What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

[DYNASTY] Is Jonathan Stewart a buy low? (3 Viewers)

Billy Ball Thorton said:
Billy Ball Thorton, on 17 Apr 2013 - 11:25, said:But sproles who was hurt last year your predicting an elite season for a 33 year old back, lol

Dirk Digler said:
Dirk Digler, on 17 Apr 2013 - 09:50, said:

Ghost Rider said:
Ghost Rider, on 16 Apr 2013 - 23:04, said:

EBF said:
EBF, on 16 Apr 2013 - 15:52, said:Sproles is also 30 years old this season. Stewart will be 26.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Sproles has never been a guy who get a ton of touches, and his style is not conducive to taking a lot of hits, so he doesn't have the wear and tear of a normal 30-year old RB. Plus, he has shown over the years that he is the king of doing more with less. He doesn't need a lot of touches to produce.
Click to expand...
Well said. Sproles easily has 3 years of solid/high end/peak production (ppr) left, perhaps more. Given the wear and tear and all the other circumstances with Stewy, does he have the same? He gonna produce into his year 30 season? Noooooooooo. That doesn't seem realistic.
Click to expand...
But it seems realistic that sproles who was hurt last year will be "solid high end" at 33 .... Lol seems reasonable
Click to expand...
This is a PPR dyansty discussion I thought?, Not real life NFL. I said solid/high end/peak. Maybe I should have used comma's + the word "or" maybe you would have gotten what I meant. I did not say "elite" and I did not say "solid high end" and I defintely didnt specifically single out his age 33 season using those words... But if using your interpretion of what I said helps your snip at me sound more biting... suit yourself.But yes, I am clearly stating that In a PPR format, regardless of how and where (useless dump offs) the garbage fantasy stats come from I can absolutely see Darren Sproles being a "solid" (RB2/Flex) type option in his age 33 season. He's a unique "RB" (if you can even call him that.) His style, the system and his lack of milage make that an easy limb to go out on, for me it's a much easier limb than the Stewart at age 29-30 limb.This is my opinion. I don't require you to agree. But laughing at the validity of an opinion is uncalled for.What happened? This message board is so much different than I remember.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider said:
I disagree. I will say it for the 195th time ;) : Stewart needs too many things to turn around and go his way for him to even get the touches and goal line carries necessary to be a very good FF RB in '13, and that is assuming he can stay healthy; we know Sproles is gonna get touches when he is healthy, plain and simple. Sure, Stewart is more likely to be a workhouse back, but even though he is younger than Sproles, he has already had more injuries than him, so the odds are stacked against him. Sproles should go 2-4 rounds ahead of Stewart simply because you know he is gonna produce when he is playing and healthy; the same cannot be said for Stewart (who could be healthy and either not be the starting RB still or not be used right again by the clueless Carolina coaching staff). Sproles is on a team that knows exactly how to use him; Stewart is not. That is certainly worthy several rounds when it comes to drafting, IMO.
Click to expand...
The same could easily be said about Frank Gore and Steven Jackson, who are both the same age as Sproles, who are both on teams that know how to use them and who are both guaranteed to get their touches this season (or as guaranteed as a 30-year-old back can possibly be), and who both have a dynasty ADP after Stewart's (Gore is the next back off the board, and SJax comes off 5 RBs and 17 picks after Stewart). What makes Gore and Jackson different from Sproles? Are owners underrating Sproles' age risk? Are they overrating Gore's and Jackson's?

