boom or bust points.
Properly handcuffing with Bush mitigates much of what you describe.I'll take the young guy with burst and hunger (and his more than capable handcuff) over tired and worn down Turner. SJax I can sort of see an argument for, but he looked pretty tired to me last year too. My personal eye test has had me down on Turner for the last couple years and down on SJax last year.IMO selecting a guy like Mike Turner early (esp in PPR or even 0.5 PPR) is a good way to increase your odds of being middle of the pack and dramatically decrease your odds of winning.
 
A running back breathing behind his neck, a o-line in worse shape than it was last season, an offense that looks very stagnant, and the player that looks very brittle. No hate here just a good player in a bad situation.

 
FWIW:

Coach Hue Jackson confirmed that he changed the Raiders' rushing style in part to fit Darren McFadden's skill set.Before Jackson took over as offensive coordinator, the Raiders were running a strict zone-blocking scheme that required patience. Now they run a power-blocking system in which McFadden is asked to get downhill -- something he does quicker and more explosively than most backs in the league. With Jackson firmly in Run-DMC's corner, the sky is the limit in fantasy leagues. Aug 25 - 8:33 AM
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4649/darren-mcfadden
 
'LawFitz said:
'joffer said:
he's in a tier with Gore and Turner right now for me and i'm having trouble separating them.
Oof. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Gore I can see an argument for, but his age and mileage are pretty big separators for me. Turner is no where near DMC in terms of talent or even opportunity. Falcons hate passing the ball to him and that just kills his value, especially relative to a younger, faster, hungrier all purpose stud like DMC.
Michael Turner is not a bigger injury risk than McFadden, is a virtual lock for 300+ touches and is the unquestioned goal line back on an Atlanta team that most agree will outscore the Raiders (regardless of Oakland's sixth place scoring finish last year...Atlanta finished 5th last year). McFadden had less than 300 touches in his career year, has a superior backfield running mate to share the load (Bush>>>>Snelling/Jacquizz) and might be the fourth option at the stripe for the Raiders (behind Bush, Reece and something going horribly wrong).McFadden might go on to reproduce his 2010 numbers but I think he should still be ranked below a proven commodity like Turner at this point.
Turner is old and worn down, and people are depending on him to get through another 16 game season. McFadden is 23 years old and coming into his prime. (Turner is my choice for bust/most overrated back of the year). Turner may be in a potentially higher scoring offense, but he's not half the receiver as DMC. And to suggest DMC is the 4th GL option is really telling of how much or little you actually watch the Raiders.
Bush had 13 carries inside the five last season compared to McFadden's 4 rushes and one passing target (incompletion).Sure McFadden might actually be the #2 option behind Bush (the Raiders only attempted 8 passes in that situation, Murphy, Bay and Miller all ahead of McFadden in targets fwiw) but when the ball is inside the five it's Bush's show and no one else's. Bush is the superior runner in that situation, the Raiders recognize that and I don't think it's changing anytime soon.

 
'LawFitz said:
1. The WRs are not nearly as bad as you think. Ford, Murphy, Schilens, Moore are better than a lot of NFL WR corps.
What in the world are you basing this assessment on? Not production at the NFL level, that's for sure.The Oakland receiving corps is all potential and no production. As a group they are bottom six going into the 2011 season. Based on potential they might (should?) finish better than that but don't bank on that just yet.
 
FWIW:

Coach Hue Jackson confirmed that he changed the Raiders' rushing style in part to fit Darren McFadden's skill set.Before Jackson took over as offensive coordinator, the Raiders were running a strict zone-blocking scheme that required patience. Now they run a power-blocking system in which McFadden is asked to get downhill -- something he does quicker and more explosively than most backs in the league. With Jackson firmly in Run-DMC's corner, the sky is the limit in fantasy leagues. Aug 25 - 8:33 AM
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4649/darren-mcfadden
I agree with this report, and will add that McFadden seemed out of sorts on the one cut and go ZBS system. He'd invariably take his cut and run into the backside defender or miss the opening seam. He was never comfortable reading the blocking in that scheme. Once they went to the power blocking scheme, McFadden in open space used his inate ability and vision to see the field better and make the defense whiff on open field tackles. He's penetrated the second level defense much more oftent and has made the most of his opportunities. As a running back, McFadden was a Lamborghini forced to ride the in the carpool lane. Hue Jackson put him on the autobahn. Tom Cable and his ZBS systems exodus was the best thing to happen to Darren McFadden, imo.
 
