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.
Can easily say that shift in focus is financial driven though. His stock was fading and he's staring at his next contract. Once he gets it who is to say he won't regress back to the immature guy he was before?No one knows for sure, but ignoring that element in your evaluation would be a huge mistake.
Perhaps I am seeing this through rose colored glasses because I am a big Spiller fan, but I have a hard time not putting Spiller in the former group instead of the latter. For instance, I don't see all that much distinction between McCoy and Spiller. Both are electric talents, with Spiller much more capable of the home run play and McCoy a little bit better of a touchdown threat...albeit his system is now due for a massive overhaul and whether he remains the goal line back of choice with Brown as a backup is an absolute question mark. Spiller showed this year that if he is healthy, he is essentially situation proof- it doesn't get much worse than literally playing as the backup or lesser share of a timeshare for a player of his talent and he STILL put up a fantastic fantasy season. Even if he is never a workhorse back, the upside is obvious if he becomes the greater share of a timeshare, right?I think Spiller currently is a fantastic bargain, as I think the general consensus is to value him behind most, if not all of the players you mentioned. The only player I would definitely not currently trade him for is Trent Richardson. I would also have to think long and hard about trading him for Peterson or McCoy or Rice or Charles. After that, I think it is a no brainer. For instance, I feel like I would be getting a steal if I were able to get Spiller straight up for Doug Martin or Foster and ABSOLUTELY would be fleecing an owner that traded him for Alfred Morris as I believe Spiller is worth Doug Martin (or Foster or Morris) plus another player (this gives you an idea of what I feel the difference in talent level actually is and how much situation is altering their respective values currently). I am a big advocate of valuing situation for running backs much more than many people do, but not when I think there is a massive talent disparity (and I believe there is a very significant difference in talent between Spiller and the likes of Alfred Morris).You can probably repeat this exact same argument for Jamaal Charles, as I think he is essentially the clone of Spiller (perhaps a bit more talented, but with a bit more age). Jamaal Charles also feels criminally underrated and I can't imagine concretely valuing anyone but Richardson ahead of him (this goes more to the ranking a few posts ago that had Charles as low as RB10).On a different topic, I also believe David Wilson is essentially the premier buy low target for the "name" running back market during the off season. I think he showed all you needed to see over the last handful of games on the season. Sure his price has risen from early in the year and he is far from cheap at the moment, but his cost has not yet risen to the point where it equals his actual value. I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that David Wilson doesn't begin next year as the greater part of a timeshare at worst, with the possible upshot of being the bell cow if things break exactly right. Everyone always knew he had the talent and he began to show signs of putting it together last year. I can't imagine having him as low as some people do given these factors. For instance, MJD, Forte, and Ridley have no business being ranked ahead of him, in my opinion. After that, you can interchange Murray, Chris Johnson, Morris, and Lynch with him and I would not argue someone who preferred David Wilson to any of these players.I also think you can essentially repeat somewhat the same argument for Ryan Mathews who I see as another fantastic buy low (and if it isn't David Wilson, then Mathews is the best target for the "name" running back market). People are going to put WAY too much credence into last seasons abortion of a season despite the fact that the entire Chargers offense regressed to disgusting levels (meaning it was hardly just Mathews. QB, offensive line, receivers, tight end, and coaching staff all performed WAY below expectation, likely dragging each other down along the way). Just 1 season ago, he was putting up some of the best per touch metrics in the league, looked like a very talented player, and appeared on his way to joining the elite level of fantasy football running backs. Given how cheap he has suddenly become, I think it would be silly to base valuations on just last season when there are plenty of reasons to suggest it may have been more of an anomaly than the norm.'Concept Coop said:
I agree. Rather have Brees if I had a choice.
If you mean PPR, then I agree with most of what you said. I rank Spiller just above McCoy right now and also ahead of Foster. I believe the prior posts you were addressing were talking non-PPR though.
McCoy is an entire year younger and that comes into play. McCoy will be 25 going into next season, Spiller will be 26. 25.5 was my 2012 baseline age for RBs(top 25 options dynasty options). I don't blame those who don't value a 1 year age difference that much, but I personally do. Aside from that, I would likely have them in the same tier.
