Zac Stacy is the highest drafted 5th round or later NFL pick in dynast (2 Viewers)

[Nero]

CTSU wants to dismiss Stacy despite being on one of the most anemic offenses in the NFL.

This is what I believe - Stacy is good, not special. I was impressed by him last year but I saw nothing that made me think "Wow, Stacy is going to be a great back for many years to come". Then the Rams decide to spend a valuable 3rd round pick on another RB (who is over two years younger). It's hard for me to imagine Mason being drafted solely as a backup. I'm not saying that Mason will replace Stacy, but you have to be purposely oblivious not to see the possible outcome here. Again, had Stacy been extremely impressive last year I wouldn't be saying this, but had he been the Rams likely wouldn't have drafted Mason.

Marshawn Lynch was impressive and Seattle drafted Michael in the 2nd because they thought he was the best player available. I believe that was the Rams position because many including myself thought Mason was the best back in the draft.I don't think Mason's drafting is at all a reflection of how they feel about Stacy. Contrary to your belief, I found Stacy's play to be impressive last year and expect more of the same this year. Obviously the Rams don't have the same plan for Mason as Seattle had for Michael having already cut Richardson. Mason's drafting will affect Stacy some especially if he plays well. However, I don't think its reasonable to expect Mason to surpass Stacy, because Stacy's play was impressive.

 

[Henry Ford]

First, I didn't say anything about starter. Second, I think you meant to say Stacy's odds were 30%. After one successful season in the NFL, I'm sure the odds increase quite a bit.

That's what I disagree with - according to PFF he was 20th out of 31 RB with 50% of their teams snaps running the ball.

Receiving he was 26th out 31 and he had the 2nd lowest YPR.

In what category?

 

[cstu]

CTSU wants to dismiss Stacy despite being on one of the most anemic offenses in the NFL.

This is what I believe - Stacy is good, not special. I was impressed by him last year but I saw nothing that made me think "Wow, Stacy is going to be a great back for many years to come". Then the Rams decide to spend a valuable 3rd round pick on another RB (who is over two years younger). It's hard for me to imagine Mason being drafted solely as a backup. I'm not saying that Mason will replace Stacy, but you have to be purposely oblivious not to see the possible outcome here. Again, had Stacy been extremely impressive last year I wouldn't be saying this, but had he been the Rams likely wouldn't have drafted Mason.

Marshawn Lynch was impressive and Seattle drafted Michael in the 2nd because they thought he was the best player available. I believe that was the Rams position because many including myself thought Mason was the best back in the draft.I don't think Mason's drafting is at all a reflection of how they feel about Stacy. Contrary to your belief, I found Stacy's play to be impressive last year and expect more of the same this year. Obviously the Rams don't have the same plan for Mason as Seattle had for Michael having already cut Richardson. Mason's drafting will affect Stacy some especially if he plays well. However, I don't think its reasonable to expect Mason to surpass Stacy, because Stacy's play was impressive.

Lynch was 27 when Michael was drafted and is earning an average of $7M a year. The Seahawks can save $6M by cutting Lynch next year.

On the other hand, the Rams have Stacy is 23 and on a very cheap contract for 3 more years.

 

[cstu]

First, I didn't say anything about starter. Second, I think you meant to say Stacy's odds were 30%. After one successful season in the NFL, I'm sure the odds increase quite a bit.

That's what I disagree with - according to PFF he was 20th out of 31 RB with 50% of their teams snaps running the ball.

Receiving he was 26th out 31 and he had the 2nd lowest YPR.

In what category?

YPC.

 

[cstu]

First, I didn't say anything about starter. Second, I think you meant to say Stacy's odds were 30%. After one successful season in the NFL, I'm sure the odds increase quite a bit.

That's what I disagree with - according to PFF he was 20th out of 31 RB with 50% of their teams snaps running the ball.

Receiving he was 26th out 31 and he had the 2nd lowest YPR.

That's interesting, but PFF also said "St. Louis’ offensive line graded out as the eighth worst run-blocking unit in the NFL last season."

Then again, I got that out of a very anti-Stacy article from them.

Not denying Stacy had the deck stacked against him last year. It's very possible he's even better this year and holds off Mason.

What I believe though is that there's more risk with Stacy than is being priced in (RB12 in dynasty).

 

[FF Ninja]

First, I didn't say anything about starter. Second, I think you meant to say Stacy's odds were 30%. After one successful season in the NFL, I'm sure the odds increase quite a bit.

That's what I disagree with - according to PFF he was 20th out of 31 RB with 50% of their teams snaps running the ball.

Receiving he was 26th out 31 and he had the 2nd lowest YPR.

In what category?

YPC.

Haha, I thought it was based on their PFF grading of RBs. I take back my "interesting" comment about that revelation. As previously stated, his YPC means very little when situation is taken into account.

First, I didn't say anything about starter. Second, I think you meant to say Stacy's odds were 30%. After one successful season in the NFL, I'm sure the odds increase quite a bit.

That's what I disagree with - according to PFF he was 20th out of 31 RB with 50% of their teams snaps running the ball.

Receiving he was 26th out 31 and he had the 2nd lowest YPR.

That's interesting, but PFF also said "St. Louis’ offensive line graded out as the eighth worst run-blocking unit in the NFL last season."

Then again, I got that out of a very anti-Stacy article from them.

Not denying Stacy had the deck stacked against him last year. It's very possible he's even better this year and holds off Mason.

What I believe though is that there's more risk with Stacy than is being priced in (RB12 in dynasty).

It's very possible that holding off Mason isn't even much of an achievement given the success of 3rd round rookies.

 

[cstu]

First, I didn't say anything about starter. Second, I think you meant to say Stacy's odds were 30%. After one successful season in the NFL, I'm sure the odds increase quite a bit.

That's what I disagree with - according to PFF he was 20th out of 31 RB with 50% of their teams snaps running the ball.

Receiving he was 26th out 31 and he had the 2nd lowest YPR.

In what category?

YPC.

Haha, I thought it was based on their PFF grading of RBs. I take back my "interesting" comment about that revelation. As previously stated, his YPC means very little when situation is taken into account.

Guess what, his PFF run rating is 2.7, or #19/31.

 

[cstu]

It's very possible that holding off Mason isn't even much of an achievement given the success of 3rd round rookies.

I remember Felix Jones owners feeling the exact same way about DeMarco Murray.

 

[Bob Magaw]

It would be interesting to look at the churn rate for "starting" RBs in recent years. I think it is higher than the other skill positions.

This is somewhat complicated by the fact that Stacy was a feature RB with little competition, where in a lot of other instances, the lead RB might be in more of a time share RBBC.

Than we could look for patterns, how old was the incumbent, how well did he do, what was the pedigree of the RB that supplanted the incumbent, etc.

Stacy got almost 1,000 yards in basically 12 games. If you simply prorated that, it would be over 1,300 yards and 9 TDs. But he got hurt a few times, so hard to say if we should simply assume you can just add a third more production, maybe he would have worn down sooner?

Richardson had 69 carries on the season, but 55 came in the first month when Stacy wasn't playing, and only 14 after. Cunningham had 47 carries. He had 7 carries against IND, and 13 against CHI, mostly I think in the second half after Stacy got knocked out of the game. So 27 carries in the other 14 games, about 2 per game. Pead was negligible, I checked but not even worth accounting for. Stacy didn't have a lot of competition for carries.

IF the split between Stacy and Mason as a rookie was something like a 2/3 to 1/3 split (Stacy 20 carries, Mason 10 carries per game, 320 and 160 on the season), what would that look like projected over a season, and how realistic is it given the context of what STL did last year, in terms of season rushing totals.

STL had 426 carries in 2013.

If you add 1/3 to Stacy's 250 carries in 2013 (4 games for the first month he didn't play to the 12 he did), that would be about 83 carries = 333 total, so that checks out close to 20 carries per game X 16. In order for Mason to get half that amount of carries, he would need to get 10 X 16 = 160 carries (as noted above). Even not accounting for the odd run by Austin or Cunningham, 320 and 160 = 480 carries, about 50 more than last year (so roughly 3 carries more per game on average). CIN was in the top quarter of the league (#8 in carries) with 481 carries.

