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.

RB Kareem Hunt, CLE (8 Viewers)

Bronco Billy said:
It still astounds me that people are actually anything other than completely thrilled and content with having a plug-and-play matchup proof RB1 on their roster.

Back up 2 months and tell me you wouldn’t have taken it and ran if someone would have guaranteed 75% of what Hunt has put up to date.  Some of you guys could win $5 million in the lottery and then come in here and complain to everyone how it wasn’t $6 million.  I swear to God...
Click to expand...
Well, the last four weeks he has been RB 17, 14, 15, and probably 18 this week. And that's in PPR. He's probably worse in standard.

So yes, I understand being happy that he has performed better than expected. But he's not a "plug-and-play matchup proof RB1." He's been an RB2 more weeks than he's been an RB1.

 
kutta said:
Well, the last four weeks he has been RB 17, 14, 15, and probably 18 this week. And that's in PPR. He's probably worse in standard.

So yes, I understand being happy that he has performed better than expected. But he's not a "plug-and-play matchup proof RB1." He's been an RB2 more weeks than he's been an RB1.
Click to expand...
Mostly standard league he was #14, 11, and 20 the last 3 weeks.  I'll still take that all day.  Not many other RBs were top 20 each of the last 3 weeks.

 
kutta said:
Well, the last four weeks he has been RB 17, 14, 15, and probably 18 this week. And that's in PPR. He's probably worse in standard.

So yes, I understand being happy that he has performed better than expected. But he's not a "plug-and-play matchup proof RB1." He's been an RB2 more weeks than he's been an RB1.
Click to expand...
Despite cherry-picking his floor, 16.0 PPG would still be RB9 on a full season.  That's plug-and-play matchup proof RB1 in my book.

 
Hankmoody said:
Despite cherry-picking his floor, 16.0 PPG would still be RB9 on a full season.  That's plug-and-play matchup proof RB1 in my book.
Click to expand...
I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm just stating that he had a hot start and has faded some. Anyone who scores 50 points in a week is going to have a skewed average for awhile. He has not been a RB 1 for four straight weeks. How is that cherry picking?

 
kutta said:
I'll take it too. But it's not plug and play RB1 numbers.
Click to expand...
It just means he hasn't gotten in the endzone.  I'll take 100 rushing yards from my RB1 every week (I get a 3 point bonus there).  He did that twice these last 4 weeks - should have again last night, and nearly had 100 receiving last week.

 
matttyl said:
It just means he hasn't gotten in the endzone.  I'll take 100 rushing yards from my RB1 every week (I get a 3 point bonus there).  He did that twice these last 4 weeks - should have again last night, and nearly had 100 receiving last week.
Click to expand...
I agree. All I'm saying is he isn't a "plug and play matchup proof RB1." He hasn't done it for four straight weeks now. In fact, he's been an RB1 less than he's been and RB2.

 
kutta said:
I agree. All I'm saying is he isn't a "plug and play matchup proof RB1." He hasn't done it for four straight weeks now. In fact, he's been an RB1 less than he's been and RB2.
Click to expand...
I guess we have different definitions of a "plug and play" RB1.  I'll take a guy who's floor has been 11 points in standard scoring as my plug and play RB (I can start up to 3 each week with flex) no questions asked.  Some weeks he'll do better than the others, some weeks he won't, but he'll be in my lineup no matter what.

What other RB would you be more comfortable starting instead of him?

 
matttyl said:
I guess we have different definitions of a "plug and play" RB1.  I'll take a guy who's floor has been 11 points in standard scoring as my plug and play RB (I can start up to 3 each week with flex) no questions asked.  Some weeks he'll do better than the others, some weeks he won't, but he'll be in my lineup no matter what.

What other RB would you be more comfortable starting instead of him?
Click to expand...
Most people mean "top 12 RB" when they say "RB1." That's what I'm referring to here. 

I will agree that he is a "plug and play guy who could score you 40 points in any given week and probably won't score you 5 in any given week and he needs to be started every week." But I'm not going to call a guy who, for four straight weeks has been a middling RB2 a "plug and play matchup proof RB1."

 
kutta said:
Most people mean "top 12 RB" when they say "RB1." That's what I'm referring to here. 