DMC is still too risky to take over someone like Turner / SJax, to me. As someone else mentioned, it's not that he's an injury risk, it's that any injury is enough to completely shelf him. Whereas, guys like Turner & SJax have consistently shown they can power through the nagging little stuff that consitently cost DMC entire games.Upside is great and all, but reliable points win more games than boom or bust points.
Properly handcuffing with Bush mitigates much of what you describe.I'll take the young guy with burst and hunger (and his more than capable handcuff) over tired and worn down Turner. SJax I can sort of see an argument for, but he looked pretty tired to me last year too. My personal eye test has had me down on Turner for the last couple years and down on SJax last year.IMO selecting a guy like Mike Turner early (esp in PPR or even 0.5 PPR) is a good way to increase your odds of being middle of the pack and dramatically decrease your odds of winning.
DMC is definitely a better choice than Turner in PPR. I'd take SJax over him in either format because of his consistency and reliability. Bush as a handcuff mitigates it, but doesn't eliminate the risk. He's a poor man's Turner, imo, and essentially ensures only that I've now invested two picks on one startable player. It also does nothing to mitigate the risk that the Raiders offense is prone to complete collapse in any given game and their DST is as well, which could easily lead to less touches for any Oakland RB.Ultimately, I agree DMC has better upside. Depending on how I expect a draft to go, I might take him over the more reliable type RBs. The trade off would be in the WR poisition, where I would then target a reliable guy like Wayne vs. an additional boom/bust guy like DJax.I just don't really see any "hate" with DMC, as he's correctly labeled a risky RB (injury / reliability / team) yet he's still a top 15 pick. It's prudence, not hate. lol
 
My revelations thus far as a result of this thread:

1. The hate is for the Raiders, not McFadden.

2. Injury risk is being overstated as long as you can and are willing to get Bush.

Seems my original sub-post thoughts were spot on.

That said, here are a few more glaring nuggets for me at least:

3. DMC was #2 PPG RB last year.

4. It's not just Hue Jackson, it's Al Saunders.

5. He is 23 years old.

6. He is an excellent receiver and is utilized heavily as such.

My only major concern to come out of this thread so far - Offensive Line. It's a work in progress that may or may not be serviceable. That is definitely a red flag.

 
DMC is still too risky to take over someone like Turner / SJax, to me. As someone else mentioned, it's not that he's an injury risk, it's that any injury is enough to completely shelf him. Whereas, guys like Turner & SJax have consistently shown they can power through the nagging little stuff that consitently cost DMC entire games.Upside is great and all, but reliable points win more games than boom or bust points.
Properly handcuffing with Bush mitigates much of what you describe.I'll take the young guy with burst and hunger (and his more than capable handcuff) over tired and worn down Turner. SJax I can sort of see an argument for, but he looked pretty tired to me last year too. My personal eye test has had me down on Turner for the last couple years and down on SJax last year.IMO selecting a guy like Mike Turner early (esp in PPR or even 0.5 PPR) is a good way to increase your odds of being middle of the pack and dramatically decrease your odds of winning.
DMC is definitely a better choice than Turner in PPR. I'd take SJax over him in either format because of his consistency and reliability. Bush as a handcuff mitigates it, but doesn't eliminate the risk. He's a poor man's Turner, imo, and essentially ensures only that I've now invested two picks on one startable player. It also does nothing to mitigate the risk that the Raiders offense is prone to complete collapse in any given game and their DST is as well, which could easily lead to less touches for any Oakland RB.Ultimately, I agree DMC has better upside. Depending on how I expect a draft to go, I might take him over the more reliable type RBs. The trade off would be in the WR poisition, where I would then target a reliable guy like Wayne vs. an additional boom/bust guy like DJax.I just don't really see any "hate" with DMC, as he's correctly labeled a risky RB (injury / reliability / team) yet he's still a top 15 pick. It's prudence, not hate. lol
Regarding injury, yes, he's gotten hurt in the past but you usually know if a player is starting or not. Like others suggesed, I think drafting Bush is necessary. That being said, look at his numbers last year and keep in mind that this was all done in only 13 games. RuYd RuTD ReYd ReTD RuAtt Recpt 1157 7 507 3 223 47 The guy is an animal. In my league where we give .5 pts for a reception, his lowest total was 3 points one week (Pittsburgh) and then after that, his lowest total was 9. I think having one game under 9 points in 13 weeks is pretty DARN reliable. Chris Johnson had 3 games last year under 9 points and Steven Jackson also had 3 games last year under 9 points. Regarding the team argument, who cares. The Raiders weren't a great team last year but do you really think they will be worse now? Even if they are down, they aren't going to take out their playmaker who is also a great receiver and score 6 points with the quickness.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top