What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

Which back is more valuable Charles, Martin or Foster? (1 Viewer)

tuffydawolf

Footballguy
Hello everyone I don't post much on the site but thought I would take this opportunity to ask a question. I have the second pick in a 12 team PPR leaque. I'm pretty confident that the ADP will be the first pick but I'm having issues in ranking Charles , Martin and Foster.

They all three have potential upsides and downsides. Foster gets hurt, Martin could hit a sophmore slump and Charles has a new coaching staff. Out of the 3 I think I like Charles's situation the best. He has Andy Reid with the West Coast offense and I thin he will have a good year with the Cheifs. What do you guys think?

Your input is greatly appreciated.

 
All three are great and IMO it's great to be drafting from the 4th slot.

Personally I'm ranking them Martin, Charles, Foster.

 
From a "safety" stand point, I'd put them in this order:

Foster

Martin

Charles

...as long as you get Ben Tate later.

From an "upside" stand point, I'd put them exactly opposite.

 
Seems as though martin is the most valuable right now. I however am in the minority. I go foster if competing. Probly end up takin charles ahead of both in a startup.

 
From a "safety" stand point, I'd put them in this order:

Foster

Martin

Charles

...as long as you get Ben Tate later.

From an "upside" stand point, I'd put them exactly opposite.
I tend to agree. I had the luxury in a ppr dynasty league of having Foster and Charles last year and hitting Alfred Morris in the sixth round of the rookie draft. I rode those three to the championship game. But this offseason I traded away Charles to upgrade to Megatron (not an even swap) because while Charles has great upside and sometimes easily won games for me, he has never had the consistency of Foster (or even now Alfred Morris) and I was lucky enough to be able to trade away upside elite rb value for more consistent "safe" elite wr value, because I had great depth at rb. So how you rank them has a lot to do with your league, scoring, team and goals. The truth is that any of the three would be a good choice at pick #2, though, and whether one is a little better than another has to do with your situation.

 
I don't think you can go wrong with either pick. I guess it comes down to personal preference at the end of the day. Do you want to have to draft Tate later? Maybe a round earlier to insure you have the cuff on Foster? If not then it becomes between Charles and Martin. Personally I would be happy with either and cant really separate them at this point. Flip a coin and hope you get the right guy. Maybe try and trade down to the 4th slot and take whichever guy falls to you.

 
Tate being a quality backup makes Foster the choice for me.
I see it the opposite way.

Such a seemingly well rounded, capable, quality back up would seem to present a clear and present danger to the #1 guy's touches, especially on a team that hopes to make a deep playoff run.

That's but one of the reasons why I put Martin and Charles ahead of Foster on my board.

 
I'm putting Martin and Charles as 1a 1b in my rankings. I still haven't figured out which of the two has the tougher rushing schedule next season, because that would definitely factor into my decision.

 
I'm putting Martin and Charles as 1a 1b in my rankings. I still haven't figured out which of the two has the tougher rushing schedule next season, because that would definitely factor into my decision.
Yeah I can't separate them. And it's driving me just a little crazy, seeing as I have the #2 pick in a draft next week.

 
Tate being a quality backup makes Foster the choice for me.
Why? I view it as kind of a wasted pick (speaking of redraft). If FOster gets hurt then great, you have Tate...........but Tate's points are cancelled out by not having Foster's points.

How bout you take the guy you prefer, and if later on Tate looks like a nice pick for you, then take him. If you take Charles and then get tate later, and Foster gets hurt, then homerun for you.

If you take Foster, and get Tate late and Foster gets hurt, your awesome pick of Ben Tate doesnt even change anything from what your team was already doing (though I clearly think he wouldnt produce as well as Foster, but thats not the issue).

 
Tate being a quality backup makes Foster the choice for me.
I see it the opposite way.

Such a seemingly well rounded, capable, quality back up would seem to present a clear and present danger to the #1 guy's touches, especially on a team that hopes to make a deep playoff run.

That's but one of the reasons why I put Martin and Charles ahead of Foster on my board.
This was true for Foster the past two years and it didnt hurt his production. The year Tate had 1k yards Foster was still a top 5 back, even with missing 3 games. I'm big on Charles this year, but I wouldn't be upset in the slightest if Foster fell to me at 3 or 4.