I will agree that he is a "plug and play guy who could score you 40 points in any given week and probably won't score you 5 in any given week and he needs to be started every week." But I'm not going to call a guy who, for four straight weeks has been a middling RB2 a "plug and play matchup proof RB1."
Click to expand...
If not him, then who?  In my league his worst week has been 11 points.  Only Fournette can say he's had a better low weekly score (only a single point better).  Technically Doug Martin could say it too, but he's only been playing 2 weeks now.

 
kutta said:
I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm just stating that he had a hot start and has faded some. Anyone who scores 50 points in a week is going to have a skewed average for awhile. He has not been a RB 1 for four straight weeks. How is that cherry picking?
Click to expand...
It's cherry picking by choosing his 4 lowest weeks.  Why not say over the last 5?  Or 6?  Why is it so important to exclude the 50 point week?  He had it, heck he created about 1/2 of it from scratch.  Sorry if that came off as an attack on you, that wasn't what I wanted to accomplish, but it does affect the narrative somewhat.

And even if that's all you get, 16.0 PPG would still be RB9.  He's less volatile than all but 8 other RB's in the league.  Sign me up for that every week, plug and play style.  Which you seem to agree with:

kutta said:
Most people mean "top 12 RB" when they say "RB1." That's what I'm referring to here.
Click to expand...

 
Hankmoody said:
It's cherry picking by choosing his 4 lowest weeks.  Why not say over the last 5?  Or 6?  Why is it so important to exclude the 50 point week?  He had it, heck he created about 1/2 of it from scratch.  Sorry if that came off as an attack on you, that wasn't what I wanted to accomplish, but it does affect the narrative somewhat.

And even if that's all you get, 16.0 PPG would still be RB9.  He's less volatile than all but 8 other RB's in the league.  Sign me up for that every week, plug and play style.  Which you seem to agree with:
Click to expand...
It's not cherry picking if I'm taking the MAJORITY of his weeks. Cherry picking is taking his highest week and averaging it across all his other weeks to boost his numbers.

When I hear "plug and play RB1," to me, that means that he is pretty much guaranteed to put up top 12 numbers each week. Of course, it's not going to happen every week. But it should happen most of the time. If a guy scores 100 in one week, and then 10 every week after that, I'm going to have to look a little deeper into the numbers than just averaging them.

I'm just saying that the majority of his weeks (4 out of 7) he has been a RB2.

By contrast, last year, DJ was only a RB2 ONE TIME last year in 16 weeks. He was top 11 in scoring every week but one. THAT's a "plug and play RB1."

Bell was also a RB2 ONE TIME last year. That's another guy who is (or was last year) a "plug and play RB1."

 
matttyl said:
If not him, then who?  In my league his worst week has been 11 points.  Only Fournette can say he's had a better low weekly score (only a single point better).  Technically Doug Martin could say it too, but he's only been playing 2 weeks now.
Click to expand...
He's a "plug and play RB." I'll give you that.

 
kutta said:
Most people mean "top 12 RB" when they say "RB1." That's what I'm referring to here. 

I will agree that he is a "plug and play guy who could score you 40 points in any given week and probably won't score you 5 in any given week and he needs to be started every week." But I'm not going to call a guy who, for four straight weeks has been a middling RB2 a "plug and play matchup proof RB1."
Click to expand...


Are you playing the same tortured game with all the RBs?  No, you want to remove his best week or weeks and then compare Hunt to everyone when you do include everyone else’s best weeks.  Wow, Hunt doesn’t look as good.  Who could have guessed that?

Throw out everyone’s best game and Hunt is RB3.  Throw out everyone’s 2 best games and Hunt is still RB3.

Now I don’t know about you and your desire to severely slant a data set to try to prove a tortured point, but that’s a plug-and-play RB1 to me.

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy said:
Are you playing the same tortured game with all the RBs?  No, you want to remove his best week or weeks and then compare Hunt to everyone when you do include everyone else’s best weeks.  Wow, Hunt doesn’t look as good.  Who could have guessed that?

Throw out everyone’s best game and Hunt is RB3.  Throw out everyone’s 2 best games and Hunt is still RB3.

Now I don’t know about you and your desire to severely slant a data set to try to prove a tortured point, but that’s a plug-and-play RB1 to me.

.
Click to expand...
I hope you are kidding.