So Stacy could get close to his prorated 16 game projection for carries based on last year, when he didn't have much competion for carries, even if he does have from Mason this year, if STL increases their total carries. He could have a smaller percentage of total carries, but if the total increases, it could effectively yield similar numbers (a smaller piece of a bigger pie could yield a similar amount).

Projecting off of last year might be dicey. They obviously threw less when Clemens was the starter, but the shift to more running had already begun to take place when Stacy was inserted into the starting lineup week 5, after a disastrous start in the first month. QB aside, the retention of Saffold (who can be a very good run blocking guard) and drafting of Robinson at 1.2 and Mason early in the third seems to signal a commitment to the run. It would help to keep Robinson from being exposed in pass pro, and also be a way to not ask Bradford to do too much returning from a torn ACL (RG3 looked rusty most of last season, but he had his injury a few months later). Though STL will continue to face stacked boxes until their passing game discourages defenses from doing that. Perhaps with the addition of Robinson and Saffold playing guard (proven to be his natural pro position last year) most/all of the year, they will be able to do a better job facing even stacked boxes.

It might he worth noting that while being in the NFC West, the best division in general and specifically defensively, ARI looks weaker minus Dansby and Washington, and SF could miss Bowman for half the season or more, and the troubled Aldon Smth could receive an extended suspension.

If the Rams do employ a run-heavy scheme, some reasons to think they could get to the 480+ rushing total...

If the offense does better, health permitting with the starting OL and skill positions, they could sustain more drives and run more plays. If they do better and score more, they could be involved in more games where they have a lead in the second half and fourth quarter, and are in a position to salt the game away with clock killing drives. It is important to note on this last point, defense also plays an important role in the lead getting/maintaining process, and they do look improved with the addition of Donald and Joyner. Also, rotating Stacy and Mason could keep both fresher than if either dominated the carries (like Stacy did last year), which could help them maintain a higher level of play in game and over the course of the season.

One thing that would help Stacy is if he gets the bulk of the goal line opportunities, though he already did last year, so it could be more a case of doing that will maintain last years clip (pacing for about 9 rushing TDs). Perhaps there could be some upside if Robinson does become a dominant run blocker. If so, there could also be upside if Stacy is more efficient and runs for a higher YPC average.

IF Stacy ran for 1,300 yards and 10 TDs (his receiving numbers of 26-141-1 would project to about 35-190-1 over 16 games) in 2014, where would that put him compared to the field in 2013? 10 RBs had over 1,100 yards, 7 RBs had over 1,200 yards but only 2 RBs cracked 1,300 yards (McCoy and Forte). McCoy (314) and Lynch (301) were the only RBs in the top 10 rushing with 300+ carries. RBs like McCoy, Forte and Charles finished as high as they did, because they played a large role receiving. But if things broke right, maybe Stacy could aspire to a Marshawn Lynch-type season. He was about top 5 among RBs last year in some scoring systems. If this transpires, Stacy is obviously very undervalued.

He is a physical RB, so this will be a key year to find out how he handles the beating for a full season.

If Mason is better, that is the vulnerability of a top 12 dynasty ranking, than he could be overvalued. If the split of carries between Stacy and Mason are more along the lines of a 60/40 distribution (where Stacy gets 50% more carries instead of 100% more), divided up from 480 carries, the carry projections would look more like 288/192. Still, only McCoy, Lynch and Forte had more, though most of the other top 10 RBs had between 275-285 carries. Lacy and Gore at 4.1 YPC and Chris Johnson at 3.9 YPC are more in line with Stacy's average, the other top 10 RBs were higher. Lacy was better than top 10, Gore about top 15 in a few scoring systems I checked.

So there could be quite a range of possibilities depending on the split between Stacy and Mason. This was just a rough sketch of some possible ranges if he plays 16 games, STL improves on offense, in the run game and overall including defense, and how Mason might impact his numbers.

* If Cunningham steals carries but more from Mason, that could blow up his projections but leave Stacy's largely intact.

 

[FF Ninja]

It's very possible that holding off Mason isn't even much of an achievement given the success of 3rd round rookies.

I remember Felix Jones owners feeling the exact same way about DeMarco Murray.

Anecdotes are the weakest argument.

 

[Sabertooth]

This is why I like to make my trades before I have a chance to use them sometimes. This guy was picked in the 5th round in what was considered a weak draft class and he's flying up boards. A turd with an opportunity is still a turd.

this is a sample of the opinion on stacy last year.

yes that's me. I missed out on Stscy last year. He did put up good numbers. But as with most mediocre talents, anyone is a threat. I would like to be in position to grab Mason this year. Much higher pick in a much deeper class. I underestimated last years class due to there being no first rounders. But as that appears to be the new normal I am going to adjust accordingly. I know the Stacy owner in my league is sending out offers like crazy right now. He also owns Gio. Not a great offseason for him. I generally go with the higher nfl picks during my rookie drafts. Call me lazy, I call it following the money. Stacy/mason will be a nice litmus test.

 

[FF Ninja]

This is why I like to make my trades before I have a chance to use them sometimes. This guy was picked in the 5th round in what was considered a weak draft class and he's flying up boards. A turd with an opportunity is still a turd.

this is a sample of the opinion on stacy last year.

yes that's me. I missed out on Stscy last year. He did put up good numbers. But as with most mediocre talents, anyone is a threat. I would like to be in position to grab Mason this year. Much higher pick in a much deeper class. I underestimated last years class due to there being no first rounders. But as that appears to be the new normal I am going to adjust accordingly. I know the Stacy owner in my league is sending out offers like crazy right now. He also owns Gio. Not a great offseason for him.I generally go with the higher nfl picks during my rookie drafts. Call me lazy, I call it following the money. Stacy/mason will be a nice litmus test.

There's nothing wrong with that strategy. But you have to be ready to admit when you are wrong. I wasn't vocally anti-Stacy last year... well, I wasn't really anit-Stacy to begin with. I was just not pro-Stacy. I know the odds of a 5th round pick sticking and he had a 2nd rounder ahead of him along with another young guy who had shown flashes and stole touches from a productive, 29 year old SJax the year before. It was easy to dismiss Stacy - 9 times out of 10 it was the right thing to do. Maybe even more. But this time I was wrong. Stacy was better than both guys ahead of him and still turned in a productive season despite only playing 12 games, playing with the 2nd worst passing attack, behind the 8th worst run blocking line.

I know when to admit I was wrong. But I'm sticking to my system once again. I know the odds of a 3rd round pick panning out are sub-50%. And this time the incumbent is better. So I'll buy Stacy when I feel the price is right and I'll draft him in redraft leagues if it fits my strategy. Will definitely bid strongly on him in auction leagues.

And no, Stacy/Mason won't be a nice litmus test. Litmus tests are consistent and accurate. This is purely an odds play. And the odds of a 3rd round pick being a starter aren't good. The odds of a 3rd round pick beating out a good, but not great starter are even worse.

 

[Sabertooth]

This is why I like to make my trades before I have a chance to use them sometimes. This guy was picked in the 5th round in what was considered a weak draft class and he's flying up boards. A turd with an opportunity is still a turd.

this is a sample of the opinion on stacy last year.

yes that's me. I missed out on Stscy last year. He did put up good numbers. But as with most mediocre talents, anyone is a threat. I would like to be in position to grab Mason this year. Much higher pick in a much deeper class. I underestimated last years class due to there being no first rounders. But as that appears to be the new normal I am going to adjust accordingly. I know the Stacy owner in my league is sending out offers like crazy right now. He also owns Gio. Not a great offseason for him.I generally go with the higher nfl picks during my rookie drafts. Call me lazy, I call it following the money. Stacy/mason will be a nice litmus test.