 
SSOG said:
Ghost Rider said:
I disagree. I will say it for the 195th time ;) : Stewart needs too many things to turn around and go his way for him to even get the touches and goal line carries necessary to be a very good FF RB in '13, and that is assuming he can stay healthy; we know Sproles is gonna get touches when he is healthy, plain and simple. Sure, Stewart is more likely to be a workhouse back, but even though he is younger than Sproles, he has already had more injuries than him, so the odds are stacked against him. Sproles should go 2-4 rounds ahead of Stewart simply because you know he is gonna produce when he is playing and healthy; the same cannot be said for Stewart (who could be healthy and either not be the starting RB still or not be used right again by the clueless Carolina coaching staff). Sproles is on a team that knows exactly how to use him; Stewart is not. That is certainly worthy several rounds when it comes to drafting, IMO.
Click to expand...
The same could easily be said about Frank Gore and Steven Jackson, who are both the same age as Sproles, who are both on teams that know how to use them and who are both guaranteed to get their touches this season (or as guaranteed as a 30-year-old back can possibly be), and who both have a dynasty ADP after Stewart's (Gore is the next back off the board, and SJax comes off 5 RBs and 17 picks after Stewart). What makes Gore and Jackson different from Sproles? Are owners underrating Sproles' age risk? Are they overrating Gore's and Jackson's?
Click to expand...
Um, maybe it is something like the fact that they will probably be the starters for their respective teams while a scatback like Sproles will not. I would imagine that even though they are approximately same age, that there is a greater risk of injury and wearing down near the end of the season (due to more touches) with a 30 year old every down type back, rather than a relief back like Sproles who is used more in the passing game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG said:
Ghost Rider said:
I disagree. I will say it for the 195th time ;) : Stewart needs too many things to turn around and go his way for him to even get the touches and goal line carries necessary to be a very good FF RB in '13, and that is assuming he can stay healthy; we know Sproles is gonna get touches when he is healthy, plain and simple. Sure, Stewart is more likely to be a workhouse back, but even though he is younger than Sproles, he has already had more injuries than him, so the odds are stacked against him. Sproles should go 2-4 rounds ahead of Stewart simply because you know he is gonna produce when he is playing and healthy; the same cannot be said for Stewart (who could be healthy and either not be the starting RB still or not be used right again by the clueless Carolina coaching staff). Sproles is on a team that knows exactly how to use him; Stewart is not. That is certainly worthy several rounds when it comes to drafting, IMO.
Click to expand...
The same could easily be said about Frank Gore and Steven Jackson, who are both the same age as Sproles, who are both on teams that know how to use them and who are both guaranteed to get their touches this season (or as guaranteed as a 30-year-old back can possibly be), and who both have a dynasty ADP after Stewart's (Gore is the next back off the board, and SJax comes off 5 RBs and 17 picks after Stewart). What makes Gore and Jackson different from Sproles? Are owners underrating Sproles' age risk? Are they overrating Gore's and Jackson's?
Click to expand...
Seriously? Gore and SJax have had a lot more touches over the years, and thus way more wear and tear on their bodies, so to compare them to Sproles just cause they are the same age is rather silly. Also, we have no idea yet how Atlanta will use Jackson; it's all just speculation until we see it. I thought you were better than this.

 
Ghost Rider said:
SSOG said:
Ghost Rider said:
I disagree. I will say it for the 195th time ;) : Stewart needs too many things to turn around and go his way for him to even get the touches and goal line carries necessary to be a very good FF RB in '13, and that is assuming he can stay healthy; we know Sproles is gonna get touches when he is healthy, plain and simple. Sure, Stewart is more likely to be a workhouse back, but even though he is younger than Sproles, he has already had more injuries than him, so the odds are stacked against him. Sproles should go 2-4 rounds ahead of Stewart simply because you know he is gonna produce when he is playing and healthy; the same cannot be said for Stewart (who could be healthy and either not be the starting RB still or not be used right again by the clueless Carolina coaching staff). Sproles is on a team that knows exactly how to use him; Stewart is not. That is certainly worthy several rounds when it comes to drafting, IMO.
Click to expand...
The same could easily be said about Frank Gore and Steven Jackson, who are both the same age as Sproles, who are both on teams that know how to use them and who are both guaranteed to get their touches this season (or as guaranteed as a 30-year-old back can possibly be), and who both have a dynasty ADP after Stewart's (Gore is the next back off the board, and SJax comes off 5 RBs and 17 picks after Stewart). What makes Gore and Jackson different from Sproles? Are owners underrating Sproles' age risk? Are they overrating Gore's and Jackson's?
Click to expand...
Seriously? Gore and SJax have had a lot more touches over the years, and thus way more wear and tear on their bodies, so to compare them to Sproles just cause they are the same age is rather silly. Also, we have no idea yet how Atlanta will use Jackson; it's all just speculation until we see it. I thought you were better than this.
Click to expand...
Well, again, I give 0% credence to workload and 100% credence to age when predicting declines, so I don't see what's so silly about the comparison. Either way, it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you agree that Sproles will be out of the league before Stewart, but value him higher anyway because he'll be more productive in the meantime. If that's the case, I don't see how the Gore/Jackson comparison is so crazy. And the question isn't "why is Sproles going before Gore/Jackson", it's "why is Sproles going 2-4 rounds before Gore/Jackson". It seems to me that people are either underrating Sproles' decline risk, or overrating Gore/Jackson's. or possibly the average risk calculation is far, far more "workload heavy" than I thought, because I wouldn't think even a 50/50 age/workload split would have gotten those two backs so far behind Sproles. It just seems to me like Sproles is being treated differently than everyone else because his value comes from receptions instead of rushes. I don't know if the data justifies that. 20 players have topped 60 receptions at age 26. 21 have done it at age 27. 19 have done it at 28. 10 have done it at 29. 9 did it at 30, 4 at 31, 3 at 32, 2 at 33, and just one at 34. Change the threshold to 75 receptions and the drop is even more precipitous, as Larry Centers and Darren Sproles are the only players in history to top that mark twice after age 28, and only four times has a back made it there at age 30 or later. Receiving backs age, too. Sproles is an oddity, but he's not unique in history, and 30 years old is 30 years old no matter who you are.
 
Where does the idea that workload matters come into play anyway? Is there any data to back it up? Offhand, the guys that are most known for producing beyond their 30's were major workhorse backs (Emmitt, C. Martin). I'm struggling to think of anyone that was used more sparingly and went well into their 30's. Maybe Tiki Barber, but it didn't help guys like Westbrook or even Dave Meggett.