Plus, depending on your leagues bench size you don't need to reach on Tate. Just wait for week ~6 when Foster is still healthy and the player who "stole" Tate from you drops him because he is doing nothing for him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Three excellent prospects. I think each of them are much, much more likely to finish as RB1 than Peterson (but Peterson is always at least top 3, which is why we take him first). If forced to rank them, I'd go Foster-Martin-Charles. Foster provides similar "always top 3" peace of mind to Peterson. Martin is the most exciting because he was a monster last year and, on paper, his offensive line should be even better. The only reason I'd knock Charles is that we have some obvious uncertainty about how everything's going to come together in year 1 of Reid in KC. The other guys have more continuity. Of course, I'd still be delighted to have him as my top RB.

I've been a Foster owner and backer for 3 years, and I still don't understand the "you've got to get Ben Tate since Foster could get injured" school of thought. Foster's missed 3 games in 3 years; Tate's missed 22!. Even if you cut out his IR season, he's missed 6 games, which to me is one in a long line of indicators that most running backs are no more injury prone than the next one. I really don't think Ben Tate needs to factor into your plans at all if you draft him. For the most part, he's a high priced handcuff you won't get to use. I wouldn't pass up other 8th rounders with stratospheric potential--Josh Gordon and Jared Cook, to name two--just because I owned Arian Foster.

 
I'd rank them: Martin, Charles, Foster.

Though, I don't think I want anything to do with Foster. Something tells me he is about to hit the "wall" this season. He's still has a lingering injury and the amonut of carries he's had over the last couple seasons are going to catch up to him.

I think Martin and Charles are so close that you can't really go wrong with either one. I see both of them having really good years and finishing no worse than RB5.

 
I'm avoiding foster as I don't want to have to worry aboot a handcuff for the 2nd overll pick
Does anyone on this planet realize that there about 2 Rbs that have missed fewer games than Foster in the last 3 years? You know why people talk about Foster's use? Because he is being used...and is highly productive...and that's kinda what fantasy players look for.

I can't believe we are doing this again. Foster has been the top consistent back for the last three years with the most quality starts (150 rush/100rush+1Td/or at least 2 Tds in each game) by a mile. He is 26 years old. He is on a team that openly has said we will run the ball and then they do just that.

Mother of all creatures great and small, why do people go out of their way to ignore the gifts laid at their feet?

Are people's egos so big that they can't fight the compelling tug to be the guy that calls the shot of "this guy is going to get hurt"? They are football players. They ALL fall off at some point. ALL relationships end badly eventually. If you are married, you or your spouse will eventually die or leave. That's how it goes. But you don't get caught up in that and ignore the LONG period of good years. Enjoy this top 3 RB in his prime and quit trying to predict the future. None of us know when any player is going to get hurt. Stop kidding yourself by citing "indicators". There are no reliable ones. Just like no one knew a 25 year old Crabtree would blow his achilles, no one knew a 38 year old Manning would be able to play after having his neck fused. Enjoy what is there and get your heads out of your (crystal) balls. :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tate being a quality backup makes Foster the choice for me.
I see it the opposite way.

Such a seemingly well rounded, capable, quality back up would seem to present a clear and present danger to the #1 guy's touches, especially on a team that hopes to make a deep playoff run.

That's but one of the reasons why I put Martin and Charles ahead of Foster on my board.
that and you need to use a mid round pick to lock up Tate to sit on your bench as an insurance policy.

 
Tate being a quality backup makes Foster the choice for me.
I see it the opposite way.

Such a seemingly well rounded, capable, quality back up would seem to present a clear and present danger to the #1 guy's touches, especially on a team that hopes to make a deep playoff run.

That's but one of the reasons why I put Martin and Charles ahead of Foster on my board.
that and you need to use a mid round pick to lock up Tate to sit on your bench as an insurance policy.
Why do you need an insurance policy for a RB that has missed fewer games in the last 3 years than any other RB, sans 2? If that is your logic, then EVERY person who drafts a RB needs an insurance policy. This "gotta get tate" thing is one of the craziest FF fallacies in existance. It is simply not any more true than it is for ANY other RB. In the year Tate rushed for 1000 yards, Foster was still RB4, and that is with him missing the ONLY 3 games he has missed in 3 years. By a PPG margin, he was RB1 that year also.