I'm not throwing out any data or any games. He has had four games as a RB2. He has had three games as a RB1. That's not a "plug and play matchup proof RB1." And how in the heck is that throwing out data??

DJ and Bell were plug and play matchup proof RB1's last year. Hunt is neither DJ nor Bell.

 
kutta said:
Most people mean "top 12 RB" when they say "RB1." That's what I'm referring to here. 

I will agree that he is a "plug and play guy who could score you 40 points in any given week and probably won't score you 5 in any given week and he needs to be started every week." But I'm not going to call a guy who, for four straight weeks has been a middling RB2 a "plug and play matchup proof RB1."
Click to expand...
Hunt - If that's not an every week plug and play RB1 I don't know who is? Hunt on a PPG basis is only behind Gurley (by .2 ppg) in my league and Gurley has been outscored by Hunt the past two weeks and Gurley recently put up a 5 point stinker game (making Hunt more attractive in my eyes as a steady producer. Hunt has ZERO stinker games.

I think this is a case of being over skeptical of a new RB and looking for problems where there are none.

TDs are unpredictable and that is the only thing keeping his scoring in the 14-16 range instead of the 20+ range in recent weeks. Any RB that has his floor and ceiling are every week starters.

ETA: If you think he is not matchup proof, then you must subscribe to the fact that no RB in the league is matchup proof, because Hunt has blended the most consistent production combined with having a very high ceiling and its not even close. If you bench him because of matchups you risk having a 30+ score on your bench on any given week.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer said:
Hunt - If that's not an every week plug and play RB1 I don't know who is? Hunt on a PPG basis is only behind Gurley (by .2 ppg) in my league and Gurley has been outscored by Hunt the past two weeks and Gurley recently put up a 5 point stinker game (making Hunt more attractive in my eyes as a steady producer. Hunt has ZERO stinker games.

I think this is a case of being over skeptical of a new RB and looking for problems where there are none.

TDs are unpredictable and that is the only thing keeping his scoring in the 14-16 range instead of the 20+ range in recent weeks. Any RB that has his floor and ceiling are every week starters.

ETA: If you think he is not matchup proof, then you must subscribe to the fact that no RB in the league is matchup proof, because Hunt has blended the most consistent production combined with having a very high ceiling and its not even close. If you bench him because of matchups you risk having a 30+ score on your bench on any given week.
Click to expand...
All I'm taking issue with is the phrase "plug and play matchup proof RB1." How many weeks of RB2 production does Hunt need to not be considered a plug and play RB1?

Again, DJ and Bell both had ONE WEEK of RB2 production all of last year. Hunt has had four in seven weeks. The majority of Hunt's weeks have been RB2 weeks.

 
kutta said:
I hope you are kidding.

I'm not throwing out any data or any games. He has had four games as a RB2. He has had three games as a RB1. That's not a "plug and play matchup proof RB1." And how in the heck is that throwing out data??

DJ and Bell were plug and play matchup proof RB1's last year. Hunt is neither DJ nor Bell.
Click to expand...


Hunt is only the only RB in the entire history of the NFL to post 100+ total yards in each of his first 7 games, but apparently that puts him into RB2 territory for you.

I think your posts say a lot more about you than they do about providing any useful information regarding Hunt.

 
Bronco Billy said:
Hunt is only the only RB in the entire history of the NFL to post 100+ total yards in each of his first 7 games, but apparently that puts him into RB2 territory for you.

I think your posts say a lot more about you than they do about providing any useful information regarding Hunt.
Click to expand...
OK.

The interesting thing is that my league gives points for receptions, TD's, and yards. That's an interesting league you're in that only cares about 100+ total yard games. 

 
  • Smile
Reactions: One
kutta said:
OK.

The interesting thing is that my league gives points for receptions, TD's, and yards. That's an interesting league you're in that only cares about 100+ total yard games. 
Click to expand...


I’m going to step out of this before I post something that will get me a time out.  I think (or better stated that I sincerely hope ) that you are being intentionally provocative.  Have a great day.

 
Bronco Billy said:
I’m going to step out of this before I post something that will get me a time out.  I think (or better stated that I sincerely hope ) that you are being intentionally provocative.  Have a great day.
Click to expand...
Good idea. I'll do the same.

I really didn't think my point was all that controversial, but, oh well.

