Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty: RB Chase Edmonds, Cardinals


EBF

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

If that's what he meant then I stand corrected. It just wasn't how I interpreted it. I think this is and will be a fluid situation into the season, but that Edmonds is starting from ahead...so long as he clears the pick 49 hurdle in 2.5 weeks.

I disagree. Signing a RB is almost as bad for Edmonds value as drafting one.

Conner is arguably better than some backs who already signed for the early down role the Cards need. Conner is talented enough that his only barrier to success in that role is health. 

I will happily eat crow if I’m wrong here, but as of right now I’d say the Cards are a situation to avoid & Edmonds especially.  

We all have our takes. That’s mine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Yeah this doesn’t imply feature back exactly. I think if it’s a 60-40 split the 60 will be edmunds. 

You weren’t saying 60%, though that’s technically “the majority”, as is 51%. 

Regardless, I still disagree with 60% featuring Edmonds. Makes me appreciate the term “fantasy” football more though, since I see that as quite fanciful. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I disagree. Signing a RB is almost as bad for Edmonds value as drafting one.

Conner is arguably better than some backs who already signed for the early down role the Cards need. Conner is talented enough that his only barrier to success in that role is health. 

I will happily eat crow if I’m wrong here, but as of right now I’d say the Cards are a situation to avoid & Edmonds especially.  

We all have our takes. That’s mine. 

Cost matters, but the only RB situations to avoid are ones on bad offenses. This is not one of those.

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

Cost matters, but the only RB situations to avoid are ones on bad offenses. This is not one of those.

Jury’s out on that, but I’d say it’s also smart to avoid scat backs who don’t get as many receptions as the fantasy community seems to believe they do where the QB is a GL TD vulture for a team that doesn’t seem to use him in short yardage or even the RZ much. 

He’s likely to be the weak half of a RBBC who, from the apparent hype in here, is thought to have “lion’s share” touch potential - that all adds up to an avoid for me, as he’s going to go a few rounds higher based on that in redraft + the belief that Conner is either destined to get hurt or be ineffective, neither of which are guaranteed. 

Each to their own. Draft as you see fit - I won’t tell you not to. I’m just not going anywhere near him in dynasty or redraft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I disagree. Signing a RB is almost as bad for Edmonds value as drafting one.

Conner is arguably better than some backs who already signed for the early down role the Cards need. Conner is talented enough that his only barrier to success in that role is health. 

I will happily eat crow if I’m wrong here, but as of right now I’d say the Cards are a situation to avoid & Edmonds especially.  

We all have our takes. That’s mine. 

I won't argue how good of a real-life player Conner is.  But I will vehemently disagree that signing or drafting a RB is "bad for value" of Edmonds.

Before the signing of Conner, there were four other RBs on the Cardinals roster.  Three of them have never registered a carry in the NFL.  The fourth is DJ Foster, with 15 career carries and 31career targets.

This is a real life football team.  They were going to add a running back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Jury’s out on that, but I’d say it’s also smart to avoid scat backs who don’t get as many receptions as the fantasy community seems to believe they do where the QB is a GL TD vulture for a team that doesn’t seem to use him in short yardage or even the RZ much. 

He’s likely to be the weak half of a RBBC who, from the apparent hype in here, is thought to have “lion’s share” touch potential - that all adds up to an avoid for me, as he’s going to go a few rounds higher based on that in redraft + the belief that Conner is either destined to get hurt or be ineffective, neither of which are guaranteed. 

Each to their own. Draft as you see fit - I won’t tell you not to. I’m just not going anywhere near him in dynasty or redraft. 

I wouldn't trade for him now, but this possibility is why I traded 3.9 for him in January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rschroeder1 said:

I won't argue how good of a real-life player Conner is.  But I will vehemently disagree that signing or drafting a RB is "bad for value" of Edmonds.

Before the signing of Conner, there were four other RBs on the Cardinals roster.  Three of them have never registered a carry in the NFL.  The fourth is DJ Foster, with 15 career carries and 31career targets.

This is a real life football team.  They were going to add a running back.

It'd have been roster malfeasance if they didn't 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

You weren’t saying 60%, though that’s technically “the majority”, as is 51%. 