There's nothing wrong with that strategy. But you have to be ready to admit when you are wrong. I wasn't vocally anti-Stacy last year... well, I wasn't really anit-Stacy to begin with. I was just not pro-Stacy. I know the odds of a 5th round pick sticking and he had a 2nd rounder ahead of him along with another young guy who had shown flashes and stole touches from a productive, 29 year old SJax the year before. It was easy to dismiss Stacy - 9 times out of 10 it was the right thing to do. Maybe even more. But this time I was wrong. Stacy was better than both guys ahead of him and still turned in a productive season despite only playing 12 games, playing with the 2nd worst passing attack, behind the 8th worst run blocking line.

I know when to admit I was wrong. But I'm sticking to my system once again. I know the odds of a 3rd round pick panning out are sub-50%. And this time the incumbent is better. So I'll buy Stacy when I feel the price is right and I'll draft him in redraft leagues if it fits my strategy. Will definitely bid strongly on him in auction leagues.

And no, Stacy/Mason won't be a nice litmus test. Litmus tests are consistent and accurate. This is purely an odds play. And the odds of a 3rd round pick being a starter aren't good. The odds of a 3rd round pick beating out a good, but not great starter are even worse.

I am ready to admit I was wrong. Blackmon is wrong. So is Lamar Miller and David Wilson. But one year does not a dynasty player make and the truth is, if the Rams were sold on Stacy as the bellcow, they probably would have gone in another direction. We can't know what they were thinking but drafting generally comes down to two things...need or BPA. So let's look at those two things.

If they were drafting for need, then I think that speak to their thoughts on Stacy. Perhaps they think they simply need to build depth. But that seems like a pretty high pick for a depth player on a team that is the worst in their division. They aren't exactly solid at WR, TE or offensive line. So adding a depth running back in the third round seems foolhardy. Which leads me to think they probably think they lack a long term option at starter or want to go with a committee of some sort. None of those potential conclusions speaks to Stacy becoming a bellcow.

If they were going BPA (which I think is what they did when they took Stacy last year incidentally) then that really speaks to Mason's talent. This draft was considered deep. So if he was their BPA then I think they view him as pretty darn talented. Now is he more talented than Stacy? Probably. They took him 85 picks earlier in a deep class than they took Stacy in a shallower class.

You can bury your head in the sand all you want but nothing about the Tre Mason pick is good for Stacy. Now can he put the rook firmly on the bench? Of course he can. We aren't playing Madden here, these are real men playing for real.

I could be wrong about Stacy and Mason. Maybe the best idea is to avoid or get both.

 

[FF Ninja]

I am ready to admit I was wrong. Blackmon is wrong. So is Lamar Miller and David Wilson. But one year does not a dynasty player make and the truth is, if the Rams were sold on Stacy as the bellcow, they probably would have gone in another direction. We can't know what they were thinking but drafting generally comes down to two things...need or BPA. So let's look at those two things.

If they were drafting for need, then I think that speak to their thoughts on Stacy. Perhaps they think they simply need to build depth. But that seems like a pretty high pick for a depth player on a team that is the worst in their division. They aren't exactly solid at WR, TE or offensive line. So adding a depth running back in the third round seems foolhardy. Which leads me to think they probably think they lack a long term option at starter or want to go with a committee of some sort. None of those potential conclusions speaks to Stacy becoming a bellcow.

If they were going BPA (which I think is what they did when they took Stacy last year incidentally) then that really speaks to Mason's talent. This draft was considered deep. So if he was their BPA then I think they view him as pretty darn talented. Now is he more talented than Stacy? Probably. They took him 85 picks earlier in a deep class than they took Stacy in a shallower class.

You can bury your head in the sand all you want but nothing about the Tre Mason pick is good for Stacy. Now can he put the rook firmly on the bench? Of course he can. We aren't playing Madden here, these are real men playing for real.

I could be wrong about Stacy and Mason. Maybe the best idea is to avoid or get both.

Ha, that's funny. I was anti-Miller and Wilson last year - just didn't like their prices. But I'm willing to snag both of them late this year. Moreno hasn't exactly been a pillar of health during his career and the Miami line is going to be much improved. Wilson I'm not as interested in, but if the price is right...

But back on topic, look, Fisher likes to play D and run. If he likes a talent, he's not shy about taking a guy. It's not like they traded up to get him like Cincy did with Hill. That would be disturbing. The Rams had a lot of draft picks. To me this seems like a luxury pick. Their offensive line is actually shaping up nicely. I mean, it appears they're going to start the #2 overall draft pick at guard for a year or two. That's not usually what you see when a LT goes off the board that early. At WR, yeah, they don't have that figured out, but they have invested in the position heavily over the last few years in the draft so maybe they expect some of those guys to pan out. Plus, Fisher brought in his boy Britt from his days in Tennessee. Maybe he likes reclamation projects. I mean, he's giving Bradford a 5th year. At TE, they brought in Cook last year from Tennessee who showed flashes and they still have 2nd rounder Kendricks, so I doubt they feel a strong need at TE. Fisher would like to run the ball 30+ times a game. No way he's going to Eddie George it with Stacy who did get nicked up a fair amount last year. I think Stacy gets all the important carries and Mason is put in there on certain packages while Cunningham remains the backup to Stacy. Should there be an injury to Stacy this year, I'd want to own Cunningham. I think there will be at least a dozen TDs on the ground in that offense this year, so owning the goal line back will be valuable.

But I don't buy this "oh, they took him 85 picks earlier so they think he's more talented" argument. It is very short sighted. Sure, maybe if they were both in the draft last year, they'd think that. But Stacy has shown an ability to play at the next level, which Mason has not. I doubt after what Stacy did last year, they think Mason is more talented. They bought a $1 lottery ticket and got $20 in return. Now they bought a $5 lottery ticket. Time will tell how that pans out, but I don't think they think the new lottery ticket is more valuable than the one they already scratched off.

And when did I say the Mason pick was good for Stacy? Hint: I never did. My head isn't buried in the sand. If anyone has their head in the sand, it's the rookie hype mongers who keep citing, "derp, higher draft picks always better." Tell that to Pead and LeMichael James who were second rounders just two years ago and will likely be looking for jobs in a couple months. Ronnie Hillman and David Wilson aren't exactly having a great time, either. Let's go back a year farther. Ingram, Ryan Williams, LeShoure, Daniel Thomas, and Alex Green have had a rough go of it. Vereen has looked good, but hasn't put up one significant season of work in 3 years. Ridley has one year. Murray I guess has one good season and two half seasons? Only two top 24 finishes out of 8 guys playing a total of 24 seasons. Wait, Leshoure actually snuck in a top 24 finish the year he was allowed to fall into the end zone 9 times despite being solidly outplayed by Bell. Good job, Shwartz. So yeah, Mason isn't good for Stacy, but chances are, he's not that bad for Stacy, either.

 

[Sabertooth]

I am ready to admit I was wrong. Blackmon is wrong. So is Lamar Miller and David Wilson. But one year does not a dynasty player make and the truth is, if the Rams were sold on Stacy as the bellcow, they probably would have gone in another direction. We can't know what they were thinking but drafting generally comes down to two things...need or BPA. So let's look at those two things.

If they were drafting for need, then I think that speak to their thoughts on Stacy. Perhaps they think they simply need to build depth. But that seems like a pretty high pick for a depth player on a team that is the worst in their division. They aren't exactly solid at WR, TE or offensive line. So adding a depth running back in the third round seems foolhardy. Which leads me to think they probably think they lack a long term option at starter or want to go with a committee of some sort. None of those potential conclusions speaks to Stacy becoming a bellcow.

If they were going BPA (which I think is what they did when they took Stacy last year incidentally) then that really speaks to Mason's talent. This draft was considered deep. So if he was their BPA then I think they view him as pretty darn talented. Now is he more talented than Stacy? Probably. They took him 85 picks earlier in a deep class than they took Stacy in a shallower class.

You can bury your head in the sand all you want but nothing about the Tre Mason pick is good for Stacy. Now can he put the rook firmly on the bench? Of course he can. We aren't playing Madden here, these are real men playing for real.