Heck, I'm 30 and I have zero career NFL carries and I feel significantly less athletic than I did two years ago despite being healthier and in better shape. It's just age and genes.

 
I will admit that I come from the thinking of redraft, not dynasty, since I only play redraft (or re-auction :lol: ) leagues, so I should mention that all of my thoughts are based off of that premise, so being that this thread was about Stewart's dynasty value, perhaps I am a bit out of element, but I still stand by everything I have said. '

In the case of Jackson, he plays with such a physical, punishing style, that he reeks of the kind of back who when he hits the wall, he is gonna go downhill fast (think: a better Eddie George, and remember how quickly his descent was), so I get why his dynasty value would be low. People have been predicting Frank Gore's downfall for several seasons now, and yet he keeps doing well, but he is constantly fighting that perception that he is about done, and we all know that perception means a lot when it comes to value in FF. There is a small group of Stewart fans who still swear by the guy and act like he is on the verge of being a top 10 RB, and those people keep his value up higher than most would put it at. You can almost always find an owner or two in every league that is a part of that group. Hell, I did a handful of auctions AFTER he got hurt in the preseason last year and he was still going for around 8-12 bucks in auctions, even though he was a backup RB who was already hurt.

As for Sproles, I don't always pay attention to trends like that simply because what other RB like him (one who is predominantly used in the passing game) has been used the way he has been in an offense like New Orleans'? None that I can think of. Larry Centers never played in an offense even close to as great as the Saints current one, so he is not a good comparison in that regard. I am not saying Sproles is gonna do in '13 what he did in '11 (hell, I predicted last summer that his numbers in '12 would drop off from those in '11), but he should still be a very solid RB2 in PPR leagues (meaning, I see him as around the 15-18 range when it comes to RB value in redrafts as of now).

 
Ghost Rider said:
I will admit that I come from the thinking of redraft, not dynasty, since I only play redraft (or re-auction :lol: ) leagues, so I should mention that all of my thoughts are based off of that premise, so being that this thread was about Stewart's dynasty value, perhaps I am a bit out of element
Click to expand...
:loco:
 
FreeBaGeL said:
Where does the idea that workload matters come into play anyway? Is there any data to back it up? Offhand, the guys that are most known for producing beyond their 30's were major workhorse backs (Emmitt, C. Martin). I'm struggling to think of anyone that was used more sparingly and went well into their 30's. Maybe Tiki Barber, but it didn't help guys like Westbrook or even Dave Meggett. Heck, I'm 30 and I have zero career NFL carries and I feel significantly less athletic than I did two years ago despite being healthier and in better shape. It's just age and genes.
Click to expand...
John Riggins and Mike Anderson were also backs that had great older seasons after light workloads early in their career. Still, I agree with you that "mileage" is an answer in search of a question. It's intuitively appealing, especially given the fact that overuse over a short time frame is generally considered to be bad- witness guys like Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, or Ricky Williams getting run into the ground in a single season. If we agree that too much workload in one year can be bad, it makes sense that too much workload over an entire career can be bad, too. It's just not really supported by the data, though.
 
SSOG said:
It's just not really supported by the data, though.
Click to expand...
I think it would be if it were possible. The issue is that there's no way to compare a "fresh" 30 year old LaDainian Tomlinson with a "worn down" 30 year old LaDainian Tomlinson because there's only one LaDainian Tomlinson. We have no way of really knowing how long a guy like Tomlinson, Faulk, or Portis could've played if he hadn't been worked into the ground from the age of 20-27. Without the wear and tear, maybe they could've lasted longer.

I think it makes sense to consider mileage as a negative, even if there's nothing concrete in the data to support it. On the flipside, the fact that a back is talented enough and durable enough to handle a high workload bodes well for his future. In general, the reason why players get those opportunities is because they can deliver.

 
EBF said:
SSOG said:
It's just not really supported by the data, though.
Click to expand...
I think it would be if it were possible. The issue is that there's no way to compare a "fresh" 30 year old LaDainian Tomlinson with a "worn down" 30 year old LaDainian Tomlinson because there's only one LaDainian Tomlinson. We have no way of really knowing how long a guy like Tomlinson, Faulk, or Portis could've played if he hadn't been worked into the ground from the age of 20-27. Without the wear and tear, maybe they could've lasted longer.

I think it makes sense to consider mileage as a negative, even if there's nothing concrete in the data to support it. On the flipside, the fact that a back is talented enough and durable enough to handle a high workload bodes well for his future. In general, the reason why players get those opportunities is because they can deliver.
Click to expand...
That's a reasonable hypothesis, but even by that hypothesis, there's no reason to expect Jackson/Gore to decline more than Sproles. Jackson/Gore get negative points for "wear related to workload" and positive points for "workload indicating general awesomeness", and the negative and positive points perfectly offset. So while I will gladly accept that, in theory, workload is a possible contributor to a player's decline... I just don't see how in practice considering workload will increase your accuracy in predicting declines.