Regardless, I still disagree with 60% featuring Edmonds. Makes me appreciate the term “fantasy” football more though, since I see that as quite fanciful. lol

I said they’d share the backfield and I expect edmunds to get more touches. You’re kind of putting words in my mouth. Now, I did say it was “best case scenario” for edmunds as I don’t see Conner as a guy who will come in and get 15-20 carries a game (and sustain that work). If they took a RB in rd 2 that would be a direct threat to value. If they added a receiving threat, where a lot of edmunds value is derived, he would take a hit. If they would have added someone like Carson,  then I’d expect similar numbers to last year. If edmunds can get around 200 carries, which is adding less than 1/2 of drakes vacated carries, he will be a valuable back. 
 

if edmunds gets 200 carries and Conner gets 140 thats a 59-41 split. If edmunds can add some of drakes targets as well, he could hit 60-70 rec. 200 at a conservative 4.2 a carry (840) plus 12 more catches (65) for a conservative 7 per rec would put him at about rb22 last year. 

Edited by Snorkelson
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I disagree. Signing a RB is almost as bad for Edmonds value as drafting one.

Conner is arguably better than some backs who already signed for the early down role the Cards need. Conner is talented enough that his only barrier to success in that role is health. 

I will happily eat crow if I’m wrong here, but as of right now I’d say the Cards are a situation to avoid & Edmonds especially.  

We all have our takes. That’s mine. 

I don’t disagree on your overall take.

That said, I’m shocked that anyone thinks Conner is anything but a mediocre RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sort of think that Conner is the beneficiary of the 60/40 split, which is good for Edmonds, because if you look at last year, he was not getting those sort of reps with Drake in the lineup even though Drake didn't run in between the tackles well. I think Conner's injury history is more illuminating than anything, though there are arguments that having had injuries doesn't predict other injuries, unless they linger or are easy to re-injure. Conner went down in 2019 with shoulder ailments that looked really bad to me, anyway. He was ducking hits by the end of that year quite badly. Never seen a running back slide to avoid contact before that. He's been awfully banged up over his couple of years in the spotlight. 

It's true that the best thing for Edmonds would have been to be the bell cow with no other backs around, but we all knew that wasn't going to happen. This really is the next best thing for his outlook. If Conner goes down, then you can probably trade Edmonds to a contender if need be. (Depending on your league. I can't seem to drum up any interest whatsoever.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

I said they’d share the backfield and I expect edmunds to get more touches. You’re kind of putting words in my mouth. Now, I did say it was “best case scenario” for edmunds as I don’t see Conner as a guy who will come in and get 15-20 carries a game (and sustain that work). If they took a RB in rd 2 that would be a direct threat to value. If they added a receiving threat, where a lot of edmunds value is derived, he would take a hit. If they would have added someone like Carson,  then I’d expect similar numbers to last year. If edmunds can get around 200 carries, which is adding less than 1/2 of drakes vacated carries, he will be a valuable back. 
 

if edmunds gets 200 carries and Conner gets 140 thats a 59-41 split. If edmunds can add some of drakes targets as well, he could hit 60-70 rec. 200 at a conservative 4.2 a carry (840) plus 12 more catches (65) for a conservative 7 per rec would put him at about rb22 last year. 

I quoted you. You just said 60%. You are putting words in your mouth, not me. :) 

Also I find those numbers unrealistic. They didn’t just bring in James Conner for 140 carries. 

And I very much doubt Chase is going to have 200. This dude has had 60, 60 & 97 rushes and you think he’s going to run 200x?  Ooookay. 

Conner is much better suited to the early down role. Wishful thinking is great, but they brought him in to run him between the tackles. That’s what they’ve been missing & I see no reason they wouldn’t use him that way. And between the 2 back, only Conner has exceeded 200 carries in a season. 

They’re also fond of their other backups - I wouldn’t be shocked to see a 3-headed monster with Conner getting short yardage.

time will tell I guess. I think you’re way too high on Edmonds 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MAC_32 said:

I wouldn't trade for him now, but this possibility is why I traded 3.9 for him in January.

3.9 in January is a fair price. Dude in my dynasty wanted Samuel & I told him to kick rocks.

but this signing isn’t good news for Edmonds value &’I’m not convinced Edmonds benefits much if/when Conner gets hurt. 