 
Alex P Keaton said:
Welcome to owning an Andy Reid RB
Click to expand...
I don't think this is really what's keeping him out of the endzone.  The last few weeks the Chiefs' receivers have done a bizarrely successful job of scoring on their mid to long receptions instead of getting tackled near the goal line.

For instance this week they scored 30 points but ran zero plays inside the 10 yard line.  That will obviously balance out over time.

I'll happily take a 16 point floor on the zero TD weeks and 22-28 when he gets one or two of those short TD plunges in other weeks out of my RB1.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
I don't think this is really what's keeping him out of the endzone.  The last few weeks the Chiefs' receivers have done a bizarrely successful job of scoring on their mid to long receptions instead of getting tackled near the goal line.

For instance this week they scored 30 points but ran zero plays inside the 10 yard line.  That will obviously balance out over time.

I'll happily take a 16 point floor on the zero TD weeks and 22-28 when he gets one or two of those short TD plunges in other weeks out of my RB1.
Click to expand...
This is it really. TDs are flukey.

What I am not a fan of is that the play-calling for the rushing attack seems to have gone very stale. That shotgun/read option is painfully slow to develop and while he's "athletic" enough to scramble, Alex Smith is no Mike Vick. The fear factor is just not there. The Chiefs RB run game has gotten very predictable and I do see the "old Andy Reid" creeping back in where the WR jet sweeps are occurring too often.

Maybe he's worried about Hunt wearing down.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is the thing. Hunt is what he is. We can skew it any direction we want by comparing him to X,Y,Z. He's no DJ 2016 or peak LT. He's also having one of the best rookie seasons of all time and on pace to be an elite 2017 RB. 

 
Ilov80s said:
Here is the thing. Hunt is what he is. We can skew it any direction we want by comparing him to X,Y,Z. He's no DJ 2016 or peak LT. He's also having one of the best rookie seasons of all time and on pace to be an elite 2017 RB. 
Click to expand...
Or is he coming back to earth?

 
Hunt's situation feels like 2014 Lev Bell to me. A big explosion to start the year then a whole lot of high yardage games without TDs. They will come. I don't think there's any doubt that he finishes the year as an RB1. Hopefully his production increases to the point where he is a weekly RB1 but let's be honest, the list of RBs who deserve to be one that list is 2 long, DJ and Bell, and one of them is hurt. Hunt may not be an every week RB1 right now but the scoring will come and I am ok with him being referred to as an RB1 just through the sheer consistency of his production.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gabes1919 said:
Hunt's situation feels like 2014 Lev Bell to me. A big explosion to start the year then a whole lot of high yardage games without TDs. They will come. I don't think there's any doubt that he finishes the year as an RB1. Hopefully his production increases to the point where he is a weekly RB1 but let's be honest, the list of RBs who deserve to be one that list is 2 long, DJ and Bell, and one of them is hurt. Hunt may not be an every week RB1 right now but the scoring will come and I am ok with him being referred to as an RB1 just through the sheer consistency of his production.
Click to expand...
It is nothing like Bell in 2014. Bell had 1 td through 10 games and finished the year with 8. Hunt has 6 tds in 7 games. Bell scored week 1 and then not again until week 11. Hunt has only went 4 games without a td. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26 said:
It is nothing like Bell in 2014. Bell had 1 td through 10 games and finished the year with 8. Hunt has 6 tds in 7 games. Bell scored week 1 and then not again until week 11. Hunt has only went 4 games without a td. 
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you're in favor of selling Hunt or holding him. I wasn't saying it was quite to the extent of 2014 Bell, I just meant that it was a similar situation in the sense that you don't want to sell him. When you are as good as Hunt is and getting the touches and yards, you should expect regression back up to the mean in terms of his TDs. There are RBs out there who get touches but don't see a lot in the way of TDs (Lions RBs, Browns RBs, Gore in Indy, J-Stew). I don't think Hunt is that guy and KC's system hasn't been that type of system in the past. He'll get vultured sometimes but I expect him to hit double digit TDs this year so don't let go boys.

 
I sort of feel like there might be more similarities between how Reid might use him and Charles than Ware in previous years. Heck, even Westbrook might be more accurate. That said, those insights might not be terribly insightful. I know that they're different types of RBs and all but also the game is changing. Not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze. 