People say "get Tate" and cite the insurance need but what they truly MEAN is "get Tate" because he is very talented in his own right and if he gets a chance to play, he has great value. But people never say it like that. They think "shark move" and try to get an undervalued player but they disguise it by justifying it so that they don't look silly if they happen to get Tate just for the real reason. Doing it under the guise of "insurance" prevents them from ever having to explain why they spent an 8th rounder on a guy that rode their bench all year. That is the real historical truth on Ben Tate.

Understand that and you understand the TURE value of Arian Foster to the Texans and to FF.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tate being a quality backup makes Foster the choice for me.
I see it the opposite way.Such a seemingly well rounded, capable, quality back up would seem to present a clear and present danger to the #1 guy's touches, especially on a team that hopes to make a deep playoff run.

That's but one of the reasons why I put Martin and Charles ahead of Foster on my board.
that and you need to use a mid round pick to lock up Tate to sit on your bench as an insurance policy.
Do you handcuff every back you draft, or just Foster? McCoy missed 4 games last year--will you spend an 8th/9th on Bryce Brown? Do you have to spend a 9th/10th on Bernard Pierce if you get Ray Rice?The only way "you have to spend a pick on Ben Tate" makes sense is if you follow a philosophy of always handcuffing your first round running back, no matter which one you take. If that's dogmatic for you, then yes, I suppose Foster carries a higher burden than burning your last pick on Knile Davis or Michael Smith.

Edit: Shutout beats me by a minute. Well, at least I still got to invoke Knile Davis

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tate being a quality backup makes Foster the choice for me.
I see it the opposite way.Such a seemingly well rounded, capable, quality back up would seem to present a clear and present danger to the #1 guy's touches, especially on a team that hopes to make a deep playoff run.

That's but one of the reasons why I put Martin and Charles ahead of Foster on my board.
that and you need to use a mid round pick to lock up Tate to sit on your bench as an insurance policy.
Do you handcuff every back you draft, or just Foster? McCoy missed 4 games last year--will you spend an 8th/9th on Bryce Brown? Do you have to spend a 9th/10th on Bernard Pierce if you get Ray Rice?The only way "you have to spend a pick on Ben Tate" makes sense is if you follow a philosophy of always handcuffing your first round running back, no matter which one you take. If that's dogmatic for you, then yes, I suppose Foster carries a higher burden than burning your last pick on Knile Davis or Michael Smith.

Edit: Shutout beats me by a minute. Well, at least I still got to invoke Knile Davis
The stigma with Foster this season is that he's had a huge work load and injuries may start to crop up. Because of this, he's dropping as far as RB5 on some "experts" draft sheets. Personnally, I don't get it. Give me the rock solid production that Foster has shown over the upside of Charles and Martin any day.

Unlike the other handcuffs mentioned, I think that if Foster would happen to miss some time, Tate would step in and barely miss a beat. So unlike other situations (AP, Martin, Charles, etc.) by spending the later round pick you are basically ensuring your team has a Top 5 RB regardless of injury. You don't have that with the others. I subscribe to the theory that championship can only be lost in the first round. By taking Foster/Tate, you virtually eliminate that risk.

 
Tate being a quality backup makes Foster the choice for me.
I see it the opposite way.Such a seemingly well rounded, capable, quality back up would seem to present a clear and present danger to the #1 guy's touches, especially on a team that hopes to make a deep playoff run.

That's but one of the reasons why I put Martin and Charles ahead of Foster on my board.
that and you need to use a mid round pick to lock up Tate to sit on your bench as an insurance policy.
Do you handcuff every back you draft, or just Foster? McCoy missed 4 games last year--will you spend an 8th/9th on Bryce Brown? Do you have to spend a 9th/10th on Bernard Pierce if you get Ray Rice?The only way "you have to spend a pick on Ben Tate" makes sense is if you follow a philosophy of always handcuffing your first round running back, no matter which one you take. If that's dogmatic for you, then yes, I suppose Foster carries a higher burden than burning your last pick on Knile Davis or Michael Smith.