 
EBF said:
SSOG said:
It's just not really supported by the data, though.
Click to expand...
I think it would be if it were possible. The issue is that there's no way to compare a "fresh" 30 year old LaDainian Tomlinson with a "worn down" 30 year old LaDainian Tomlinson because there's only one LaDainian Tomlinson. We have no way of really knowing how long a guy like Tomlinson, Faulk, or Portis could've played if he hadn't been worked into the ground from the age of 20-27. Without the wear and tear, maybe they could've lasted longer.

I think it makes sense to consider mileage as a negative, even if there's nothing concrete in the data to support it. On the flipside, the fact that a back is talented enough and durable enough to handle a high workload bodes well for his future. In general, the reason why players get those opportunities is because they can deliver.
Click to expand...
But there's no way to isolate workload from injury from genetics in any meaningful way, either. It's as equally likely, since we have no way to compare a low mileage Faulk to an high mileage Faulk, that the low mileage Faulk would have flamed out about the same time just because of genetics.

We think about the tax on the body that the RB's workload will place. The problem is we look at it in isolation in terms of touches on the field. So the difference in a 200 touch RB and a 300 touch RB appears to be 100 touches, so we think that the 300 touch RB took 150% of the wear that the 200 touch RB endured.

But that completely ignores how similar the rest of their practice weeks and off-seasons go in terms of conditioning and practice and wear and tear on their bodies. If you factor in the total cumulative toll on these guy's bodies over the course of the whole year, that 100 touch difference may not mean much at all provided that those 100 additional touches do not result in acute injury.

But even that caveat still doesn't bolster the high mileage argument. All touches are not equal. In an obvious case, the RB running untouched to the sideline or into the endzone isn't the same as that RB being tackled. And being dragged down isn't the same as being flattened by a gap-stuffing safety. And that still ignores the devastating, acute injuries that occur. Does that 100 touch difference really matter when we ignore or factor out how those touches occurred? Or that the 200 carry back may be gritting it out on deteriorating knee cartiledge while the 300 touch back ran, comparatively, injury free?

There is so much variance, both in genetics and in the damage that occurs as the result of any single touch, that I don't think there's much supporting the high-mileage argument. Are we really saying that running 100 more 5 yard sprints in a calendar year for a highly trained athlete causes significant wear and tear? That doesn't seem to make much sense. And taking the intellectual short cut by assuming that the net damage or wear and tear that those carries cause can be "averaged" across two individuals with unique game circumstances and completely unique genetics concerning aging and healing seems a much bigger reach.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Try these option.

Let's say you have a RB, ONE RB, and you have a choice between this:

1) you get this RB at age 27 and he is coming off three GREAT top 3 seasons, and he is a clear top 10 dynasty player. However, his first 3-4 years in the league he was mostly a backup and had a light workload, so lets say his career "touches" are about 1300

2) literally the same exact player age 27, but has been a starter with a fairly heavy workload all 7 years of his career and has about 2200 "touches"

Again, exact same player................which backstory do you prefer?

Most people would probably prefer option 1. Not saying it is right or wrong or needs any supporting data, but it will inevitably place his value amongst the general population above the option 2.

Again, right or wrong in this argument doesnt even matter, because I think a player's dynasty ADP is driven mostly by people who don't do this kind of research and thinking.

 
Rotoworld update:

Panthers RB Jonathan Stewart will remained sidelined until training camp, and possibly beyond.
Stewart, who has battled nagging injuries habitually since entering the league, is still rehabbing from offseason surgery on both ankles. Coach Ron Rivera said he's on track to be back for the start of camp, but we wouldn't be surprised if Stewart is eased back slowly as a precautionary measure. He'll once again enter the season with high expectations to be the feature back in Carolina.


Source: Jonathan Jones on Twitter
Click to expand...
 
Faust said:
Rotoworld update:

Panthers RB Jonathan Stewart will remained sidelined until training camp, and possibly beyond.
Stewart, who has battled nagging injuries habitually since entering the league, is still rehabbing from offseason surgery on both ankles. Coach Ron Rivera said he's on track to be back for the start of camp, but we wouldn't be surprised if Stewart is eased back slowly as a precautionary measure. He'll once again enter the season with high expectations to be the feature back in Carolina.


Source: Jonathan Jones on Twitter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This is his year though!

 
Faust said:
Rotoworld update:

Panthers RB Jonathan Stewart will remained sidelined until training camp, and possibly beyond.
Stewart, who has battled nagging injuries habitually since entering the league, is still rehabbing from offseason surgery on both ankles. Coach Ron Rivera said he's on track to be back for the start of camp, but we wouldn't be surprised if Stewart is eased back slowly as a precautionary measure. He'll once again enter the season with high expectations to be the feature back in Carolina.