I'm inclined to believe that Hunt is showing more burst and long speed than Ware. He's just simply able to break one whereas Ware couldn't. His production will be different. His situation this year - no meaningful depth behind him - doesn't lend itself to even last years. 

 
kutta said:
I really didn't think my point was all that controversial, but, oh well.
Click to expand...
What made it controversial was (a) the entire basis of your point is in semantics, and (b) you posted 12 times about it in the last 24 hours, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that you were debating semantics.

Weirdly out of character for you based on what I remember about your posts over the years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just Win Baby said:
What made it controversial was (a) the entire basis of your point is in semantics, and (b) you posted 12 times about it in the last 24 hours, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that you were debating semantics.

Weirdly out of character for you based on what I remember about your posts over the years.
Click to expand...
I'll disagree that it was just semantics, but I'll agree to let it go. 

 
kutta said:
I'll disagree that it was just semantics, but I'll agree to let it go. 
Click to expand...
You chose to instigate a debate over the definition of "plug-and-play matchup proof RB1" by taking a position that is very literal in your interpretation of the term, instead of taking a more general and common sense view of it (e.g., no question owners will start him every week, and it is reasonable to expect him to finish the season as a RB1, and those facts justify the term).

Semantics is defined as the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc. So, yes, you were clearly debating semantics.

Good choice to let it go.

 
Ilov80s said:
Those long TDs were never sustainable and the line is banged up but it's pretty nice having a player with a floor of a 100 yards.
Click to expand...
But does he hit 100 yds from scrimmage the last two games if West hadn't left early two games ago and not played last game? I say he wouldn't have caught half as many passes the last two games as he did if West was playing. West is obviously the clear cut third down back and when he's back I bet we see a drop off in the number of passes Hunt catches. He'll have to get more rushing yards to sustain his #1 RB status. I do believe that once the o line gets back to full strength that we will see more long TD runs out of Hunt. But it's frustrating seeing him come off the field on most third downs but maybe with that Bowman block he had last game Reid was impressed enough to start leaving him in on more third downs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just Win Baby said:
You chose to instigate a debate over the definition of "plug-and-play matchup proof RB1" by taking a position that is very literal in your interpretation of the term, instead of taking a more general and common sense view of it (e.g., no question owners will start him every week, and it is reasonable to expect him to finish the season as a RB1, and those facts justify the term).

Semantics is defined as the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc. So, yes, you were clearly debating semantics.

Good choice to let it go.
Click to expand...
Look, if you want to keep this going, I'm happy to.

If you want to use the phrase "plug and play matchup proof RB1" for a guy who has finished as RB 17, 14, 15, and probably 18 this week, then go ahead. Call it semantics or whatever you want, but that phrase doesn't fit the majority of his weeks (4 out of 7) this year. I'm not sure why that's debatable or hard to understand.

Cheers.

 
kutta said:
Look, if you want to keep this going, I'm happy to.

If you want to use the phrase "plug and play matchup proof RB1" for a guy who has finished as RB 17, 14, 15, and probably 18 this week, then go ahead. Call it semantics or whatever you want, but that phrase doesn't fit the majority of his weeks (4 out of 7) this year. I'm not sure why that's debatable or hard to understand.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
If it helps Kutta, I understand what you’re saying.  :shrug:

 
conlilnew said:
But does he hit 100 yds from scrimmage the last two games if West hadn't left early two games ago and not played last game? I say he wouldn't have caught half as many passes the last two games as he did if West was playing. West is obviously the clear cut third down back and when he's back I bet we see a drop off in the number of passes Hunt catches. He'll have to get more rushing yards to sustain his #1 RB status. I do believe that once the o line gets back to full strength that we will see more long TD runs out of Hunt. But it's frustrating seeing him come off the field on most third downs but maybe with that Bowman block he had last game Reid was impressed enough to start leaving him in on more third downs.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what would of happened if West was there.

 
kutta said:
Look, if you want to keep this going, I'm happy to.

If you want to use the phrase "plug and play matchup proof RB1" for a guy who has finished as RB 17, 14, 15, and probably 18 this week, then go ahead. Call it semantics or whatever you want, but that phrase doesn't fit the majority of his weeks (4 out of 7) this year. I'm not sure why that's debatable or hard to understand.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
IMO most people who read the phrase would think "plug and play matchup proof" means owners have put him in their lineup for the rest of the season other than bye week, barring injury, and will not consider benching him based on matchup. And I think that is probably true of all who own him unless they have very unusual league scoring/lineup settings and/or an incredibly stacked roster, which would clearly make such situations the exception, not the rule. Do you disagree? I assume not. So no issue with "plug and play matchup proof."