Is this the sort of talent that leads to him setting an NFL record for career yards per carry and rushing for 1500 on the worst team in the league a year after blowing out his knee? Or is this more the kind of talent that Mendenhall has- the kind that leads to him getting passed over by Ike Redman and John Dwyer?
I think a lot of what you say has merit. I believe it is a truth that the big play, explosive players tend to get a talent upgrade over the more consistent churners in a lot of people's minds, even if the overall stats put up by both types of players are relatively equal.I also am totally in agreement with your stance on not trading Richardson for either Spiller or Charles. I have seen "it" from Richardson and despite his incredibly disappointing finish to the season (at least from an efficiency metrics standpoint), have no problem projecting him as a great player once the situation improves around him. There are a lot of times that I saw Richardson run and came away impressed, thinking he simply looked better/bigger/stronger/tougher/more aggressive than everyone playing against him.
Shouldn't even dignify that with a response, but my point is that there's a lot of ways to skin a cat and one shouldn't necessarily be valued over the other. The difference between Martin and Charles is kind of like the difference between Dwayne Bowe and Mike Wallace. They can both get yards, but they do it in very different ways.
Different strokes for different folks. I actually think Martin is the safest pick of the three and the most versatile. He can literally do everything. Run with speed. Run with power. Juke tacklers. Break tackles with strength. Run routes downfield and catch the ball away from his frame. Make defenders miss after the catch. He doesn't have the awe-inspiring speed of someone like Spiller, but when you are an A- back in every category, the cumulative grade is an A+. I see his future being something like Ray Rice, Frank Gore, Matt Forte, Marshawn Lynch, and Arian Foster. Those guys don't always catch the headlines with flashy big plays, but they fill the box score every week with their versatility. You put this guy in your lineup and you know he's going to rush for 60+ yards and catch 3 or 4 balls every week. That's just gold in PPR leagues. Nevermind the fact that Martin is tied with the flashier Charles for third in the NFL in 20+ yard runs behind only Peterson and Spiller. He wasn't just an accumulator. He made quite a few special plays.
Okay, so there are lots of different kinds of talent. I'll take the kinds that lead to you averaging half a yard more per carry than any other RB in the history of the game. In case you missed it, this is me vehemently disagreeing with your claim that Doug Martin is as talented as Jamaal Charles. Nowhere close.
Whereas Charles has better home run speed and quickness, Martin is bigger and stronger with better ability to bounce off hits. So saying that one is clearly more talented than the other is probably a bit misguided. They have a similar talent level, but are good at different things.
I think people generally overrate the flashy aspects (speed/quickness) compared to the more subtle qualities. Hence why you tend to hear more about the talent level of speedy backs like CJ/Charles/Spiller/McFadden compared to guys like Gore/Martin/Rice who have just as much ability, but achieve their results in a different fashion.
This doesn't get nearly enough attention.He could see his Y/C average drop by around 20% for the next three years and he'd still own the record. And he's only 26 next year (less than a year older than Spiller).
Like I said, different strokes for different folks. As I've stated elsewhere, I think the ability to handle a high volume of touches is a talent and it's one that Martin has demonstrated to a greater extent than Charles. Martin's 368 touches are more than Charles has ever logged in his entire five season career. Small backs are generally more explosive than big backs, but they typically lag far behind in terms of touches. That's no different this year, with 8 of the top 10 NFL leaders in carries (and all of the top 5) being 215+ pounders. Even if you're right that Jamaal Charles is more talented than Martin, it doesn't show up in the FF numbers. Martin easily outscored Charles in all of my leagues despite Charles having the best season of his career. Charles was like the DeSean Jackson of RBs this year: all or nothing. In my most generic PPR league he had 7 single digit games compared to just 3 for Martin. Yes, Charles had some awesome weeks where he single-handedly won games for his owners, but he also had far more weeks where he would've killed your squad. I'm the type of owner who values solid, reliable scorers over feast-or-famine big play artists. I would much rather have a guy like Michael Crabtree than Torrey Smith. Likewise, I would rather have Doug Martin than Jamaal Charles. I'll be perfectly content to hear how wrong I am about this for the next several years as long as Martin continues to churn out superior FF seasons.