Edit: Shutout beats me by a minute. Well, at least I still got to invoke Knile Davis
The stigma with Foster this season is that he's had a huge work load and injuries may start to crop up. Because of this, he's dropping as far as RB5 on some "experts" draft sheets. Personnally, I don't get it. Give me the rock solid production that Foster has shown over the upside of Charles and Martin any day. Unlike the other handcuffs mentioned, I think that if Foster would happen to miss some time, Tate would step in and barely miss a beat. So unlike other situations (AP, Martin, Charles, etc.) by spending the later round pick you are basically ensuring your team has a Top 5 RB regardless of injury. You don't have that with the others. I subscribe to the theory that championship can only be lost in the first round. By taking Foster/Tate, you virtually eliminate that risk.
It's true; I'll grant that you eliminate that risk, even if I don't see the risk as being significant. For me, it's not significant enough to be worth an 8th round pick. Most formats run with at least 7 offensive starters, so at the 8th pick you're either looking for a player you expect to play 2-5 weeks as a backup, or perhaps you're still after your TE. I think it's too big a hedge to spend that valuable pick on a player you are, ultimately, hoping you don't have to use. I could see it if you play in a league that only starts 6 players, or only has WR/TE flexes, or has a limit on how many players you can carry at a given position--anything that devalues mid-round picks. I could also see it if the draft goes wild and you've got a ton of unexpected players around in the 8th--say, half a dozen WRs you expected to be gone by the 7th have fallen, and everyone's drafting backup QBs right now, and you're quite sure you can get one of those WRs even if you take a luxury like Tate. In any normal-ish situation, though, I agree with Shutout that it only makes sense to pay the premium for Tate if you think he may justify that draft position regardless of whether Foster misses games. Otherwise, just take Charles or Martin and don't force yourself to waste a valuable pick for the wrong reason.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tate being a quality backup makes Foster the choice for me.
I see it the opposite way.Such a seemingly well rounded, capable, quality back up would seem to present a clear and present danger to the #1 guy's touches, especially on a team that hopes to make a deep playoff run.

That's but one of the reasons why I put Martin and Charles ahead of Foster on my board.
that and you need to use a mid round pick to lock up Tate to sit on your bench as an insurance policy.
Do you handcuff every back you draft, or just Foster? McCoy missed 4 games last year--will you spend an 8th/9th on Bryce Brown? Do you have to spend a 9th/10th on Bernard Pierce if you get Ray Rice?The only way "you have to spend a pick on Ben Tate" makes sense is if you follow a philosophy of always handcuffing your first round running back, no matter which one you take. If that's dogmatic for you, then yes, I suppose Foster carries a higher burden than burning your last pick on Knile Davis or Michael Smith.

Edit: Shutout beats me by a minute. Well, at least I still got to invoke Knile Davis
The stigma with Foster this season is that he's had a huge work load and injuries may start to crop up. Because of this, he's dropping as far as RB5 on some "experts" draft sheets. Personnally, I don't get it. Give me the rock solid production that Foster has shown over the upside of Charles and Martin any day.

Unlike the other handcuffs mentioned, I think that if Foster would happen to miss some time, Tate would step in and barely miss a beat. So unlike other situations (AP, Martin, Charles, etc.) by spending the later round pick you are basically ensuring your team has a Top 5 RB regardless of injury. You don't have that with the others. I subscribe to the theory that championship can only be lost in the first round. By taking Foster/Tate, you virtually eliminate that risk.
Precisely. Whether I get Foster or not, I see Tate as being one of my top RB gets in the 8th/9th round.

We all talk about how we don't want to bomb out on our first-round pick. We want to make sure that even if they underperform, they will still be a top-tier player... just not elite. But that floor has to be there. That's the key to the first rounder... the floor. So if you have a way to guarantee that floor that other players don't have, isn't that a bonus? In Foster, you are drafting a guy who will be in your lineup every week except your bye. He is matchup-proof. When the Texans play Seattle or San Fran, you are -not- taking him out. So why are you worried about missing out on some scrub who will never see the light of day in round 9? Draft Tate. Then, if Foster goes down, your first-round floor is unaffected, or affected marginally at worst. But for some reason, people think that taking Danny Woodhead or Jonathan Franklin in the 10th is a better investment of their RB3 or RB4 spot on their bench than someone who secures the pick that is the foundation of their season.

I'm generally not a handcuff advocate*, but to hear people afraid to take production simply because they may need to take another back with proven production in the 8th round....? That reaches into my soul and yanks out the happy.