Your price was fair, so best of luck with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

They’re also fond of their other backups - I wouldn’t be shocked to see a 3-headed monster with Conner getting short yardage.

 

Who are the backups the AZ coaching staff and/or front office is fond of?  Of the other four running backs currently on the roster:

Eno Benjamin - 0 carries and 0 targets in 2020 (rookie season).
DJ Foster - 2 carries and 1 target in 2020.
Khalfani Muhammad - 0 career caries and 0 career targets since being drafted in 2017.
Jonathan Ward - 0 carries and 1 target in 2020 (rookie season).

Not trying to be confrontational here - you may be entirely right on Conner.  I just feel like there's a lot of different arguments being made about Edmonds that don't get to what I think is the central question - will he see a volume increase in '21 with Conner as opposed to Drake?

I don't see the evidence for a three-headed monster in '21 (draft notwithstanding).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rschroeder1 said:

 

Who are the backups the AZ coaching staff and/or front office is fond of?  Of the other four running backs currently on the roster:

Eno Benjamin - 0 carries and 0 targets in 2020 (rookie season).
DJ Foster - 2 carries and 1 target in 2020.
Khalfani Muhammad - 0 career caries and 0 career targets since being drafted in 2017.
Jonathan Ward - 0 carries and 1 target in 2020 (rookie season).

Not trying to be confrontational here - you may be entirely right on Conner.  I just feel like there's a lot of different arguments being made about Edmonds that don't get to what I think is the central question - will he see a volume increase in '21 with Conner as opposed to Drake?

I don't see the evidence for a three-headed monster in '21 (draft notwithstanding).

They aren’t on the roster to do nothing forever. Just because they’ve had zero carries doesn’t mean they will continue to have zero carries.

this seems somewhat obvious. As I understand, they like Benjamin. He’d be my guess as a dude to get some carries who hasn’t. 

The desperation of Edmonds owners is palpable.  

If I had him, I’d be searching for someone who likes him as much as y’all do and would sell as high as possible immediately.

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

They aren’t on the roster to do nothing forever. Just because they’ve had zero carries doesn’t mean they will continue to have zero carries.

this seems somewhat obvious. As I understand, they like Benjamin. He’d be my guess as a dude to get some carries who hasn’t. 

The desperation of Edmonds owners is palpable.  

If I had him, I’d be searching for someone who likes him as much as y’all do and would sell as high as possible immediately.

But there's an obvious logical flaw here:  the same coaching staff and front office you are referring to actually brought about an increase in playing time and volume for Edmonds.  As already detailed, his chances increased from 5.6 to 8.6 (roughly, see details in previous post), and his snap totals increased from 17/game to 31/game year-over-year.

What you are arguing for is the opposite of the evidence we have at hand.  Again, it is entirely possible that 2020 was Edmonds' ceiling in terms of usage - I'm totally open to the reasons as to why that might be.  But it is not logical to argue a running back who was literally not used at all is going to now take volume, while simultaneously arguing that the running back who did see an increase in usage is going to see...a decline?  Static usage?  Simply put, why?

I understand we're all trying to predict the future here, and your guess is as good as mine.  But the very standard of logic you are using to posit gains for Benjamin can't then be turned against Edmonds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I quoted you. You just said 60%. You are putting words in your mouth, not me. :) 

Also I find those numbers unrealistic. They didn’t just bring in James Conner for 140 carries. 

And I very much doubt Chase is going to have 200. This dude has had 60, 60 & 97 rushes and you think he’s going to run 200x?  Ooookay. 

Conner is much better suited to the early down role. Wishful thinking is great, but they brought him in to run him between the tackles. That’s what they’ve been missing & I see no reason they wouldn’t use him that way. 

They’re also fond of their other backups - I wouldn’t be shocked to see a 3-headed monster with Conner getting short yardage.

time will tell I guess. I think you’re way too high on Edmonds 

So what? Conner had 32 carries in 2017 before getting 215 the next year, which he had one year and hasn’t come close to since. Drake had a season high of 170 before getting 239 the following year. Sometimes players get more opportunities. I’m not so much high on edmunds as I am down on Conner, or at least don’t view him as a guy who will get 15-20 carries a game.
 

So Conner was injured seems to be his excuse...he didn’t miss much time last year. 4 games. He was playing behind other ineffective runners the 2nd half of the year. He catches more balls than I thought though, so there’s that.