I could be wrong about Stacy and Mason. Maybe the best idea is to avoid or get both.

Ha, that's funny. I was anti-Miller and Wilson last year - just didn't like their prices. But I'm willing to snag both of them late this year. Moreno hasn't exactly been a pillar of health during his career and the Miami line is going to be much improved. Wilson I'm not as interested in, but if the price is right...

But back on topic, look, Fisher likes to play D and run. If he likes a talent, he's not shy about taking a guy. It's not like they traded up to get him like Cincy did with Hill. That would be disturbing. The Rams had a lot of draft picks. To me this seems like a luxury pick. Their offensive line is actually shaping up nicely. I mean, it appears they're going to start the #2 overall draft pick at guard for a year or two. That's not usually what you see when a LT goes off the board that early. At WR, yeah, they don't have that figured out, but they have invested in the position heavily over the last few years in the draft so maybe they expect some of those guys to pan out. Plus, Fisher brought in his boy Britt from his days in Tennessee. Maybe he likes reclamation projects. I mean, he's giving Bradford a 5th year. At TE, they brought in Cook last year from Tennessee who showed flashes and they still have 2nd rounder Kendricks, so I doubt they feel a strong need at TE. Fisher would like to run the ball 30+ times a game. No way he's going to Eddie George it with Stacy who did get nicked up a fair amount last year. I think Stacy gets all the important carries and Mason is put in there on certain packages while Cunningham remains the backup to Stacy. Should there be an injury to Stacy this year, I'd want to own Cunningham. I think there will be at least a dozen TDs on the ground in that offense this year, so owning the goal line back will be valuable.

But I don't buy this "oh, they took him 85 picks earlier so they think he's more talented" argument. It is very short sighted. Sure, maybe if they were both in the draft last year, they'd think that. But Stacy has shown an ability to play at the next level, which Mason has not. I doubt after what Stacy did last year, they think Mason is more talented. They bought a $1 lottery ticket and got $20 in return. Now they bought a $5 lottery ticket. Time will tell how that pans out, but I don't think they think the new lottery ticket is more valuable than the one they already scratched off.

And when did I say the Mason pick was good for Stacy? Hint: I never did. My head isn't buried in the sand. If anyone has their head in the sand, it's the rookie hype mongers who keep citing, "derp, higher draft picks always better." Tell that to Pead and LeMichael James who were second rounders just two years ago and will likely be looking for jobs in a couple months. Ronnie Hillman and David Wilson aren't exactly having a great time, either. Let's go back a year farther. Ingram, Ryan Williams, LeShoure, Daniel Thomas, and Alex Green have had a rough go of it. Vereen has looked good, but hasn't put up one significant season of work in 3 years. Ridley has one year. Murray I guess has one good season and two half seasons? Only two top 24 finishes out of 8 guys playing a total of 24 seasons. Wait, Leshoure actually snuck in a top 24 finish the year he was allowed to fall into the end zone 9 times despite being solidly outplayed by Bell. Good job, Shwartz. So yeah, Mason isn't good for Stacy, but chances are, he's not that bad for Stacy, either.

I disagree with just about everything you wrote here.

 

[Sabertooth]

This is why I like to make my trades before I have a chance to use them sometimes. This guy was picked in the 5th round in what was considered a weak draft class and he's flying up boards. A turd with an opportunity is still a turd.

this is a sample of the opinion on stacy last year.

yes that's me. I missed out on Stscy last year. He did put up good numbers. But as with most mediocre talents, anyone is a threat. I would like to be in position to grab Mason this year. Much higher pick in a much deeper class. I underestimated last years class due to there being no first rounders. But as that appears to be the new normal I am going to adjust accordingly. I know the Stacy owner in my league is sending out offers like crazy right now. He also owns Gio. Not a great offseason for him.I generally go with the higher nfl picks during my rookie drafts. Call me lazy, I call it following the money. Stacy/mason will be a nice litmus test.

There's nothing wrong with that strategy. But you have to be ready to admit when you are wrong. I wasn't vocally anti-Stacy last year... well, I wasn't really anit-Stacy to begin with. I was just not pro-Stacy. I know the odds of a 5th round pick sticking and he had a 2nd rounder ahead of him along with another young guy who had shown flashes and stole touches from a productive, 29 year old SJax the year before. It was easy to dismiss Stacy - 9 times out of 10 it was the right thing to do. Maybe even more. But this time I was wrong. Stacy was better than both guys ahead of him and still turned in a productive season despite only playing 12 games, playing with the 2nd worst passing attack, behind the 8th worst run blocking line.

I know when to admit I was wrong. But I'm sticking to my system once again. I know the odds of a 3rd round pick panning out are sub-50%. And this time the incumbent is better. So I'll buy Stacy when I feel the price is right and I'll draft him in redraft leagues if it fits my strategy. Will definitely bid strongly on him in auction leagues.

And no, Stacy/Mason won't be a nice litmus test. Litmus tests are consistent and accurate. This is purely an odds play. And the odds of a 3rd round pick being a starter aren't good. The odds of a 3rd round pick beating out a good, but not great starter are even worse.

Several backs taken ahead of Stacy did very well last season and are much higher rated prospects this season, Bell, Ball, Lacy, Gio to name a few. I'm not saying I draft strictly by NFL draft slot, but it's a very good indicator of talent. Better than 40 time or " derp, watching tape." Especially for a guy like me who has not spent years honing my tape watching abilities as others may have. So I follow the money.

 

[BuzzCagney]

Might be better to follow the talent.

 

[Gawain]

Might be better to follow the talent.

But there's a fundamental difference on talent levels between the folks posting here.

One states third round talent trumps fifth round talent.

The other says one successful NFL season trumps zero successful NFL seasons.

Then you have a bunch of folks in between.

Who is more talented?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Might be better to follow the talent.

The NFL draft establishes a baseline for talent. From there you may adjust upwards or downwards for productions, "eyebal test" , etc. - but it's a fairly safe general rule that a guy drafted in round one is more talented than a guy drafted in round four. You 'll win far more times than you'll lose.

 

[BuzzCagney]

Might be better to follow the talent.

The NFL draft establishes a baseline for talent. From there you may adjust upwards or downwards for productions, "eyebal test" , etc. - but it's a fairly safe general rule that a guy drafted in round one is more talented than a guy drafted in round four. You 'll win far more times than you'll lose.

That is true but you still have to evaluate each player on their own merits instead of just lumping them into a what round were they were drafted category.

 

[Sabertooth]

Might be better to follow the talent.

Yeah. How do you do that exactly? Listen to guys sitting in cubicles who watch "tape?" Watch highlight videos on youtube? Read fluff articles? Combine metrics? Trust your gut? Every single player is talented. Every one of them.

 

[BuzzCagney]

Might be better to follow the talent.

But there's a fundamental difference on talent levels between the folks posting here.

One states third round talent trumps fifth round talent.

The other says one successful NFL season trumps zero successful NFL seasons.

Then you have a bunch of folks in between.

Who is more talented?

The trick is to define what talent is and how to measure it.

 

[BuzzCagney]

Might be better to follow the talent.

Yeah. How do you do that exactly? Listen to guys sitting in cubicles who watch "tape?" Watch highlight videos on youtube? Read fluff articles? Combine metrics? Trust your gut? Every single player is talented. Every one of them.

That is the 64$ question.

All of the above. Evaluate everything. Trial and error. Mostly error.

There are degrees of talent. Try to find the most talented.

 

[Sabertooth]

Ok that's not even an answer. How do you do it? Not generalities. How do YOU determine who is more talented than whom?

 

[jurb26]

Might be better to follow the talent.

The NFL draft establishes a baseline for talent. From there you may adjust upwards or downwards for productions, "eyebal test" , etc. - but it's a fairly safe general rule that a guy drafted in round one is more talented than a guy drafted in round four. You 'll win far more times than you'll lose.