We've got a couple of different threads going on here. You said that Martin is more consistent than Charles, but that's a meaningless distinction- consistency is highly inconsistent from year to year, and correlates to nothing except for points scored. You said that Martin outscored Charles this year, which is absolutely true, but 100% irrelevant when discussing talent (unless you also want to argue that Andre Roberts is more talented than Larry Fitzgerald). Martin played for an explosive offense. Charles played for the most anemic offense in the league, a year after blowing out his knee. You mention that larger backs dominate the carry charts, but we've discussed this a half dozen times already- there are far more large backs in the league than small backs, so they'll dominate EVERY LIST. And it doesn't matter anyway, since Charles was up on that carry leaders list, too- averaging an even 20 touches a game for a team that had no idea what it felt like to play with a lead. You want to talk about how Martin's more valuable in dynasty leagues, and I'll agree. You want to talk about how Martin will score more fantasy points over the next three seasons, and I'm all ears. You want to talk about how Martin is more talented than Charles, though, and that's when I'm going to go all Kanye West on you. Yo EBF, imma let you finish. Doug Martin is a great back, but Jamaal Charles is one of the best backs of all time.
Right, and that's not by coincidence. There is an archetypal body type for playing the RB position. The farther you get from that ideal, the more exaggerated your other abilities must be to compensate. Reggie Bush, CJ Spiller, and Chris Johnson are some of the best athletes playing RB in the NFL. They have to be, because it's the only way that they could thrive without the 220 pound frame. It's like an NBA center who's shorter than 6'10". He has to be great in some other way in order to compensate for his simple physical deficiencies. And that brings me back to my point about talent. The jaw dropping speed of a guy like Spiller or Bush distracts you from the fact that he is lacking in other departments. A 220 pound back needs a lot less quickness and speed to be an effective NFL player than a 195 pound back. Does this mean that he is less talented, or just that his talents reside in different characteristics? I'd say it's the latter. To be clear, I'm not arguing that Cedric Benson is as talented as Jamaal Charles. I'm just saying that his talents are more subtle. Blinding speed and quickness are a lot more impressive to watch on the TV screen than a plodding Shonn Greene, so it's easy to understand why a lot of observers associate "talent" with things like speed and quickness. I'd argue that the equation is a bit more complicated. To go back to the Doug Martin comparison, it's pretty clear that he isn't as quick or fast as someone like CJ Spiller. On the other hand, he also weighs almost 30 pounds more despite being 1.4 inches shorter. He doesn't need to be as quick or fast because he is a hell of a lot bigger and stronger. When you watch him run, you might not notice those things as much as you notice the amazing cuts or speed of a smaller back. Hence my original point that people tend to associate "talent" with flashy physical qualities when it's not really that simple.
Charles isn't even a top 2 back in his own draft, much less of all time. He's not fit to carry Adrian Peterson's pads. The YPC is impressive, but as much as I like efficiency stats they aren't the be-all end-all of determining who is the greatest player. Charles has never been asked tote the ball as much as a guy like Adrian Peterson or LaDainian Tomlinson. If he were, his efficiency stats would drop. Efficiency stats are often a really good way to identify up and coming players, but it's also important to recognize that there's a difference between thriving on a modest amount of touches and thriving on a massive amount of touches. It's the same reason why I'm quick to point out that RGIII and Russell Wilson's efficiency stats aren't directly parallel to Andrew Luck's. Luck is chucking the ball something like 38% more. The usage is so warped that it's almost like comparing the ERA or WHIP of a closer to that of a starter. Completely different roles.If you follow baseball, you know how ridiculous it would be to assume that every reliever with a low ERA would be contending for the Cy Young if he were thrust him into the starting rotation. What we're talking about is something similar, albeit not nearly as extreme.