Edmunds certainly has risk, but signing James Conner isn’t some death knell for his fantasy value like some other signings may have been. I don’t own him, I’m not trying to acquire him. I can see a path to rb2 relevance. I’m sure many people will disagree with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rockaction said:

I sort of think that Conner is the beneficiary of the 60/40 split, which is good for Edmonds, because if you look at last year, he was not getting those sort of reps with Drake in the lineup even though Drake didn't run in between the tackles well. I think Conner's injury history is more illuminating than anything, though there are arguments that having had injuries doesn't predict other injuries, unless they linger or are easy to re-injure. Conner went down in 2019 with shoulder ailments that looked really bad to me, anyway. He was ducking hits by the end of that year quite badly. Never seen a running back slide to avoid contact before that. He's been awfully banged up over his couple of years in the spotlight. 

It's true that the best thing for Edmonds would have been to be the bell cow with no other backs around, but we all knew that wasn't going to happen. This really is the next best thing for his outlook. If Conner goes down, then you can probably trade Edmonds to a contender if need be. (Depending on your league. I can't seem to drum up any interest whatsoever.)

Now is a difficult time to move him. Most teams have their starters and if they are trading for better ones they're aiming higher than Edmonds. If there is a window to move him I don't think it'd open until at least August. Maybe immediately after your rookie draft if a rb needy team doesn't add any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

Conner, with a toe injury already, is going to come in and get close to his season high of carries? This just doesn’t make any sense to me. 

Yet signing the corpse of Gio Bernard, who had his career highs in both carries and receptions in his rookie season a long 8 years ago, "would have taken a ton of value away"- that makes sense to you?

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MAC_32 said:

Now is a difficult time to move him. Most teams have their starters and if they are trading for better ones they're aiming higher than Edmonds. If there is a window to move him I don't think it'd open until at least August. Maybe immediately after your rookie draft if a rb needy team doesn't add any.

I agree with @rockaction - the instant Conner gets dinged up. Even a slight limp or a headache or a splinter or something - that’s when you sell high as possible on Edmonds. 

I mean sell Edmonds high. Whether you’re high when you do it is more of a personal preference. Hey I don’t judge. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

I can see a path to rb2 relevance. I’m sure many people will disagree with that. 

We all have our tolerance / definition as to what defines a “RB2”, so this is vague. 

My dynasty roster is mostly flex, so I can roll out 6 WR/2 RB. My second running back is a weekly dice roll, and all 6 WR are better. He’s technically a RB2. Ok, Edmonds qualifies as that. I would throw him out weekly in that exact scenario as a “RB2”. 

Many in the fantasy community see Chris Carson as the ceiling of a RB2 who might creep into the RB1 convo occasionally. 

I don’t think anyone believes Edmonds will remotely sniff Carson’s value.

So no offense, but saying Edmonds is a RB2 is true but so incredibly vague as to what it means as to not really mean anything. :shrug: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, humpback said:

Yet signing the corpse of Gio Bernard, who had his career highs in both carries and receptions in his rookie season a long 8 years ago, "would have taken a ton of value away"- that makes sense to you?

As I pointed out, Chase’s value gets a bump because of his value in the passing game. If he isn’t in on 3rd down that takes a ton of value away. My line of thinking isn’t that hard to follow here. If a 3rd down back were signed and he lost targets it would sap a fair amount of upside. I’ll admit Conner is an able pass catcher, so edmunds role in that area might not expand, but I don’t expect him to lose targets either.

4 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

We all have our tolerance / definition as to what defines a “RB2”, so this is vague. 

My dynasty roster is mostly flex, so I can roll out 6 WR/2 RB. My second running back is a weekly dice roll, and all 6 WR are better. He’s technically a RB2. Ok, Edmonds qualifies as that. I would throw him out weekly in that exact scenario as a “RB2”. 

Many in the fantasy community see Chris Carson as the ceiling of a RB2 who might creep into the RB1 convo occasionally. 

I don’t think anyone believes Edmonds will remotely sniff Carson’s value.