Source: Jonathan Jones on Twitter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
major AVOID right there, theres a reason D-Will is still on the team at his current $$

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KellysHeroes said:
Faust said:
Rotoworld update:

Panthers RB Jonathan Stewart will remained sidelined until training camp, and possibly beyond.
Stewart, who has battled nagging injuries habitually since entering the league, is still rehabbing from offseason surgery on both ankles. Coach Ron Rivera said he's on track to be back for the start of camp, but we wouldn't be surprised if Stewart is eased back slowly as a precautionary measure. He'll once again enter the season with high expectations to be the feature back in Carolina.


Source: Jonathan Jones on Twitter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
major AVOID right there, theres a reason D-Will is still on the team at his current $$
Click to expand...
Meh. If you are drafting today, it is a red flag. If you are drafting in mid August, you'll know what is what.

 
And ... that is why DWill is an amazing value for where he is drafted; especially if they go back to something more traditional on offense more tailored for his skill-set. At this point JStew is Ronnie Brown without the couple years of value.

 
Ariakis said:
And ... that is why DWill is an amazing value for where he is drafted; especially if they go back to something more traditional on offense more tailored for his skill-set. At this point JStew is Ronnie Brown without the couple years of value.
Click to expand...
That's what a lotta people thought a couple weeks before the 2012 season when it was becoming clear Stew wouldn't be ready week 1.
 
Part of me says there's no point buying him right now because it's status quo in Carolina and his value will only remain static or drop over the course of the next 8 months.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that almost everyone has soured on him, so the price should be rock bottom. I still think if he gets his foot right he has a good shot at a productive window 1-2 years from now.

It would be a perfect ending to the story of his career for him to blow up the exact moment after everyone has given up on him.

 
It doesn't seem likely that a guy muddles around for 6 years and then blows up when he's 28. Face it EBF, you were simply wrong on him.

 
SSOG said:
EBF said:
SSOG said:
It's just not really supported by the data, though.
Click to expand...
I think it would be if it were possible. The issue is that there's no way to compare a "fresh" 30 year old LaDainian Tomlinson with a "worn down" 30 year old LaDainian Tomlinson because there's only one LaDainian Tomlinson. We have no way of really knowing how long a guy like Tomlinson, Faulk, or Portis could've played if he hadn't been worked into the ground from the age of 20-27. Without the wear and tear, maybe they could've lasted longer.

I think it makes sense to consider mileage as a negative, even if there's nothing concrete in the data to support it. On the flipside, the fact that a back is talented enough and durable enough to handle a high workload bodes well for his future. In general, the reason why players get those opportunities is because they can deliver.
Click to expand...
That's a reasonable hypothesis, but even by that hypothesis, there's no reason to expect Jackson/Gore to decline more than Sproles. Jackson/Gore get negative points for "wear related to workload" and positive points for "workload indicating general awesomeness", and the negative and positive points perfectly offset. So while I will gladly accept that, in theory, workload is a possible contributor to a player's decline... I just don't see how in practice considering workload will increase your accuracy in predicting declines.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with SSOG that wear and tear is not as important as age. I think wear and tear is based on a false analogy to cars--we all know cars experience wear and tear. But the human body ages and wears differently.

On the other hand, I do wonder whether a receiving back might not experience wear and tear differently than a run heavy back? The types of hits he might experience would be different because he is pounding it through the line less. He is being tackled by LBs and DBs more than by DEs and DTs and MLBs. Is he on the perimeter more and therefore able to duck out of bounds more often than the guy who is running inside alot?

It seems to me possible that a receiving back would age and wear less quickly because of the types of hits he sustains being different.

 
EBF said:
Part of me says there's no point buying him right now because it's status quo in Carolina and his value will only remain static or drop over the course of the next 8 months.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that almost everyone has soured on him, so the price should be rock bottom. I still think if he gets his foot right he has a good shot at a productive window 1-2 years from now.

It would be a perfect ending to the story of his career for him to blow up the exact moment after everyone has given up on him.
Click to expand...
keep hope alive.

 
Sabertooth said:
It doesn't seem likely that a guy muddles around for 6 years and then blows up when he's 28. Face it EBF, you were simply wrong on him.
Click to expand...
I think that depends on how you look at it. His FF career has been a big disappointment, but I don't think he's been a disappointment as an NFL player.

A short while back I came up with this rough system of classifying NFL RBs:

Elite Starters - These players are at the very top of their position. They can hold down a starting job and play at a Pro Bowl level for years. They're so good that their team recognizes their rare value and extends their contract rather than risk losing them. Their first team only lets them walk after they're past their prime. Examples: Adrian Peterson, Maurice Jones-Drew, LaDainian Tomlinson, Steven Jackson Starters - These players are bad enough to lose a starting job, but good enough to win another one. They're never quite at the top of the game, but they still have a rare level of talent that creates opportunities for them. Examples: Thomas Jones, Rashard Mendenhall, Willis McGahee, Cedric Benson, Reggie Bush, Marshawn Lynch Mediocrities - These players will pop up on the radar from time to time if their situation is favorable, but they lack the talent to last in the NFL and will be nudged aside quickly if they happen to stumble upon a starting role. Examples: Steve Slaton, Vick Ballard, Tashard Choice, Ryan Grant, Donald Brown, Kevin Smith Fodder - Career backups and training camp scrubs. Unlikely to hold any value at any point in their careers.
Click to expand...
A player's ability to earn a second lucrative contract on his original team seems to be one of the most reliable factors in distinguishing the high end starters at RB with the mediocrities and washouts. From this perspective, both DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart would actually qualify as elite starters. They've been very effective over the course of their careers and their team decided to pay them both big money rather than let them walk ala Shonn Greene, Mendenhall, and Reggie Bush.