The difference in age is made up by the difference in mileage imo (or at least mostly so). Sans concussion, McCoy would still be a spot or two ahead of Spiller on my board. However, he suffered a concussion that kept him out 4 games (i.e., worse than most). Scary stuff in today's NFL. While he may be fine and no worse off than another player not having suffered that concussion, I don't know that to be true. Another concussion early in the season and images of Jahvid Best start to creep into the mind. Much of this is likely mere paranoia, but when we're dealing with a player so valuable, I'd rather park that value in a more stable investment like CJ Spiller.Edit to add: Not meaning to make a huge deal out of the concussion. It really only bumps McCoy from just ahead of Spiller to just behind Spiller (i.e., gives me just enough pause to bump McCoy down a few spots but not enough to put him behind other elite RBs such as Charles/Foster).
Looking just at age / mileage, I'll take the RB who is 11 months older but has half the carries - all else being equal, and here it pretty much is.
There are concussions and there are concussions.I think Best is a poor analogy to use in evaluating players with concussions. As I pointed out in threads when he entered the league, Best had about the worst looking concussion injury I have ever seen. He was diving over the pile at the goal line, was hit midair, twisting him sideways - in the process he lost his helmet and landed with all his body weight on his head, knocking him unconscious. The fact that he did not sustain a more serious injury and was able to play again was a miracle.
It will be difficult to figure out - both Moreno and McGahee are hold and wait's, Hillman remains likely just a stash. I wouldn't be looking to buy any of them anytime soon - maybe Hillman this summer, if I have any of them (I have Moreno in one) I'm holding and seeing what happens. ROI is minimal trying to move either of the vets.
As a Cutler owner in 2 dynasty leagues (as a backup only, thank god), I couldn't help but notice he doesn't even appear in your Top 32 QBs.Error or on purpose?I'd think he'd be somewhere in the low QB2, #20-25 range.Not earth shattering but wondering if you really thought there are 32 FF QBs better than him at this point.'Bronx Bomber said:
Error
I'm really getting tired of having the same argument for you. Yes, the lack of small backs in the league indicates that it's difficult for small backs to make it into the league. No, it does not mean ANYTHING AT ALL about backs once they've already made it in the league. If you want to claim that small backs are less likely to receive a big workload than large backs ONCE THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE LEAGUE, you need to show that the proportion of small backs receiving a high workload is smaller than we'd expect given draft position and the proportion of all backs in the league who qualify as small. This is something you've never made any attempt to do. Small backs have a hard time making it into the league, but once they're there, there's nothing stopping them from getting a big workload. The most recent example of this concept came this very season, as you repeatedly talked about how Charles wasn't going to get a big workload while Charles was busy getting a big workload. The speed of Charles or Spiller don't distract me from anything. I'm not a speed fanboy. Again, Tatum Bell, Felix Jones, Leon Washington... I've been around a long time. I've got a track record. That track record pretty clearly demonstrates that speed backs aren't really my cup of tea. If anything, my bias is towards the chain-movers. The fact that I like Charles and Spiller so much is in spite of their style, not because of it. Again, I've been a Frank Gore defender. I've been a Ray Rice defender. I like your "freaky good vs. sneaky good" analogy. Please don't paint me with an overly broad brush. Saying I like Charles more than Martin because he's flashier would be like accusing me of liking Barry Sanders more than Curtis Martin because he's flashier. No, I like Charles and Spiller because they're beasts capable of breaking a defense's back and dominating games, and they're extremely consistent in that domination. Game after game, year after year, both Charles and Spiller have consistently abused defenses and made them look silly.'EBF said:
Adrian Peterson is a better back than Charles, sure. I'm not calling Charles the greatest RB to ever lace up cleats, but he's among the top 20 to ever play his position (and yes, with Johnson's precipitous decline, Charles is the best back from his class). His ypc might drop with more carries, but it could drop by a half yard and he's still Jim Brown. It could drop by a full yard and he's still Jones-Drew. Charles is not Jerious Norwood getting 6 ypc on 5 carries a game. He's had a pair of 1500 yard seasons rushing the football.