This baseline you speak of really only applies to players from the same class, prior to playing in the NFL. Once they are in the NFL the baseline changes a great deal and we are given a lot of answers to the test. As it was pointed out earlier, we know Stacy is a capable player and even starter in the NFL. His 5th round draft grade is pretty meaningless at this point because he's proven to be far more talented than the typical 5th rounder in the NFL.

 

[Sabertooth]

Might be better to follow the talent.

The NFL draft establishes a baseline for talent. From there you may adjust upwards or downwards for productions, "eyebal test" , etc. - but it's a fairly safe general rule that a guy drafted in round one is more talented than a guy drafted in round four. You 'll win far more times than you'll lose.

This baseline you speak of really only applies to layers from the same class, prior to playing in the NFL. Once they are in the NFL the baseline champ gets a great deal and we are given a lot of answers to the test. As it was pointed out earlier, we know Stacy is a capable player and even starter in the NFL. His 5th round draft grade is pretty meaningless at this point because he's proven to be far more talented than the typical 5th rounder in the NFL.

True but his per play metrics were mediocre. We know he got a lot of chances and had middling success with those chances. Nothing more, nothing less. But I'll concede that is a lot more than we know about Mason.

 

[unckeyherb]

Again, while its hard to predict what kind of an impact Mason will be, who cares what Stacy's per play metrics are? He's not going to get ~12 touches a game. Rudi Johnson never caught passes and had very ho hum "per play" metrics-lifetime 3.9 ypc. However through shear volume, he was able to be a top producer for 3-4 years in a row; you could basically pencil him in for 1250/12 and he would deliver. I see Stacy as being a RB with the same type of production with a bit more upside as he's a better receiver than Rudi was. I might be (and probably am) devaluing Mason. But I saw enough of Stacy last year to convince me he is going to be the lead dog in that offense. I don't care where he was drafted, I care about what I saw last year and I thought he was a hard runner with good shake and he had a nose for the EZ-he scored a TD in 67% of his games last year. We'll see what shakes out in camp.

I remember Knowshon's demise being a foregone conclusion thanks to 2nd rounder Ball coming in.

 

[Bob Magaw]

And yet Knowshon is gone one year later.

 

[unckeyherb]

And yet Knowshon is gone one year later.

True and I know this is a dynasty thread, I was speaking more about the incumbent high pick usurping the throne right away-its not always the case. I'm in a 2-man keeper, so I am between re-draft and dynasty thinking, hence the leaning towards 2014 production...

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Might be better to follow the talent.

The NFL draft establishes a baseline for talent. From there you may adjust upwards or downwards for production, "eyebal test" , etc. - but it's a fairly safe general rule that a guy drafted in round one is more talented than a guy drafted in round four. You 'll win far more times than you'll lose.

This baseline you speak of really only applies to players from the same class, prior to playing in the NFL. Once they are in the NFL the baseline changes a great deal and we are given a lot of answers to the test. As it was pointed out earlier, we know Stacy is a capable player and even starter in the NFL. His 5th round draft grade is pretty meaningless at this point because he's proven to be far more talented than the typical 5th rounder in the NFL.

Sure - as I said adjustments can be made (see bolded). I will say though that even a moderately successful fifth rounder like Stacey is subject to "always looking over his shoulder", since a better talent can always come along. Stacy has proven now that he can get the job done and succeed so yes he has now risen above the level of generic fifth round pick. Honestly Stacy falling to the fifth round was a surprise in the first place because many people here and in the media liked him a lot predraft, so maybe he was just a victim of odd circumstances.

However, I remember telling some one in my local league that was high on Stacy, after his rookie season, that the danger is the team brings in an early round back in the near future to replace him - his response was "they would have no incentive to so that", and now we all know how that's now turned out. With that said, there is no guarantee that Mason overtakes Stacy anytime in the near future or ever, but that's the risk.

I'm speaking in very general terms when I say draft position is indicitive of talent level - we all know that things are not always as black and white as that of course.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Might be better to follow the talent.

The NFL draft establishes a baseline for talent. From there you may adjust upwards or downwards for productions, "eyebal test" , etc. - but it's a fairly safe general rule that a guy drafted in round one is more talented than a guy drafted in round four. You 'll win far more times than you'll lose.

This baseline you speak of really only applies to layers from the same class, prior to playing in the NFL. Once they are in the NFL the baseline champ gets a great deal and we are given a lot of answers to the test. As it was pointed out earlier, we know Stacy is a capable player and even starter in the NFL. His 5th round draft grade is pretty meaningless at this point because he's proven to be far more talented than the typical 5th rounder in the NFL.

True but his per play metrics were mediocre. We know he got a lot of chances and had middling success with those chances. Nothing more, nothing less. But I'll concede that is a lot more than we know about Mason.

I'm not sure it is saying the same thing, he did enjoy some success, but he was inconsistent. Some proponents have attributed that to Clemens being the QB for all but three of his 12 starts.

Jurb highlights an important point, but it is complicated by the fact that while Stacy exceeded his modest, fifth round expectations, and an UNTESTED fifth rounder probably should suffer in the comparison, Mason is in a different position as an untested THIRD rounder.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

The issue with Stacy, for me, is more with his draft position than anything else. I think he's likely just a compiler who had zero competition last year, but that's pretty subjective, I'm no scout, and I could certainly be wrong. But he's going off of the board as RB12, which is exactly where he finished last year in PPG the last 12 games, and whatever anyone thinks of Mason, he's hugely likely to get more work than the various scrub backups did down the stretch last year. It looks like a major stretch to me to project Stacy to get the roughly 23 touches / game that he got last year.

So for Stacy to finish RB12, he is likely to need a significant bump in efficiency. Yes, the situation looks to be better, but STL is still going to be facing defenses stacked to stop the run. Sam Bradford isn't striking fear into NFC West defenses with that receiving group anytime soon. RBs like Foster, Morris, Spiller, Bush, and Matthews are going after Stacy, and I'd rather have any of them as my RB2 this year. I'll pass on Stacy at his mid 3rd round price with no regrets in 2014.

 

[Bob Magaw]

The issue with Stacy, for me, is more with his draft position than anything else. I think he's likely just a compiler who had zero competition last year, but that's pretty subjective, I'm no scout, and I could certainly be wrong. But he's going off of the board as RB12, which is exactly where he finished last year in PPG the last 12 games, and whatever anyone thinks of Mason, he's hugely likely to get more work than the various scrub backups did down the stretch last year. It looks like a major stretch to me to project Stacy to get the roughly 23 touches / game that he got last year.

So for Stacy to finish RB12, he is likely to need a significant bump in efficiency. Yes, the situation looks to be better, but STL is still going to be facing defenses stacked to stop the run. Sam Bradford isn't striking fear into NFC West defenses with that receiving group anytime soon. RBs like Foster, Morris, Spiller, Bush, and Matthews are going after Stacy, and I'd rather have any of them as my RB2 this year. I'll pass on Stacy at his mid 3rd round price with no regrets in 2014.

If the Rams run more efficiently and successfully (Greg Robinson being an important addition), they could sustain more drives and have more run plays, which could allow him to come close to his carries per game average.Bradford didn't scare teams the last nine games he didn't play either. Despite being crippled with Clemens for 3/4 of his starts, Stacy was on about a 1,300 yard, 10 TD pace over 16 games. If you think Bradford is even a marginal, incremental improvement over Clemens, that would seem to be in his favor.

WITH Clemens, they outscored IND and CHI by a combined 80-29 in consecutive weeks, their biggest combined margin of victory in a comparable two game span in a decade. It's possible the defense should be accounted for (Williams the new DC, Donald and Joyner, etc.), they could get the ball back to the offense sooner, more often and in better field position.

 

[FF Ninja]

I disagree with just about everything you wrote here.

I'm neither surprised nor deterred.

Several backs taken ahead of Stacy did very well last season and are much higher rated prospects this season, Bell, Ball, Lacy, Gio to name a few. I'm not saying I draft strictly by NFL draft slot, but it's a very good indicator of talent. Better than 40 time or " derp, watching tape." Especially for a guy like me who has not spent years honing my tape watching abilities as others may have. So I follow the money.