So no offense, but saying Edmonds is a RB2 is true but so incredibly vague as to what it means as to not really mean anything. :shrug: 

 

With an increase of workload I expect him to finish around RB 24 or better in scoring, which would be a rb2 in a 12 man league.  He finished rb 25 in ppr last year through 17 games, so this take isn’t all that bold. I don’t think he will have huge weeks, just steady production and probably around the same 5 tds he scored last year. On a per game basis he finished rb36, so there’s room for growth if you look at it on that basis, and more carries would bring that up. I’m being very specific in my projections here, and I’m shorting his career averages by .5 yds on top of it. You’re arguing he somehow gets less work than he did last year with the signing of Conner. If they run about 340 times like last year, what do you expect the split to be? Why do you expect 7th rd pick Benjamin to factor in? Conner played in 13 games last year with some nobodies behind him, why didn’t he do more? 

Obviously, rb values change based on scoring rules and starting roster requirements. So if, for some reason, your league starts 2rb3wr with another 3 flex spots (2rb/6wr?) then maybe that changes his value somehow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I agree with @rockaction - the instant Conner gets dinged up. Even a slight limp or a headache or a splinter or something - that’s when you sell high as possible on Edmonds. 

I mean sell Edmonds high. Whether you’re high when you do it is more of a personal preference. Hey I don’t judge. 

Not necessarily. I bailed on Devonta Freeman (2nd rounder) before the rug got pulled out from under him in one league in 2019, but it's because I had the depth to withstand that short term loss. I didn't in another because I lacked such depth. A similar situation arose with RoJo last year too. I got out from under in one (Deebo and a 2), but needed him in the lineup in the other so he's still on the roster today. I think all of those decisions were the right ones.

And that's how I'll approach Edmonds this year too. If I need him then I probably won't test the market should he get a value bump in-season, but if my guys in front of him are healthy then I'll hit the market and see what bites. I mean, the ideal scenario would be to sell him off then use any assets acquired to get something better, but that isn't always a feasible flip to execute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, rschroeder1 said:

I guess I expected some RB competition and not a bottom-barrel back.  I accept that Edmonds is not going to be a three-down back and another RB was coming in.  But enough about the best case scenario lol.

As for Eno Benjamin, I gotta say I don't see where he fits in here.  Unless I'm missing something, his current NFL stats are:  0 carries, 0 targets.  I can't fathom a forecast from there.

In regard to Edmonds, I'll leave it at this.  Something happened in '20.  For some reason, his targets and carries shot up.  For some reason, his snap counts increased from '19 to '20, to the point that in the second half he was averaging around 50% of the snaps.  He had relatively the same coaching staff in '19 and '20.  Their perception of him changed year-over-year.

It's entirely possible he hit his ceiling in '20, but I'm willing to wager a bit on continued progression.  For a 12 team league, he was RB28 in in .5 PPR for '20.  The progression to RB2 isn't going to take much from there.  That's the point I'm trying to make, however poorly I'm stating it!

I expected them to add a RB (or 2) as well, but a bottom-barrel back was a possibility (as was adding a very good RB). If they would have added someone like say Gio :cough:, it would shown more confidence in Edmonds and his value would have gotten a boost IMO. Out of the realistic options, Conner was a middle of the pack signing at worst, so it's just hard for me to get on board that this gives Edmonds a big boost, never mind "best case scenario". I get that this could reduce the chance of using a high pick on a RB, but I don't think it moves the needle much on that either- it's only a 1 yr. deal for Conner and it wasn't likely they were going to use one of those early picks on RB to begin with. Maybe it went from a 15% chance to a 10% chance, something like that.

I replied to another poster and then you replied to me. He's the one who mentioned Benjamin, I agree that signing Conner doesn't say anything about his role either, which is why I questioned him on it. Honestly I'm not sure why you quoted my post in the first place as it seems we are roughly on the same page- this isn't a death knell signing for Edmonds, but it's certainly not "best case scenario" either. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

We all have our tolerance / definition as to what defines a “RB2”, so this is vague. 

My dynasty roster is mostly flex, so I can roll out 6 WR/2 RB. My second running back is a weekly dice roll, and all 6 WR are better. He’s technically a RB2. Ok, Edmonds qualifies as that. I would throw him out weekly in that exact scenario as a “RB2”. 

Many in the fantasy community see Chris Carson as the ceiling of a RB2 who might creep into the RB1 convo occasionally. 