I guess you're going to make me ask the next logical question...?(since you are the guy who was nice enough to share his rankings
)
Part of the problem is that you're using the frame of a single season whereas I'm talking about entire careers. If a fragile beanpole like McFadden can survive 220+ carries in a season, then almost anyone can do it. The trick is doing it year in and year out. Part of the reason why guys like Edge, LT, Peterson, Gore, Portis, and Jackson have been dynasty gold is because they can answer the bell. Every. Single. Season. Chris Johnson is really the only RB of his stature in history to consistently accumulate the kind of workload routinely logged by 215-220 pound backs, and he's still not close to guys like Jackson, Tomlinson, and Portis on the career carries leaderboard. I'm not going to say that an undersized back can't possibly crack that list, but until somebody actually does it, I don't have a great incentive to think that it's likely or even possible. You keep bringing up Charles as refutation. In reality, he just supports what I'm saying. Even the best of the current thin backs (Charles and Spiller) still lag well behind the current best of the ideal lot (Foster, Peterson, Martin) in terms of volume. And that's my argument in a nutshell. It's not that thin backs don't have value or that they can't be great FF options. It's simply that bigger backs of comparable talent are more valuable. And again, this year doesn't disprove that. Guys like Foster and Martin are comfortably out-touching and outscoring guys like Spiller and Charles.
Johnson at his peak was better than Charles is at his peak. Granted, it was a pretty brief peak, but overall his career has been much better if you value things like workload and total yards. And FWIW, Ray Rice is probably a better football player than either of them. That doesn't mean that you can't frame the stats to suggest otherwise. Again, it goes back to what I said about talent and how different people are impressed by different things. You can look at the stats and derive pretty much any conclusion depending on what you want to believe.
Sanders, Dorsett, Dunn, and Portis did pretty well on the career charts despite pretty slight builds. Maybe Foster getting more carries had something to do with playing for a 12-4 team instead of a 2-14 team. This argument bores me.
Yeah, Johnson had the best peak, but if every RB were put into a pool by NFL GMs and drafted, you think Johnson would go before Charles today? You think Rice would?
Have to disagree. I have never seen anything that supports the mileage metaphor. We all know cars wear out with use; but the human body isn't like that. You could carry the ball 300 times and suffer no "wear." Or, you could carry it once, suffer an ACL tear, and experience lots of "wear." On the other hand, while a car can be a year older, and if it has less mileage, may be in better condition than a younger car with more miles, that is not true of humans. We age. And age does things to us no matter what. So, age definitely HAS been proven to have an effect on running backs. The better backs can age better and play longer than less elite backs, but age is a real factor. Mileage, IMO, is pretty much an imaginary condition that works for cars but makes little sense for the human body.'FUBAR said:
i dont agree with this. first, wear and injury are generally not considered to be the same thing when we talk about it. now look at portis. he was an elite back. he had a ridiculously high amount of carries in a short amount of time and his body eventually gave up. he is only 31 and has been out of football for a while now. fjax on the other hand, didn't play much during his first few years and is still going strong at the age of 31.
Sorry, crazy busy at work yesterday, that was literally all I was able to get out. Id put Cutler right behind Schaub and bump Freeman down one. The defense is set and Jeffrey basically redshirted so that should let them focus on the o-line to help him out. He's still a good QBBC guy IMO.I guess you're going to make me ask the next logical question...?(since you are the guy who was nice enough to share his rankings
The upcoming season will be pretty interesting regarding Charles, Rice, and McCoy.Rice and McCoy have been great, and both are very good players, but they've both also benefited hugely from playing their entire careers in two of the most fantasy-RB-friendly offensive systems in modern NFL history (Reid / Cameron).Charles has had to deal with RBBC, changing and / or bad offensive coaching, and a bad team, and has finished RB12, RB4, and RB8 his last three healthy years. The fact that he just handled a top-7 NFL carry total coming back from a blown out knee probably indicates that his smaller workload was more system than player related. And now he gets his chance in the RB-friendly system.IMO it's pretty likely that Charles is now the guy in the mix for top fantasy RB while Rice and McCoy are in the RB8 - RB12 range, depending on how things sort out in Philly and Baltimore obviously.