Haha... "to name a few". Nope. That's actually all of them, but cute phrasing. And yes, you may not be saying it, but it does appear you draft strictly by NFL draft slot and there's nothing wrong with that when trying to evaluate talent that has yet to see an NFL carry. But what I contend is that you should abandon this logic when evaluating a player after he's had 20+ touches per game in at least half an NFL season. At that point you need to look at what he's done and weigh the odds of the guy coming in actually doing better. Your statements indicate you have a short memory, as do most FFballers, so seeing that 4 out of 4 second rounders who saw playing time seem headed for starting gigs in year 2, so you may conclude that draft slot nearly guarantees success. However, you seem to have glossed over my examples from the years just prior. That group of misfits from the 1st-3rd round should not instill confidence in a player drafted in the 3rd round. I recall some discussion last year about the success rate of 2nd round RBs. It was less than 50%. So the apparent success of Gio, Ball, Bell, and Lacy is definitely an anomaly if it holds true.

I don't "watch tape" (aka youtube highlights of RBs running through gaping holes with annoying rap as the soundtrack) or put stock in my eyeball test. I'm an engineer so I follow the numbers. Stacy put up mediocre "per play" stats on a pitiful offense after starting the season as a rookie 3rd on the depth chart. An impressive feat, but not enough to be mistaken as a special talent. I think we can safely call him "good, not great". Given history, the odds of a 3rd round RB becoming a "good, not great" starter are pretty slim. Mason now has an uphill battle since Stacy is the incumbent and Mason's game has some NFL deficiencies. As far as third round backs go, probability says Mason has a better chance of being a Hillman than a (hopefully healthy version of) Murray.

Once again, but more comprehensive this time:

2010

Spiller (9) - 1 top 24 season (#7)

Mathews (12) - 2 top 24 seasons (#7 and #12)

Best (30)

McCluster (36)

Gerhart (51)

Tate (58)

Hardesty (59)

2011

Ingram (28)

R.Williams (38)

Vereen (56)

Leshoure (57) - 1 top 24 season (#20)

D.Thomas (62)

Murray (71) - 1 top 24 season (#8)

Ridley (73) - 1 top 24 season (#10)

A.Green (96)

2012

Richardson (3)

Martin (31) - 1 top 24 season (#3)

Wilson (32)

Pead (50)

L.James (61)

Hillman (67)

Pierce (84)

2013

Bernard (37) (#16)

Bell (48) (#15)

Ball (58)

Lacy (61) (#7)

Michael (62)

K.Davis (96)

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

Stacy (160) (#18)

Still like the odds of #75 stealing the job in 2015 and flourishing?

Fun fact: only Ball - possibly the least impressive out of the four last year - had an impressive yards per carry stat (4.7). Bell (3.5), Gio (4.1), and Lacy (4.1) failed to distance themselves from Stacy (3.9) in that department despite playing on much better offenses and facing weaker defenses.

 

[unckeyherb]

Several backs taken ahead of Stacy did very well last season and are much higher rated prospects this season, Bell, Ball, Lacy, Gio to name a few. I'm not saying I draft strictly by NFL draft slot, but it's a very good indicator of talent. Better than 40 time or " derp, watching tape." Especially for a guy like me who has not spent years honing my tape watching abilities as others may have. So I follow the money.

Haha... "to name a few". Nope. That's actually all of them, but cute phrasing.

I thought that was funny too, the implication being that there's a glut of these guys out there.

 

[Sabertooth]

Again, while its hard to predict what kind of an impact Mason will be, who cares what Stacy's per play metrics are? He's not going to get ~12 touches a game. Rudi Johnson never caught passes and had very ho hum "per play" metrics-lifetime 3.9 ypc. However through shear volume, he was able to be a top producer for 3-4 years in a row; you could basically pencil him in for 1250/12 and he would deliver. I see Stacy as being a RB with the same type of production with a bit more upside as he's a better receiver than Rudi was. I might be (and probably am) devaluing Mason. But I saw enough of Stacy last year to convince me he is going to be the lead dog in that offense. I don't care where he was drafted, I care about what I saw last year and I thought he was a hard runner with good shake and he had a nose for the EZ-he scored a TD in 67% of his games last year. We'll see what shakes out in camp.

I remember Knowshon's demise being a foregone conclusion thanks to 2nd rounder Ball coming in.

How many backs did Rudi Johnson hold off that were picked in the top 100? Let's count them

Chris Perry - 1.26 - Bust that carried the ball a career 177 times, 104 of which were after Rudi lost effectiveness in 2008.

Kenny Irons - 2.17 (49th) - Never recorded a carry.

I think it's safe to say that neither of these guys amounted to anything in the NFL. I don't think that has anything to do with Rudi Johnson. Suffice to say Rudi never had to beat anyone of worth out for the starting job. I don't think Rudi had a player of Mason's caliber to contend with well, ever.

 

[Sabertooth]

Several backs taken ahead of Stacy did very well last season and are much higher rated prospects this season, Bell, Ball, Lacy, Gio to name a few. I'm not saying I draft strictly by NFL draft slot, but it's a very good indicator of talent. Better than 40 time or " derp, watching tape." Especially for a guy like me who has not spent years honing my tape watching abilities as others may have. So I follow the money.

Haha... "to name a few". Nope. That's actually all of them, but cute phrasing.

I thought that was funny too, the implication being that there's a glut of these guys out there.

Yeah that was off the top of my head and I guess I did nail them all. Only 4 backs ahead of Stacy from his own class so far but I think the jury is out on Christine Michael and Marcus Lattimore. I wasn't trying to be cute, more like in a hurry. Come to think of it right now, I can't think of 5 starters I like less than Stacy. Maybe New England, NYJ, Cleveland, Giants, Panthers, maybe 1 or 2 more.

 

[Sabertooth]

I disagree with just about everything you wrote here.

I'm neither surprised nor deterred.

Several backs taken ahead of Stacy did very well last season and are much higher rated prospects this season, Bell, Ball, Lacy, Gio to name a few. I'm not saying I draft strictly by NFL draft slot, but it's a very good indicator of talent. Better than 40 time or " derp, watching tape." Especially for a guy like me who has not spent years honing my tape watching abilities as others may have. So I follow the money.

Haha... "to name a few". Nope. That's actually all of them, but cute phrasing. And yes, you may not be saying it, but it does appear you draft strictly by NFL draft slot and there's nothing wrong with that when trying to evaluate talent that has yet to see an NFL carry. But what I contend is that you should abandon this logic when evaluating a player after he's had 20+ touches per game in at least half an NFL season. At that point you need to look at what he's done and weigh the odds of the guy coming in actually doing better. Your statements indicate you have a short memory, as do most FFballers, so seeing that 4 out of 4 second rounders who saw playing time seem headed for starting gigs in year 2, so you may conclude that draft slot nearly guarantees success. However, you seem to have glossed over my examples from the years just prior. That group of misfits from the 1st-3rd round should not instill confidence in a player drafted in the 3rd round. I recall some discussion last year about the success rate of 2nd round RBs. It was less than 50%. So the apparent success of Gio, Ball, Bell, and Lacy is definitely an anomaly if it holds true.

I don't "watch tape" (aka youtube highlights of RBs running through gaping holes with annoying rap as the soundtrack) or put stock in my eyeball test. I'm an engineer so I follow the numbers. Stacy put up mediocre "per play" stats on a pitiful offense after starting the season as a rookie 3rd on the depth chart. An impressive feat, but not enough to be mistaken as a special talent. I think we can safely call him "good, not great". Given history, the odds of a 3rd round RB becoming a "good, not great" starter are pretty slim. Mason now has an uphill battle since Stacy is the incumbent and Mason's game has some NFL deficiencies. As far as third round backs go, probability says Mason has a better chance of being a Hillman than a (hopefully healthy version of) Murray.