* In fantasy football

 
PPR Charles, Martin, Foster

Non PPR Martin, Charles, Foster

Foster is that low because of what you have to spend on Tate to handcuff Foster.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
haterade said:
Tate being a quality backup makes Foster the choice for me.
Why? I view it as kind of a wasted pick (speaking of redraft). If FOster gets hurt then great, you have Tate...........but Tate's points are cancelled out by not having Foster's points.

How bout you take the guy you prefer, and if later on Tate looks like a nice pick for you, then take him. If you take Charles and then get tate later, and Foster gets hurt, then homerun for you.

If you take Foster, and get Tate late and Foster gets hurt, your awesome pick of Ben Tate doesnt even change anything from what your team was already doing (though I clearly think he wouldnt produce as well as Foster, but thats not the issue).
I think saying "Tate's point are cancelled out by losing Foster's points" obscures the situation. The comparison is a RB + handcuff (Foster + Tate) vs other similar RBs without a handcuff (say, Charles).

With the handcuff, the points show up exactly when you needed them. If you're going to look at it from the standpoint of "those points cancel out what you lost", then the important comparison is, with Foster + Tate the points cancel and you're where you started, while with Charles + no handcuff you don't have a backup who flares exactly so your lost points are not canceled out to the same degree.

So, saying Tate cancels Foster is a very good thing, not a bad thing.

The possible situations.

1) You draft Foster. You don't draft Tate but instead take some other RBs to be your backups who have to start if Foster goes down.

2) You take Charles/etc. You don't have a handcuff for them either and have the same set of other RBs to be your backups if Charles goes down.

1 & 2 are exactly identical.

3) You draft Foster. You get Tate and also some other RBs to be your backups. If Foster goes down, the value of Tate suddenly skyrockets for exactly the games you need it to.

3 is better than 1 or 2. But if the cost of getting Tate (because of others drafting him higher than he warrants) is too high, if you take Foster but don't get Tate you're in the same situation as you are if you take Charles.

So at the worst, take the guy you think will score the most fantasy points. If you don't think Tate is going to be overdrafted, then his presence as a handcuff is a good thing. The knock would be if Tate and Foster both healthy means Foster scores less. But that is already included in your decision based on total points you expect from a Foster vs a Charles.

Edit to add: One of the factors to consider in the drafting of Tate and whether it's too high... is that if you don't have a handcuff, you will (should) go for a better RB3. If you do have a handcuff, you might go with a lesser RB3 because you're getting Tate. But then there is a trade off if it is instead your RB2 that is hurt. With Tate and lesser RB3, you lose fewer points if Foster goes out, but may lose more points if RB2 goes out. It's a trade off, and where Tate, the better RB3 and the worse RB3 will be drafted, and how that impact ripples through the rest of your draft at other positions, drives what the best answer is. It might be that getting the better RB3 actually hurts your starters more than Tate + lesser RB3. Or it might help your team more if there's good value at WR when you'd have taken Tate. It's just very league specific based on your scoring system, setup, and how your leaguemates draft.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
How does everyone feel about Charles vs Martin now?
Exactly the same as before.

I had #4 pick in my first real draft on Monday night and I was thrilled when Martin was there for me (Peterson - Foster - Charles to open).

I have the #2 pick in my biggest league this Sunday and fully intend to take Martin, same as before.

IF I was favoring Charles all this time, to the extent I've been favoring Martin, I'd probably stay the course and take Charles anyway, though.

 
I'd probably go Martin - Charles - Foster now. Would have gone Charles before Martin before. His injury doesn't seem serious or that it should be a lingering one, but I had them both so close that the chance of that happening switches their spots for me.

 
The possible situations.

1) You draft Foster. You don't draft Tate but instead take some other RBs to be your backups who have to start if Foster goes down.

2) You take Charles/etc. You don't have a handcuff for them either and have the same set of other RBs to be your backups if Charles goes down.

1 & 2 are exactly identical.

3) You draft Foster. You get Tate and also some other RBs to be your backups. If Foster goes down, the value of Tate suddenly skyrockets for exactly the games you need it to.

3 is better than 1 or 2. But if the cost of getting Tate (because of others drafting him higher than he warrants) is too high, if you take Foster but don't get Tate you're in the same situation as you are if you take Charles.

