Why are people discounting Daryl Richardson's role in this. He more than doubled Lamar Miller's rookie production and people are just writing him off.
Daryl is competing with a top notch talent in stacy. Miller doesn't have an elite level guy to compete with.
I doubt it. He's competing with a 5th round pick. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like Miller.
Everyone is discounting Pead, who was a second round pick.
Arian Foster > Ben Tate.
I'm not sure what the point of this analogy is. Are you saying that if Zac Stacy is as talented as Arian Foster, it doesn't matter who his competition is? That's not exactly breaking news, but it hinges on an Everest-sized "if". Are you saying that highly-drafted rookies who fail to produce in year 1 are hardly consequential for fantasy purposes? If so, Ray Rice, (454 rushing yards, no TDs, handily beaten out by Le'Ron McClain), or Jamaal Charles, (357 yards, 0 rushing TDs), might like to have a word with you. Are we even ready to hold up Ben Tate as a negative comparison that this point? I mean, Tate did have 1,000 yards from scrimmage in 2011, he does have a career YPC over 5.0, and he very well might wind up turning into the next Michael Turner, (or even the next Lamont Jordan, or the next Chester Taylor, or the next Rudi Johnson).
Hyperbole like this is why I want nothing to do with Stacy at his inflated value. He's almost certainly not the next Arian Foster or Terrell Davis. Isaiah Pead is not yet locked in as the next Montario Hardesty or Brandon Jackson. Daryl Richardson may or may not yet be the next Jerious Norwood or Mewelde Moore. Facile analogies like these might seem superficially compelling, but they do far more to obscure than to reveal. The reality is that we have a messy situation on an historically awful (if potentially positive-trending) franchise. We have competition between a late rounder in 2012 who was good in limited action, an early rounder in 2012 with suggestively limited opportunities, and a late rounder in 2013 with a more historically prototypical body type. None of these guys have clearly differentiated themselves yet, all three are clearly in play, and any faction that becomes too excited about one while summarily dismissing the other two is guilty of either dangerously underrating the entire NFL scouting institution or equally dangerously overrating their own ability to predict the future. There exists ample risk surrounding all three players. None of their ascendency is a
fait accompli, and none should be priced as if it were.
My process tends to defer heavily to the NFL Talent Evaluation Apparatus, so I naturally prefer Pead. Others defer to physical comparisons and body types, and those guys love Stacy. Still others hold on-field production above all else, and those guys like Richardson. All three viewpoints have their own merits. At least two of those viewpoints (and likely all three) will produce unsatisfying results for their proponents. We don't know in advance which will fail and which will prevail, but I would suggest that a healthy dose of skepticism towards all three players would be prudent.
Edit: I would also suggest an equally healthy degree of skepticism towards Gillislee. 5th rounders, as a rule, are not good bets for anything. If the price gets low enough, I'd be happy to roll the dice on Gillislee, but I certainly wouldn't be optimistic about them coming up in my favor.