I don’t think anyone believes Edmonds will remotely sniff Carson’s value.

So no offense, but saying Edmonds is a RB2 is true but so incredibly vague as to what it means as to not really mean anything. :shrug: 

 

Sure it does. I don't bother with tiered rankings until the other side of the draft, but just scrolling through them now I note it starts to get dicey around RB20. Since most leagues require starting at least 2 RB's whoever from below emerges can be someone's starter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

As I pointed out, Chase’s value gets a bump because of his value in the passing game. If he isn’t in on 3rd down that takes a ton of value away. My line of thinking isn’t that hard to follow here. If a 3rd down back were signed and he lost targets it would sap a fair amount of upside. I’ll admit Conner is an able pass catcher, so edmunds role in that area might not expand, but I don’t expect him to lose targets either.

As I pointed out, over the last 3 seasons Conner has more receptions, more receiving yards, a higher ypr, and more receiving TD's than both Gio and Lindsay (and the guy he's replacing, Drake), yet you think signing those 2 would have torpedoed his value while signing Conner is best case scenario. That's not even factoring in the obvious rushing/goal line differences.

Your line of thinking is incredibly hard to follow here IMO, but I've said my piece.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, humpback said:

I expected them to add a RB (or 2) as well, but a bottom-barrel back was a possibility (as was adding a very good RB). If they would have added someone like say Gio :cough:, it would shown more confidence in Edmonds and his value would have gotten a boost IMO. Out of the realistic options, Conner was a middle of the pack signing at worst, so it's just hard for me to get on board that this gives Edmonds a big boost, never mind "best case scenario". I get that this could reduce the chance of using a high pick on a RB, but I don't think it moves the needle much on that either- it's only a 1 yr. deal for Conner and it wasn't likely they were going to use one of those early picks on RB to begin with. Maybe it went from a 15% chance to a 10% chance, something like that.

Does Conner signing give Edmonds a boost? Well, no. In a vacuum any threat to touches obviously isn't a positive for one's value. Does Conner signing give Edmonds a boost relative to other potential RB's they could have added? This thread is leading me to believe there are divided opinions (this is not a bad thing). 

Cause I think Conner is less a threat and more there to share the load. Then as they enter the stretch run they'll re-assess how to deploy them based on how they've performed - assuming health, of course. But if I am wrong and he is there to lead the way then history indicates he won't sustain. He's played well for a handful or so of games in 2018 and again in 2020, but once he gets dinged he's no longer effective. Could he buck that trend? Well, yeah. I think it'd be silly to expect it though.

So who is going to perform better in a committee approach? We know Edmonds was effective in such a role, but we've never seen Conner in such a setting. The Steelers tried to utilize him in a 70-90% manner and it never worked. Will that change if his number is changed to something between 40 and 60? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ adding a scatback was probably best case scenario actually, which is the opposite of what @Snorkelson is saying.  By adding a 3rd down back they are saying - Chase is our guy and can handle the between the tackle reps and needs a 5 to 10 carry breather.  The Conner signing says - "We don't know if Chase is the guy and we want to win now, so here is a vet"  *with injury history*

edited the bold. 

Edited by TVT 0 N S T A
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TVT 0 N S T A said:

^ adding a scatback was probably best case scenario actually, which is the opposite of what @Snorkelson is saying.  By adding a 3rd down back they are saying - Chase is our guy and can handle the between the tackle reps and needs a 5 to 10 carry breather.  The Conner signing says - "We don't know if Chase is the guy and we want to win now, so here is a vet"  *with injury history*

edited the bold. 

I don't think any realistic Edmonds owner thought this would happen, though. I'm garnering that there's a lot of disagreement in this thread because we're acting like industry fantasy analysts and speaking in generalities rather than speaking in specifics to league requirements and team construction.

I know I'm an Edmonds GM that largely agrees that it'll be around a 60/40 split for Conner when he's healthy, but that's good for Edmonds because it gives him increased reps vs. when Drake was there, gives them less of an impetus to draft one of the big three RBs of the class, and given Conner's injury history and salary, means that Conner isn't the anointed guy this year, either. It's up for grabs, and if Conner is either ineffective or hurt or gets outplayed (and there's no reason to think Edmonds won't outplay Conner, who has looked like the shell of what began as a 4.65 guy coming out of college, anyway) then he's on the bench with not a significant amount of capital invested in him by the Cards.