So at the worst, take the guy you think will score the most fantasy points. If you don't think Tate is going to be overdrafted, then his presence as a handcuff is a good thing. The knock would be if Tate and Foster both healthy means Foster scores less. But that is already included in your decision based on total points you expect from a Foster vs a Charles.
I'd just like to add for those ruminating on the possibilities one that gets left out a lot, and if you've been a McFadden owner (in, e.g., the Michael Bush years), well, ever, one which brings a pain you know all too well.

When you opt to draft Stud/Stud-backup handcuff instead of Stud/2nd tier guy from some other team, you face the possibility of the dreaded "questionable." When you pair Foster with, I dunno, Ahmad Bradshaw as a #3 Rb, and Foster is questionable, you grumble to yourself, suck it up, and start Bradshaw. You know you're not getting 30 points, but you're probably getting 10 or something with 15-20-ish upside. While sticking with the Foster/Tate decision leaves you tossing coins all over the place, with the chance you hit a 30, a chance you hit normal backup type numbers of a few points, or a chance of a big fat zero.

The handcuff works great when you lose your starter outright, but can become nightmarish when you deal with lingering minor injury.

It's just another consideration.

 
Oh, and wrong forum.
It's a bit out of context, but the spirit of the question seems to be, "who do you guys consider the #2 RB?"

And in that spirit, I'd be on board with you in arguing that the original list unfairly left TRich off, and he'd be my #2 as well, with the combination of situation, system, upside, and lack of competition making him a safer bet to post Petersonish numbers than the other guys listed. I'd rate Spiller right there as well. I'd also stick Forte in that discussion, though I get that I'm out on a limb and alone in that assertion. :cool:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, and wrong forum.
It's a bit out of context, but the spirit of the question seems to be, "who do you guys consider the #2 RB?"

And in that spirit, I'd be on board with you in arguing that the original list unfairly left TRich off, and he'd be my #2 as well, with the combination of situation, system, upside, and lack of competition making him a safer bet to post Petersonish numbers than the other guys listed. I'd rate Spiller right there as well. I'd also stick Forte in that discussion, though I get that I'm out on a limb and alone in that assertion. :cool:
Just pointing out that it's pretty obvious at this time of year when people start "vs." threads it's to help them with their pick. :shrug:

There's a Lynch vs. Richardson thread floating around as well.

Martin is my #1 RB right now, but TR wouldn't surprise me if he made a gigantic leap this season. I'll happily take him with the 3rd pick.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't really know the answer to the question, but I find it interesting that people are so quick to list those 3, and ask which is the better option without including Ray Rice. The demise of Ray Rice is overblown. He will have a better line this season, and without Boldin and Pitta around, there is a hole in the short and intermediate passing game. So, I think the question should really be Charles, Martin, Foster, or Rice

 
I don't really know the answer to the question, but I find it interesting that people are so quick to list those 3, and ask which is the better option without including Ray Rice. The demise of Ray Rice is overblown. He will have a better line this season, and without Boldin and Pitta around, there is a hole in the short and intermediate passing game. So, I think the question should really be Charles, Martin, Foster, or Rice
This is why I'm dumbfounded people are so eager to draft at the top of round 1 this year. The top of the RB ranks are absolutely stocked this year, then there's a cliff. If I'm picking at 12/13, I'm confident that if I go RB/RB (and I would) the two guys I get there are probably not much worse than a coinflip to outscore any two random backs taken in the 1 through 11 slots, and no two of those guys are ending up on the same team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trent Richardson.
Oh, and wrong forum.
Double posting, not answering the question, and complaining about the wrong forum. The trifecta!
OP presented some evidence, talked about strengths and weaknesses, and wanted to talk about RB/system/potential with respect to draft position. Openly solicited thoughts and input.

I would assume if the OP genuinely intended a discussion of the merits of backs starting after Peterson, that he would appreciate the expansion of the topic. Whereas if he only wanted to know who he should draft, it would indeed be the wrong forum and criticism would be merited.

If it's a trifecta, it's a trifecta of :goodposting:

 
How does everyone feel about Charles vs Martin now?
Exactly the same as before.

I had #4 pick in my first real draft on Monday night and I was thrilled when Martin was there for me (Peterson - Foster - Charles to open).

I have the #2 pick in my biggest league this Sunday and fully intend to take Martin, same as before.

IF I was favoring Charles all this time, to the extent I've been favoring Martin, I'd probably stay the course and take Charles anyway, though.
Fwiw I went Martin last night....

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top