So really your semantics issue seems to be with attaching RB1 to that phrase, since he is not literally ranking as a RB1, or top 12 RB, every week, or even a majority of weeks. Question: how many RBs have ranked in the top 12 more than 3 times this season? I'm sure there aren't 12 of them. Which means Hunt is performing on the whole as a RB1. Even for the period of weeks 4-6, which ignores Hunt's best games, he was #7 (PPR) and #9 (non-PPR) among RBs in fantasy points, which means he was a RB1 in fantasy points. And it is reasonable to expect him to continue to perform as a RB1 the rest of the season, barring injury.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to call him a "plug and play matchup proof RB1." That's what he is. Your stubborn disagreement about it is a semantics disagreement that defies logic and common sense. :shrug:  

 
Just Win Baby said:
IMO most people who read the phrase would think "plug and play matchup proof" means owners have put him in their lineup for the rest of the season other than bye week, barring injury, and will not consider benching him based on matchup. And I think that is probably true of all who own him unless they have very unusual league scoring/lineup settings and/or an incredibly stacked roster, which would clearly make such situations the exception, not the rule. Do you disagree? I assume not. So no issue with "plug and play matchup proof."

So really your semantics issue seems to be with attaching RB1 to that phrase, since he is not literally ranking as a RB1, or top 12 RB, every week, or even a majority of weeks. Question: how many RBs have ranked in the top 12 more than 3 times this season? I'm sure there aren't 12 of them. Which means Hunt is performing on the whole as a RB1. Even for the period of weeks 4-6, which ignores Hunt's best games, he was #7 (PPR) and #9 (non-PPR) among RBs in fantasy points, which means he was a RB1 in fantasy points. And it is reasonable to expect him to continue to perform as a RB1 the rest of the season, barring injury.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to call him a "plug and play matchup proof RB1." That's what he is. Your stubborn disagreement about it is a semantics disagreement that defies logic and common sense. :shrug:  
Click to expand...
I’ll refrain from the name calling and just agree to disagree.

 
Since this debate has started up YET AGAIN in this thread, I am going to suggest a poll in a new thread.

For the record, I agree with Kutta here.

 
conlilnew said:
But does he hit 100 yds from scrimmage the last two games if West hadn't left early two games ago and not played last game? I say he wouldn't have caught half as many passes the last two games as he did if West was playing. West is obviously the clear cut third down back and when he's back I bet we see a drop off in the number of passes Hunt catches. He'll have to get more rushing yards to sustain his #1 RB status. I do believe that once the o line gets back to full strength that we will see more long TD runs out of Hunt. But it's frustrating seeing him come off the field on most third downs but maybe with that Bowman block he had last game Reid was impressed enough to start leaving him in on more third downs.
Click to expand...
Fully agree with this, especially the PIT game... BUT, a lot can change over a week or so. No doubt Hunt was a liability in pass protection. The eyeball test tells me that he is every bit the receiver that West is, but the weakest part of Hunt's game was picking up blitzers. Much improved in the OAK with the highlight cut down block on the long TD to Hill.

What I am hoping for (as a Hunt owner) is that he gets to (or has gotten to) the point where he goes from 1st/2nd down RB that comes out on passing downs to a 3-down back that gets "spelled" by Chark West going forward.

If your KC's coach, this is what you want obviously. No offensive play caller wants to have tendencies... especially ones that are dictated by on field personnel.

 
kutta said:
I’ll refrain from the name calling and just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Agreeing to disagree is fine. I did no name calling, unless my characterization of your stance as stubborn is what you are referencing. I wouldn't expect that to be offensive, but want to make it clear that it wasn't intended to be.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LawFitz
RB Chris Brooks, MIA
2
Replies
73
Views
4K
SoBeDad
S
greenmountaingoat
Ainias Smith-WR- Draft eligible Texas A&M
Replies
9
Views
314
Drunken Cowboy
D
JohnnyU
Is the 2024 RB Class really that bad?
2 3
Replies
116
Views
5K
Soulfly3
Soulfly3

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Top