So, no, it wasn't the greatest news ever for Edmonds, but on a sliding scale of greyness, it's pretty light out.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I don't think any realistic Edmonds owner thought this would happen, though. I'm garnering that there's a lot of disagreement in this thread because we're acting like industry fantasy analysts and speaking in generalities rather than speaking in specifics to league requirements and team construction.

I know I'm an Edmonds GM that largely agrees that it'll be around a 60/40 split for Conner when he's healthy, but that's good for Edmonds because it gives him increased reps vs. when Drake was there, gives them less of an impetus to draft one of the big three RBs of the class, and given Conner's injury history and salary, means that Conner isn't the anointed guy this year, either. It's up for grabs, and if Conner is either ineffective or hurt or gets outplayed (and there's no reason to think Edmonds won't outplay Conner, who has looked like the shell of what began as a 4.65 guy coming out of college, anyway) then he's on the bench with not a significant amount of capital invested in him by the Cards.

So, no, it wasn't the greatest news ever for Edmonds, but on a sliding scale of greyness, it's pretty light out.

You’re the one who talked me out of dealing for Edmonds. lmao.

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TVT 0 N S T A said:

^ adding a scatback was probably best case scenario actually, which is the opposite of what @Snorkelson is saying.  By adding a 3rd down back they are saying - Chase is our guy and can handle the between the tackle reps and needs a 5 to 10 carry breather.  The Conner signing says - "We don't know if Chase is the guy and we want to win now, so here is a vet"  *with injury history*

edited the bold. 

This simply doesn't make sense from a real-life football perspective.  Why would they add another Chase Edmonds-esque player?  Wouldn't adding a complement to him make sense?  Honestly, I haven't seen anyone here arguing that Chase was going to be a three-down back.

Far too often the offseason is made into a zero sum game for fantasy players' values.  This is not an Edmonds vs. Conner question or whether Edmonds is THE GUY or not THE GUY.  Why can't there be any plausible scenarios in between?

Edmonds was on the field for roughly 46% of the team's offensive snaps last year (excluding his start against Miami and tossing out the Week 17 game without Murray).  Is it really out on a limb to think that this could actually continue?  Am I crazy to rank Kenyan Drake, circa 2020, as a superior RB to James Conner, circa 2021?

Unless you believe that Conner is an upgrade over Drake, the question would be what happened in 2020 that would now downgrade Edmonds from his role.  By one metric - take it for what you will - Football Outsiders rates him as one of the top five receiving backs in the league for '20.

He was RB 25 for PPR and RB 28 for .5 PPR.  I'm not sure where he ranks for 0 PPR.  League size is relevant, but for a 12 team league and higher, he was already a usable player in '20.

If we should expect a decrease in Edmonds' role, I don't think it's crazy to simply ask for the evidence as to why that might be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rschroeder1 said:

 

If we should expect a decrease in Edmonds' role, I don't think it's crazy to simply ask for the evidence as to why that might be.

Signing Conner makes it less likely they take any of the big 3 in the 2nd round, for sure.

So it's doubly good for Edmonds, as Conner will probably be the best competition has has to worry about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)


 

Cardinals RB Chase Edmonds said he's "ready to run through a damn wall" as the team's starting running back.

"I'm going to go out there and I'm going to ball out this year," Edmonds said in a phone interview. "It's now or never. I may not be your typical 20-carry guy. Not every running back is a 20-carry guy. But I believe I'm certainly capable of being a 20-touch type-of-guy." The 25-year-old also exclaimed that he understands we "might not see him at the end of the game" since James Conner will be asked to wear a stacked box down in short-yardage situations, but the former is "going to be right on the sidelines cheering" nonetheless. Entering the final year of his rookie deal, Edmonds has the opportunity to cash in on an extension as long as he performs accordingly after the team evaded adding to its backfield throughout the NFL Draft.

SOURCE: Kyle Odegard on Twitter

May 21, 2021, 2:41 PM ET

Edited by Faust
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's the starting RB in my eyes. With the amount of 3WR / 4WR sets. You don't want a plodder. You want this guy eating up 5-6 YPC on draws and terrorizing LBs spying Murray.