It's an unusual situation. Almost unprecedented in the last 15 years. The Stewart haters are going to look at it as evidence that the team doesn't trust him to carry the load, but that seems bogus to me. They wouldn't be paying him starter money if they didn't think he was the goods. And Williams has done everything possible to show that he deserves to be starting in the NFL, but he has been treated the same way. I think the main culprit in this situation isn't the players themselves, but Carolina's spotty decision making. They probably should've let one of these two walk years ago, made the other one the clear starter, grabbed a backup with a late draft pick, and spent the leftover money on a position of greater need. But there's a reason why the Panthers haven't made the playoffs in years. They aren't a particularly good organization.

No matter how determined they are to keep Stewart and DeAngelo, there's still a 4 year age gap between those two players. I think that's the main reason to be optimistic about Stewart's chances of eventually getting a real shot. He is on a slightly different timeline and should have a couple peak years left in the tank after Williams has washed out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rotoworld:

ESPN's NFC South blogger reiterates that Jonathan Stewart (ankles) might not be ready for training camp.
Stewart underwent surgery on both of his troublesome ankles this offseason. He hasn't participated in any of the offseason program. The Panthers haven't expressed any concern over Stewart's Week 1 status, but it will be a situation to monitor come August. Stewart needs to prove his health in order to ensure he's the top dog in the committee with DeAngelo Williams.

Related: DeAngelo Williams

Source: ESPN.com
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GM Dave Gettleman admitted that he doesn't know if Jonathan Stewart (ankles) will be ready for training camp.

"We'll see. Time will tell," Gettleman said. Stewart is coming off surgery on both of his ankles and did not participate in any of the offseason program. DeAngelo Williams and Mike Tolbert split the first-team reps. If Stewart can't participate fully in camp, the likelihood of a full-blown committee to start the regular season will increase. The Carolina backfield is as cloudy as ever. Jun 18 - 8:34 AM

Source: Charlotte Observer
Click to expand...
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4650/jonathan-stewart

 
Holy Schneikes said:
Ahh, the Jonathon Stewart fantasy phenomenon. A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. Buy, sell, hold, start, don't start - who effing knows? Like many owners, I have been befuddled by him enough that every time I even think about actually DOING something with him, my mind shuts down. So I'm keeping him. It just easier than having my head explode.

Seriously, I am absolutely CERTAIN that if I trade him, he will immediately become a Peterson-like fantasy god. And if I DON'T trade him (which I won't), he will languish on my bench for the next 17 years.
Click to expand...
Hilariously True, I think we just found the only player page bio needed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sleeper 43 said:
Holy Schneikes said:
Ahh, the Jonathon Stewart fantasy phenomenon. A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. Buy, sell, hold, start, don't start - who effing knows? Like many owners, I have been befuddled by him enough that every time I even think about actually DOING something with him, my mind shuts down. So I'm keeping him. It just easier than having my head explode.

Seriously, I am absolutely CERTAIN that if I trade him, he will immediately become a Peterson-like fantasy god. And if I DON'T trade him (which I won't), he will languish on my bench for the next 17 years.
Click to expand...
Hilariously True, I think we just found the only player page bio needed.
Click to expand...
Please take one for the team and sell him then! :)

 
DeAngelo Williams might be the buy low here, plus he can actually be bought "low."

Most Stewart owners still value him at ceiling prices.

 
EBF said:
Sabertooth said:
It doesn't seem likely that a guy muddles around for 6 years and then blows up when he's 28. Face it EBF, you were simply wrong on him.
Click to expand...
I think that depends on how you look at it. His FF career has been a big disappointment, but I don't think he's been a disappointment as an NFL player.

A short while back I came up with this rough system of classifying NFL RBs:

Elite Starters - These players are at the very top of their position. They can hold down a starting job and play at a Pro Bowl level for years. They're so good that their team recognizes their rare value and extends their contract rather than risk losing them. Their first team only lets them walk after they're past their prime. Examples: Adrian Peterson, Maurice Jones-Drew, LaDainian Tomlinson, Steven Jackson Starters - These players are bad enough to lose a starting job, but good enough to win another one. They're never quite at the top of the game, but they still have a rare level of talent that creates opportunities for them. Examples: Thomas Jones, Rashard Mendenhall, Willis McGahee, Cedric Benson, Reggie Bush, Marshawn Lynch Mediocrities - These players will pop up on the radar from time to time if their situation is favorable, but they lack the talent to last in the NFL and will be nudged aside quickly if they happen to stumble upon a starting role. Examples: Steve Slaton, Vick Ballard, Tashard Choice, Ryan Grant, Donald Brown, Kevin Smith Fodder - Career backups and training camp scrubs. Unlikely to hold any value at any point in their careers.
Click to expand...
A player's ability to earn a second lucrative contract on his original team seems to be one of the most reliable factors in distinguishing the high end starters at RB with the mediocrities and washouts. From this perspective, both DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart would actually qualify as elite starters. They've been very effective over the course of their careers and their team decided to pay them both big money rather than let them walk ala Shonn Greene, Mendenhall, and Reggie Bush.
Click to expand...
LOL. Talk about reaching for straws. Just give up, dude. You were wrong about this guy. It's okay. Ain't no thang.

 
LawFitz said:
EBF said:
Sabertooth said:
It doesn't seem likely that a guy muddles around for 6 years and then blows up when he's 28. Face it EBF, you were simply wrong on him.
Click to expand...
I think that depends on how you look at it. His FF career has been a big disappointment, but I don't think he's been a disappointment as an NFL player.

A short while back I came up with this rough system of classifying NFL RBs:

Elite Starters - These players are at the very top of their position. They can hold down a starting job and play at a Pro Bowl level for years. They're so good that their team recognizes their rare value and extends their contract rather than risk losing them. Their first team only lets them walk after they're past their prime. Examples: Adrian Peterson, Maurice Jones-Drew, LaDainian Tomlinson, Steven Jackson Starters - These players are bad enough to lose a starting job, but good enough to win another one. They're never quite at the top of the game, but they still have a rare level of talent that creates opportunities for them. Examples: Thomas Jones, Rashard Mendenhall, Willis McGahee, Cedric Benson, Reggie Bush, Marshawn Lynch Mediocrities - These players will pop up on the radar from time to time if their situation is favorable, but they lack the talent to last in the NFL and will be nudged aside quickly if they happen to stumble upon a starting role. Examples: Steve Slaton, Vick Ballard, Tashard Choice, Ryan Grant, Donald Brown, Kevin Smith Fodder - Career backups and training camp scrubs. Unlikely to hold any value at any point in their careers.
Click to expand...
A player's ability to earn a second lucrative contract on his original team seems to be one of the most reliable factors in distinguishing the high end starters at RB with the mediocrities and washouts. From this perspective, both DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart would actually qualify as elite starters. They've been very effective over the course of their careers and their team decided to pay them both big money rather than let them walk ala Shonn Greene, Mendenhall, and Reggie Bush.
Click to expand...
LOL. Talk about reaching for straws. Just give up, dude. You were wrong about this guy. It's okay. Ain't no thang.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how you guys could say he's wrong about him at this point. Stewart has never got a shot at being the guy, yet he's only 26 years old and still has a lot of tread on the tires. Will he ever? Maybe not... It's hard to doubt the potential if he actually was given a chance. He could still get that shot and if he does you'll all be eating your crow IMO.

 
LawFitz said:
EBF said:
Sabertooth said:
It doesn't seem likely that a guy muddles around for 6 years and then blows up when he's 28. Face it EBF, you were simply wrong on him.
Click to expand...
I think that depends on how you look at it. His FF career has been a big disappointment, but I don't think he's been a disappointment as an NFL player.

A short while back I came up with this rough system of classifying NFL RBs:

Elite Starters - These players are at the very top of their position. They can hold down a starting job and play at a Pro Bowl level for years. They're so good that their team recognizes their rare value and extends their contract rather than risk losing them. Their first team only lets them walk after they're past their prime. Examples: Adrian Peterson, Maurice Jones-Drew, LaDainian Tomlinson, Steven Jackson Starters - These players are bad enough to lose a starting job, but good enough to win another one. They're never quite at the top of the game, but they still have a rare level of talent that creates opportunities for them. Examples: Thomas Jones, Rashard Mendenhall, Willis McGahee, Cedric Benson, Reggie Bush, Marshawn Lynch Mediocrities - These players will pop up on the radar from time to time if their situation is favorable, but they lack the talent to last in the NFL and will be nudged aside quickly if they happen to stumble upon a starting role. Examples: Steve Slaton, Vick Ballard, Tashard Choice, Ryan Grant, Donald Brown, Kevin Smith Fodder - Career backups and training camp scrubs. Unlikely to hold any value at any point in their careers.
Click to expand...
A player's ability to earn a second lucrative contract on his original team seems to be one of the most reliable factors in distinguishing the high end starters at RB with the mediocrities and washouts. From this perspective, both DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart would actually qualify as elite starters. They've been very effective over the course of their careers and their team decided to pay them both big money rather than let them walk ala Shonn Greene, Mendenhall, and Reggie Bush.
Click to expand...
LOL. Talk about reaching for straws. Just give up, dude. You were wrong about this guy. It's okay. Ain't no thang.
Click to expand...
Let me reiterate:

I think that depends on how you look at it. His FF career has been a big disappointment, but I don't think he's been a disappointment as an NFL player.
Click to expand...
I'd also point out that his career isn't over yet.