Once again, but more comprehensive this time:

2010

Spiller (9) - 1 top 24 season (#7)

Mathews (12) - 2 top 24 seasons (#7 and #12)

Best (30)

McCluster (36)

Gerhart (51)

Tate (58)

Hardesty (59)

2011

Ingram (28)

R.Williams (38)

Vereen (56)

Leshoure (57) - 1 top 24 season (#20)

D.Thomas (62)

Murray (71) - 1 top 24 season (#8)

Ridley (73) - 1 top 24 season (#10)

A.Green (96)

2012

Richardson (3)

Martin (31) - 1 top 24 season (#3)

Wilson (32)

Pead (50)

L.James (61)

Hillman (67)

Pierce (84)

2013

Bernard (37) (#16)

Bell (48) (#15)

Ball (58)

Lacy (61) (#7)

Michael (62)

K.Davis (96)

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

Stacy (160) (#18)

Still like the odds of #75 stealing the job in 2015 and flourishing?

Fun fact: only Ball - possibly the least impressive out of the four last year - had an impressive yards per carry stat (4.7). Bell (3.5), Gio (4.1), and Lacy (4.1) failed to distance themselves from Stacy (3.9) in that department despite playing on much better offenses and facing weaker defenses.

I don't think you can count a player as better than anybody just because he compiled a lot of stats. Stacy was a compiler. Nothing more. I don't think a guy that churns out mediocre numbers is going to hold off a real talent for long. How long to James Starks hold off Lacy? How long did Dwyer hold off Bell? Not very long. If Mason has the goods, he'll pass Stacy I think.

 

[cstu]

Several backs taken ahead of Stacy did very well last season and are much higher rated prospects this season, Bell, Ball, Lacy, Gio to name a few. I'm not saying I draft strictly by NFL draft slot, but it's a very good indicator of talent. Better than 40 time or " derp, watching tape." Especially for a guy like me who has not spent years honing my tape watching abilities as others may have. So I follow the money.

Haha... "to name a few". Nope. That's actually all of them, but cute phrasing.

I thought that was funny too, the implication being that there's a glut of these guys out there.

Yeah that was off the top of my head and I guess I did nail them all. Only 4 backs ahead of Stacy from his own class so far but I think the jury is out on Christine Michael and Marcus Lattimore. I wasn't trying to be cute, more like in a hurry. Come to think of it right now, I can't think of 5 starters I like less than Stacy. Maybe New England, NYJ, Cleveland, Giants, Panthers, maybe 1 or 2 more.

And Ellington.

 

[FF Ninja]

I don't think you can count a player as better than anybody just because he compiled a lot of stats. Stacy was a compiler. Nothing more. I don't think a guy that churns out mediocre numbers is going to hold off a real talent for long. How long to James Starks hold off Lacy? How long did Dwyer hold off Bell? Not very long. If Mason has the goods, he'll pass Stacy I think.

It's almost like you didn't read anything I wrote and just echoed that same lazy line about compiling stats. When you are on an offense as bad as the Rams, you are lucky to compile stats. If you don't have talent then you end up with stat lines like the Cleveland Browns RBs.

And yes, beating out the other 3 RBs on the roster does count for something. He didn't just beat them out for the starting job, but they barely even touched the ball when he was healthy.

Riddle me this: What's different about Stacy compiling stats at 3.9 ypc on the Rams than Lacy, Bernard, and Bell compiling their stats at their low ypc clips on better offenses? And before you bring up ypr, keep in mind Stacy wasn't running routes like Bell, catching the ball downfield. He was merely catching dump offs from Clemens. Also, Peterson caught 40 balls for 5.4 ypr in his best year as a pro. I wouldn't put too much stock in Stacy's small sample of receptions.

 

[unckeyherb]

Again, while its hard to predict what kind of an impact Mason will be, who cares what Stacy's per play metrics are? He's not going to get ~12 touches a game. Rudi Johnson never caught passes and had very ho hum "per play" metrics-lifetime 3.9 ypc. However through shear volume, he was able to be a top producer for 3-4 years in a row; you could basically pencil him in for 1250/12 and he would deliver. I see Stacy as being a RB with the same type of production with a bit more upside as he's a better receiver than Rudi was. I might be (and probably am) devaluing Mason. But I saw enough of Stacy last year to convince me he is going to be the lead dog in that offense. I don't care where he was drafted, I care about what I saw last year and I thought he was a hard runner with good shake and he had a nose for the EZ-he scored a TD in 67% of his games last year. We'll see what shakes out in camp.

I remember Knowshon's demise being a foregone conclusion thanks to 2nd rounder Ball coming in.

How many backs did Rudi Johnson hold off that were picked in the top 100? Let's count them

Chris Perry - 1.26 - Bust that carried the ball a career 177 times, 104 of which were after Rudi lost effectiveness in 2008.

Kenny Irons - 2.17 (49th) - Never recorded a carry.

I think it's safe to say that neither of these guys amounted to anything in the NFL. I don't think that has anything to do with Rudi Johnson. Suffice to say Rudi never had to beat anyone of worth out for the starting job. I don't think Rudi had a player of Mason's caliber to contend with well, ever.

I don't understand. Everyone is saying Stacy is going to take a big hit because Tre Mason is much better, as dictated by his 3rd round vs. Stacy's 5th round pedigree. Add in the fact that Stacy is a "compiler" and he is seen as being a bad pick.

I point to Rudi Johnson as a guy that was, as you said, a "compiler". You point out that a first rounder and a second rounder DIDN'T un-seed him. And you say it as a knock on Johnson. Why does the draft choice argument hold water against Stacy, but Perry and Irons were not worthy. Wouldn't a first rounder and a second rounder be more "of worth" than a third rounder? Everyone acts like its a foregone conclusion that Tre Mason is better because of his draft position, ignoring that (while not flashy) Stacy had a pretty damn good year on a bad offense behind a bad line. Stacy's got a year of good NFL production under his belt. Mason has none.

 

[loose circuits]

Again, while its hard to predict what kind of an impact Mason will be, who cares what Stacy's per play metrics are? He's not going to get ~12 touches a game. Rudi Johnson never caught passes and had very ho hum "per play" metrics-lifetime 3.9 ypc. However through shear volume, he was able to be a top producer for 3-4 years in a row; you could basically pencil him in for 1250/12 and he would deliver. I see Stacy as being a RB with the same type of production with a bit more upside as he's a better receiver than Rudi was. I might be (and probably am) devaluing Mason. But I saw enough of Stacy last year to convince me he is going to be the lead dog in that offense. I don't care where he was drafted, I care about what I saw last year and I thought he was a hard runner with good shake and he had a nose for the EZ-he scored a TD in 67% of his games last year. We'll see what shakes out in camp.

I remember Knowshon's demise being a foregone conclusion thanks to 2nd rounder Ball coming in.

How many backs did Rudi Johnson hold off that were picked in the top 100? Let's count them

Chris Perry - 1.26 - Bust that carried the ball a career 177 times, 104 of which were after Rudi lost effectiveness in 2008.

Kenny Irons - 2.17 (49th) - Never recorded a carry.

I think it's safe to say that neither of these guys amounted to anything in the NFL. I don't think that has anything to do with Rudi Johnson. Suffice to say Rudi never had to beat anyone of worth out for the starting job. I don't think Rudi had a player of Mason's caliber to contend with well, ever.

I don't understand. Everyone is saying Stacy is going to take a big hit because Tre Mason is much better, as dictated by his 3rd round vs. Stacy's 5th round pedigree. Add in the fact that Stacy is a "compiler" and he is seen as being a bad pick.

I point to Rudi Johnson as a guy that was, as you said, a "compiler". You point out that a first rounder and a second rounder DIDN'T un-seed him. And you say it as a knock on Johnson. Why does the draft choice argument hold water against Stacy, but Perry and Irons were not worthy. Wouldn't a first rounder and a second rounder be more "of worth" than a third rounder? Everyone acts like its a foregone conclusion that Tre Mason is better because of his draft position, ignoring that (while not flashy) Stacy had a pretty damn good year on a bad offense behind a bad line. Stacy's got a year of good NFL production under his belt. Mason has none.

same hype was around for Perry & Irons, but didn't injuries derail both careers?