Not sure where he's being drafted, but it's not high enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shaq90 said:

He's the starting RB in my eyes. With the amount of 3WR / 4WR sets. You don't want a plodder. You want this guy eating up 5-6 YPC on draws and terrorizing LBs spying Murray.


Not sure where he's being drafted, but it's not high enough.

Of all the guys that "survived" the NFL draft, this one is the one that I think might have the most real redraft value this year. I'm not quite buying the Mike Davis nor Myles Gaskin hype but I do think Edmonds is going to be valuable. Or possibly. And he is going after those guys from what I've seen. Mid 5th to late 6th. People are taking Davis and Gaskin as early as the 4th. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

He's the most talented. And dating back a couple years.

But I also think he's better in smaller doses to hopefully keep him healthy for 16 games. Definitely can see him having some big games. I just question the 16 game value game in and game out.

I don't really follow fantasy football anymore so I have no clue where he's going. If anywhere close to where Drake was going last year, would be too rich for me.

Edited by Craig_MiamiFL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Skeletore Eh said:

From what I remember, Conner looked completely shot to me last year 

He may score a ton of touchdowns this year. At 6ft 1, 233 lbs that and short yardage work seems to be wide open. He averaged 4.3 YPC last year, that's more than explosive enough for a short yardage guy.

Edited by Shaq90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shaq90 said:

He may score a ton of touchdowns this year. At 6ft 1, 233 lbs that and short yardage work seems to be wide open. He averaged 4.3 YPC last year, that's more than explosive enough for a short yardage guy.

Conner has been a solid RB that had a really good situation for a few years when the Steelers committed to the run and their OL was in good shape.

I agree that Conner can still be an effective runner, but have to wonder if injuries will have an effect on him. I can see him being the short-yardage pounder and controlling the game late, but Edmonds seems to fit better overall in the wide open offensive scheme.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2021 at 6:01 AM, JohnnyU said:

Seems like there is always something wrong with him.

Haven't looked for an update, but fairly sure Conner is still recovering from off-season surgery.

So.. yeah, still hurt... or preparing to be hurt again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 4/14/2021 at 11:15 AM, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I disagree. Signing a RB is almost as bad for Edmonds value as drafting one.

Conner is arguably better than some backs who already signed for the early down role the Cards need. Conner is talented enough that his only barrier to success in that role is health. 

I will happily eat crow if I’m wrong here, but as of right now I’d say the Cards are a situation to avoid & Edmonds especially.  

We all have our takes. That’s mine. 

And now we’ve come full circle, as I just traded for Chase Edmonds.

:doh: 

I suppose I will now have to hope I’m eating crow about him, as he’s now my RB3.

Always fun in FF when you argue against a player then slowly convince yourself that you’re wrong. I feel like I bought at a very reasonable price, especially since both the player & pick I traded for him were low-cost acquisitions in and off themselves, but the more I’ve read, the more it seems that even if I’m correct about Conner’s workload, Edmonds will be valuable for his receptions alone. 

gotta love this game. lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2021 at 7:25 PM, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I quoted you. You just said 60%. You are putting words in your mouth, not me. :) 

Also I find those numbers unrealistic. They didn’t just bring in James Conner for 140 carries. 

And I very much doubt Chase is going to have 200. This dude has had 60, 60 & 97 rushes and you think he’s going to run 200x?  Ooookay. 

Conner is much better suited to the early down role. Wishful thinking is great, but they brought him in to run him between the tackles. That’s what they’ve been missing & I see no reason they wouldn’t use him that way. And between the 2 back, only Conner has exceeded 200 carries in a season. 

They’re also fond of their other backups - I wouldn’t be shocked to see a 3-headed monster with Conner getting short yardage.

time will tell I guess. I think you’re way too high on Edmonds 

There is a logical inconsistency in your position here.

On one hand you are using past use of Edmonds as a reason why that use won't increase then on the other hand you are saying guys who have not seen the ball at all are in the mix for more opportunities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

There is a logical inconsistency in your position here.

On one hand you are using past use of Edmonds as a reason why that use won't increase then on the other hand you are saying guys who have not seen the ball at all are in the mix for more opportunities.

I’m on the other side of the argument now. Go Chase! :pickle: 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...