 
I'd also add that the whole concept of a "buy low" often involves players who aren't fully appreciated. When you name a buy low target, the mere mention of the player in question should elicit faint tinglings of the vomit reflex in a certain segment of the general FF public. Is anyone excited about Toby Gerhart's dynasty potential right now? Are people lining up to trade for Andre Roberts? No. That's exactly why those players are buy low candidates. Buy low candidates are not supposed to seem like awesome FF propositions on first reflex. That's precisely the reason why they're available for cheap. Because people look at them and think they're crap. If people didn't think they were crap, they wouldn't be cheap.

As far as Stewart goes, I've cooled on his immediate prospects, but if you need a RB and you're thinking 1-2 years down the line, there's plenty of hope left.

 
EBF said:
I'd also add that the whole concept of a "buy low" often involves players who aren't fully appreciated. When you name a buy low target, the mere mention of the player in question should elicit faint tinglings of the vomit reflex in a certain segment of the general FF public. Is anyone excited about Toby Gerhart's dynasty potential right now? Are people lining up to trade for Andre Roberts? No. That's exactly why those players are buy low candidates. Buy low candidates are not supposed to seem like awesome FF propositions on first reflex. That's precisely the reason why they're available for cheap. Because people look at them and think they're crap. If people didn't think they were crap, they wouldn't be cheap.

As far as Stewart goes, I've cooled on his immediate prospects, but if you need a RB and you're thinking 1-2 years down the line, there's plenty of hope left.
Click to expand...
This is a good post. I agree completely. Stewart is certainly a buy low in my main league and I had a very tempting offer to acquire him cheap. I did not pull the trigger though as we can only carry 6 RB and I have a possible injury issue with Bradshaw and did not want to take on another.

 
Rotoworld:

Coach Ron Rivera says Jonathan Stewart (ankles) is "progressing well" following offseason surgery, but he's unsure if he'll be ready for the start of training camp.
GM Dave Gettleman echoed the same concerns last month by saying only "time will tell." Stewart had surgery on both of his ankles shortly after the season ended. The 26-year-old running back was "very limited" at OTAs, sticking to riding the stationary bike. DeAngelo Williams and Mike Tolbert will likely split first-team reps for however long Stewart is out. It's a murky situation.


Source: Joe Person on Twitter
Click to expand...
 
As a Stewart owner in several dynasty leagues (who fortunately isn't having to rely on him as a starter) I am glad he had surgery on both ankles. I'd rather he get healed up completely than continue on a bum feet. Wishing Garcon had gone this same route...

 
Just when I think that I am buying him at his lowest value point, he finds a way to drop a little lower.

 
whoDATT said:
DeAngelo Williams might be the buy low here, plus he can actually be bought "low."

Most Stewart owners still value him at ceiling prices.
Click to expand...
I think most Stewart owners are clinging to the fading hope that maybe, just maybe, this is his year and he'll magically explode like DWill in 2008 finally justifying their insistence that "I need a legit prospect in return" refrain for the last four years.

Truth be told, I'm a JStew owner and his value has been pretty weak for several years. Shoulda dumped him when I had the chance to get something, but at this point, I'm lucky if anyone offers up a Jacquizz in return. Would rather just grab the rosary and offer prayers.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Try these option.

Let's say you have a RB, ONE RB, and you have a choice between this:

1) you get this RB at age 27 and he is coming off three GREAT top 3 seasons, and he is a clear top 10 dynasty player. However, his first 3-4 years in the league he was mostly a backup and had a light workload, so lets say his career "touches" are about 1300

2) literally the same exact player age 27, but has been a starter with a fairly heavy workload all 7 years of his career and has about 2200 "touches"

Again, exact same player................which backstory do you prefer?

Most people would probably prefer option 1. Not saying it is right or wrong or needs any supporting data, but it will inevitably place his value amongst the general population above the option 2.

Again, right or wrong in this argument doesnt even matter, because I think a player's dynasty ADP is driven mostly by people who don't do this kind of research and thinking.
Click to expand...
Sooo, this is like comparing Ray Rice to jonathan Stewart. Rice has approximately 1500 touches; Stewart has around 900 touches. Based on this presentation we should prefer Stewart. But.....

I know it is hard, but people really need to forget about this whole idea of "wear and tear." It works for cars. Not so good for human bodies.

 
I gave up on J-Stew in my keeper league, 2nd round way too rich for my blood. Yeah of course if he drops like a stone I might take a look. At this point, I would just be keeping him on a hope and a prayer that he gets more touches while the other ball-carriers stop vulturing him.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Banger
RB's to buy?
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
Jacob's Ladder
J
ignatiusjreilly
How many first-round QBs will actually pan out?
Replies
12
Views
370
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
Ministry of Pain
Redraft-Week1/Week 2: Who are your BUY LOW candidates?
Replies
21
Views
999
-OZ-
-OZ-

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top