 

[Nero]

Again, while its hard to predict what kind of an impact Mason will be, who cares what Stacy's per play metrics are? He's not going to get ~12 touches a game. Rudi Johnson never caught passes and had very ho hum "per play" metrics-lifetime 3.9 ypc. However through shear volume, he was able to be a top producer for 3-4 years in a row; you could basically pencil him in for 1250/12 and he would deliver. I see Stacy as being a RB with the same type of production with a bit more upside as he's a better receiver than Rudi was. I might be (and probably am) devaluing Mason. But I saw enough of Stacy last year to convince me he is going to be the lead dog in that offense. I don't care where he was drafted, I care about what I saw last year and I thought he was a hard runner with good shake and he had a nose for the EZ-he scored a TD in 67% of his games last year. We'll see what shakes out in camp.

I remember Knowshon's demise being a foregone conclusion thanks to 2nd rounder Ball coming in.

How many backs did Rudi Johnson hold off that were picked in the top 100? Let's count themChris Perry - 1.26 - Bust that carried the ball a career 177 times, 104 of which were after Rudi lost effectiveness in 2008.

Kenny Irons - 2.17 (49th) - Never recorded a carry.

I think it's safe to say that neither of these guys amounted to anything in the NFL. I don't think that has anything to do with Rudi Johnson. Suffice to say Rudi never had to beat anyone of worth out for the starting job. I don't think Rudi had a player of Mason's caliber to contend with well, ever.

I don't understand. Everyone is saying Stacy is going to take a big hit because Tre Mason is much better, as dictated by his 3rd round vs. Stacy's 5th round pedigree. Add in the fact that Stacy is a "compiler" and he is seen as being a bad pick. I point to Rudi Johnson as a guy that was, as you said, a "compiler". You point out that a first rounder and a second rounder DIDN'T un-seed him. And you say it as a knock on Johnson. Why does the draft choice argument hold water against Stacy, but Perry and Irons were not worthy. Wouldn't a first rounder and a second rounder be more "of worth" than a third rounder? Everyone acts like its a foregone conclusion that Tre Mason is better because of his draft position, ignoring that (while not flashy) Stacy had a pretty damn good year on a bad offense behind a bad line. Stacy's got a year of good NFL production under his belt. Mason has none.

IMO those saying Stacy is a compiler haven't seen him play. I get that if you just look at the numbers you could come away with that conclusion. I was much a higher on Stacy than most everyone, as I had him #1 before the NFL draft. So maybe I'm biased in my perception of what I saw. But Stacy carried that team and looked impressive doing so.

I also happen to like Mason a lot and think he is this years best back. I think they are similarly talented; whatever advantage Mason has in change of direction and quickness, Stacy makes up for it with size and strength. I don't dismiss the possibility of Mason overtaking Stacy, but I don't think he will as Stacy's size will give him the edge. I still expect to see a healthy dose of Mason though.

I have Stacy as RB12 for redraft. He would gave been a little higher had the Rams not drafted Mason.

 

[BuzzCagney]

Ok that's not even an answer. How do you do it? Not generalities. How do YOU determine who is more talented than whom?

Yes, that was an answer. I read everything i can and decide what works best or seems important in evaluating players. I've come to favor the metric viewpoint. I'm always looking for more information. If that seems general, I'm sorry.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Zac Stacy - RB - Rams

Rams OC Brian Schottenheimer stated Wednesday that Zac Stacy is "not guaranteed" St. Louis' starting running back job.

Schotty said rookie Tre Mason "and others" are in the hunt. In late March, coach Jeff Fisher said he envisioned Stacy as "probably a 70-percent of the carries" back "over time," perhaps with "others" like Mason and Benny Cunningham mixing in. Fisher made that comment before drafting Mason with a top-75 pick, though. We still expect Stacy to handle the vast majority of carries for the run-heavy 2014 Rams. Mason could be a useful year-one change-of-pace back.

Source: Turf Show Times on Twitter

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Zac Stacy - RB - Rams
ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner considers OC Brian Schottenheimer's announcement of St. Louis' top running back spot as a competition to be "part of an effort to promote competition at all positions."
Wagoner calls Schotty's statement a "common refrain" and "solid ploy to ensure everybody brings their best to the practice field on a daily basis." Added Schottenheimer, "We’re just trying to create competition. Sam Bradford is going to compete. That’s what we’re trying to do and whoever wins the job, wins the job." Schottenheimer did add, "I expect to see multiple guys carry the football." Zac Stacy may not push for the NFL lead in rushing attempts, but he remains the favorite for feature back work in St. Louis.

Source: ESPN.com

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Jim Thomas suggests OC Brian Schottenheimer's claim that Zac Stacy isn't locked in as the Rams' starter was "probably more coachspeak than anything else."

ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner has expressed similar thoughts. Like most good teams throughout the NFL, the Rams are trying to create a sense of competition at every spot, even positions where players appear entrenched. Tre Mason's lack of experience in pass protection makes it especially hard to take Schottenheimer seriously. We have not adjusted Stacy's status as a borderline RB1 since the comments.

Related: Tre Mason

Source: St Louis Post-Dispatch

Jun 23 - 8:53 AM

 

[Gawain]

Rotoworld:

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Jim Thomas suggests OC Brian Schottenheimer's claim that Zac Stacy isn't locked in as the Rams' starter was "probably more coachspeak than anything else."

ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner has expressed similar thoughts. Like most good teams throughout the NFL, the Rams are trying to create a sense of competition at every spot, even positions where players appear entrenched. Tre Mason's lack of experience in pass protection makes it especially hard to take Schottenheimer seriously. We have not adjusted Stacy's status as a borderline RB1 since the comments.

Related: Tre Mason

Source: St Louis Post-Dispatch

Jun 23 - 8:53 AM

I'm invested in Stacy, but I can't get too excited by this spin. Bradford's not in a competition with Hill. If Stacy was a 100% lock, there would have been no comment. Roto can think that Stacy's the best RB on the roster, but to say that the comment can be ignored is whistling past the graveyard.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

26. Zac Stacy -- OC Brian Schottenheimer is on record as opening St. Louis' running back job to competition, although Stacy should be viewed as the heavy favorite. Taking over as the Rams' workhorse over last season's final 12 games, Stacy rushed 249 times for 960 yards with eight touchdowns, numbers that work out to 332-1,292-11 across a 16-start season. He's much more adept in the passing game than rookie Tre Mason, who struggled mightily as a pass blocker at Auburn and finished his college career with just 19 receptions. I'm also not entirely sold Mason will beat outBenny Cunningham for No. 2 back work after Cunningham quietly led the NFL in yards per carry (5.55) among rushers with at least 45 totes. Additionally, St. Louis sounds committed to a truly run-devoted offense this season, after finishing 2013 a middling 17th in rushing attempts.

EVAN SILVA GOAL LINE STAND

 

[cstu]

Rotoworld:

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Jim Thomas suggests OC Brian Schottenheimer's claim that Zac Stacy isn't locked in as the Rams' starter was "probably more coachspeak than anything else."

ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner has expressed similar thoughts. Like most good teams throughout the NFL, the Rams are trying to create a sense of competition at every spot, even positions where players appear entrenched. Tre Mason's lack of experience in pass protection makes it especially hard to take Schottenheimer seriously. We have not adjusted Stacy's status as a borderline RB1 since the comments.

Related: Tre Mason

Source: St Louis Post-Dispatch

Jun 23 - 8:53 AM

I'm invested in Stacy, but I can't get too excited by this spin. Bradford's not in a competition with Hill. If Stacy was a 100% lock, there would have been no comment. Roto can think that Stacy's the best RB on the roster, but to say that the comment can be ignored is whistling past the graveyard.

I think it's a near lock that Stacy is the week 1 starter. After that, who knows, but Stacy would really have to blow the preseason to lose his job.