OK, you've officially crossed the line here into absurdity.ETA: Since you have labeled Charles one of the top 20 RBs of all time, I'd be very interested to see your top 20 list.
Assuming that the absurdity remark is from the "still Jim Brown" remark, I believe SSOG is talking about career YPC. Brown's YPC is 5.2. Charles' career YPC to this point is 5.8. So Charles could drop down a half yard and still be above Brown when looking at YPC.
No, I read SSOG's post as saying Charles is among the top 20 greatest RBs to ever play the game. I find that notion to be absurd. That's why I asked for his top 20 list.The absurdity is merely compounded by suggesting that if his ypc dropped, "he's still Jim Brown." That part could just be phrasing, if he really meant "his ypc would still be as good as Jim Brown's."
You think that Rice's limit in usage came from Cam and not the organization? All we heard all offseason was about how the organization wanted to give the ball to Flacco more. You think an OC who has historically used his RBs like crazy suddenly just decided not to do it this year?For fantasy running backs, Cam is just about the best thing that can happen to them. He's had a 2000 yard RB in 6 of his 10 seasons (7 if you consider that Ronnie Brown was well on his way when he got hurt in his only year with Cam) and a top 5 fantasy RB in every season but two. Every running back he's called plays for has almost instantly become a top 3 dynasty asset. His system completely revolves around the running back. One year away from that with pressure from up above and suddenly everyone forgets that.
Nothing else needs to be said here. Cam is great for utilizing a RB in an offense period.
I was talking about ypc- Jamaal Charles's ypc could drop a half a yard and it's still essentially Jim Brown's ypc. I thought the first half of the sentence provided the context necessary to make that clear, so I'm sorry for the confusion. EBF was talking about his efficiency could fall with usage, so I was illustrating just how elite his efficiency metrics really were and how much room they had to fall while remaining elite. As for my top 20 RBs... the easiest way to go would be to just start with the list Chase produced over at the pfr blog. Here are his top 30 most dominant RBs, as of 2009:
Sometimes we'd all be a lot better off if we listened to our eyes/heads/guts a little less and the formulas a little more.
I think it's absurd to try to identify who the "best" RB was when comparing across eras and trying to judge talent rather than career. Comparing careers can be done with some effectiveness because one can compare players against their own peer groups and attempt to make accommodations in a comparison for differences in eras. Trying to gauge talent without making any such adjustments is comparing apples and oranges. "Talent" is partly God-given talent but partly due to the practices of the day with regard to physical training and medical treatments. And how talent is demonstrated is subject to the nature of offensive usage and rules of an era.You admitted you can't effectively judge Charles vs. Van Buren or Kelly, but I suspect there are others. For example, what about Joe Perry?
What did the formula say about tony gonzalez four years ago?
Of course it's all a subjective Just-For-Funsies exercise. Of course there'll never be a definitive answer. That's never stopped anyone from ranking the 10 best QBs of all time, or stopped any Bo fans from waxing poetic about where he would have gone down in history if he'd stayed healthy. As for Bettis... if he gets elected to the Hall, he'll be the most undeserving player in there. Watching him, I saw a player with a couple of great seasons, and then a huge stretch of replacement level play. He was basically Mike Tolbert for 75% of his career. I have no hesitation or compunction about calling Charles a better RB. And it's possible there are other RBs who my methodology missed (not Taylor- I'd take Jones-Drew over him, and Charles over Jones-Drew), but there are also other RBs I conceded who I'm really not that familiar with and I'm just giving them the nod based on reputation. Again, maybe "top 25" would have been a safer statement, but I'm happy with putting him in the 20-25 range.
Not a whole lot. The best comp for Gonzo was Sharpe, who retired while still at the top of his game to chase a tv deal. But you're right that formulas miss sometimes. The question isn't whether they're perfect (they're not), it's whether they're sometimes better than human intuition (they frequently are).
