Bench vs starters

[JDM]

I'm not judging this based on his number of touches in one preseason game. Blount is a legitimate part of this running back group and will get legitimate touches. He has very little chance of not making this team.

And yes, vereen fits mainly into a scat back type role. Belichick is very consistent at filling specific roles with specific skill sets and vereen will not do a lot of the runs Ridley does, even if Ridley were to get injured.

 

[TREFF]

Strongly, strongly disagree..and I strongly feel he's firmly on the roster bubble.

 

[JDM]

There's no way they only keep 4 RB. Leon Washington hardly counts as he is mostly there for special teams.

 

[wilwhite]

It's funny - I was looking at the RBs/TEs in rounds 7-10 the past years (ADP), and in 2012 it was obviously a mistake to draft those RBs (out of 14, only 2 - Spiller and LeShoure - were startable for more than a couple of games and most weren't startable ever; while 4 of the 7 TEs were helpful starters and none were unstartable).

But in 2011 it was a completely different story - out of 14 RBs in rounds 7-10, TEN of them finished in the TOP 30. I'll say that again: TEN OF THEM finished in the top 30. Only 4 TEs were taken in those rounds - but only one of them was Gronk so the others were a relatively bad deal.

To reiterate, in 2012 "bench" RBs were a steaming pile of wasted picks, and in 2011 they were the golden chalice of victory.

Go figure.

 

[The Foot]

Like I have said before I can see Blount winning the starting job.

 

[TREFF]

It's funny - I was looking at the RBs/TEs in rounds 7-10 the past years (ADP), and in 2012 it was obviously a mistake to draft those RBs (out of 14, only 2 - Spiller and LeShoure - were startable for more than a couple of games and most weren't startable ever; while 4 of the 7 TEs were helpful starters and none were unstartable).

But in 2011 it was a completely different story - out of 14 RBs in rounds 7-10, TEN of them finished in the TOP 30. I'll say that again: TEN OF THEM finished in the top 30. Only 4 TEs were taken in those rounds - but only one of them was Gronk so the others were a relatively bad deal.

To reiterate, in 2012 "bench" RBs were a steaming pile of wasted picks, and in 2011 they were the golden chalice of victory.

Go figure.

Go even further down though..and you can add Alf to Spiller and Leshoure

 

[JDM]

Like I have said before I can see Blount winning the starting job.

I've been thinking about that as well and I'm not sure that happens. I think it's possible - Blount just kind of got phased out in Tampa after showing a good bit of promise. I was pumped about the trade for him and I believe our running back group is stacked. Ridley isn't elite but he is pretty good. Bolden is a hard runner and I feel comfortable giving him the ball, which is a lot for a guy that low on the depth chart. Vereen is fast, athletic, can catch, and would be capable of being the primary back if he was needed. Leon Washington is primarily a special teamer but is reliable and a solid option out of the backfield. I think three guys see a lot of touches, and bill keeps them all fresh. Who does the most will most likely vary week to week, but I don't think Ridley get much less than Blount most weeks.

They will ride the hot hand, though.

 

[The Foot]

I think owning anyone of these guys except Blount would be a hug mistake. Ridley's "believe it or not" just flat out costs too much and is not worth it considering there are so many backs on this team. Vareen is less cost, less risk but has less of a role to start with to me and is not strong enough to push the other backs out of his way. Blount is a man child and can bend steal. He can be had for a song and a dance so he won't cost you if he doesn't make it as the starter and if he does start well that's what this game is all about!

 

[The Foot]

I actually wanted to put him on my deep sleeper list on mywifehatessundays. I will have to add him later.

 

[JDM]

Blount will be on my roster in most leagues. Ridley at his draft position will not. Vereen may or may not be. He has a decent bit of hype but considering the production danny woodhead got with his "skill set" (what would that be exactly?), he could still even exceed expectations.

 

[TREFF]

Anyone that wants to have Blount in any of my leagues is a welcome donor

 

[wilwhite]

Yeah - I didn't go to the 11th because if you don't have a starting TE by then you kinda have to take one.

 

[tlance]

Alright JDM, you are the Pats guy, so question for you:

I have one roster spot open. I used my last pick of a position player to grab Blount as a total flier with no expectations. I was skyping in to a live draft and I had thought Kembrel Thompkins had been drafted earlier, but now I see that he was not taken.

Given that neither of these players is more than long shot bench filler, who would you rather own? Thompkins or Blount?

Right now, I have Blount giving me 6 RBs and 5 WRs. Scoring is pretty standard for RBs and WRs.

 

[wilwhite]

If Ridley goes down, Blount becomes an option. But that's true of lots of backups. He's had lots of problems in the passing game so far in his career with plenty of time to get it right, so that's a big mark against him with the Pats.

As it is, Blount might get some short-yardage situations and Vereen will get a handful of carries and several planned passes and outlet passes, all of which could hurt Ridley's touches and TDs. I have Ridley at #19.

 

[JDM]

Alright JDM, you are the Pats guy, so question for you:

I have one roster spot open. I used my last pick of a position player to grab Blount as a total flier with no expectations. I was skyping in to a live draft and I had thought Kembrel Thompkins had been drafted earlier, but now I see that he was not taken.

Given that neither of these players is more than long shot bench filler, who would you rather own? Thompkins or Blount?

Right now, I have Blount giving me 6 RBs and 5 WRs. Scoring is pretty standard for RBs and WRs.

I really like both. To me it depends on which spot is more likely to allow a player to break through. You've seen my opinion of Blount, so I'll give my thoughts on WR:

In one receiver sets, it's mostly Dobson. He's the prototypical guy and while he has a bit to go still, he gets the most looks. Thompkins and amendola fight for the second spot. Both play in some two spots and I am not sure who gets more. Edelman and Boyce don't get a lot of looks.

I value RB more, and tend to avoid my guys, but it will depend on my teams. Last year I had an odd league where I got 3 guys I valued highly and finished near the top 7-8 RB, but my depth at WR was lacking to start the year. There I take thompkins. If I need better RB depth it's Blount. I don't know your team so I can't address your positional need.

 

[tlance]

I really like both. To me it depends on which spot is more likely to allow a player to break through. You've seen my opinion of Blount, so I'll give my thoughts on WR:

In one receiver sets, it's mostly Dobson. He's the prototypical guy and while he has a bit to go still, he gets the most looks. Thompkins and amendola fight for the second spot. Both play in some two spots and I am not sure who gets more. Edelman and Boyce don't get a lot of looks.

I value RB more, and tend to avoid my guys, but it will depend on my teams. Last year I had an odd league where I got 3 guys I valued highly and finished near the top 7-8 RB, but my depth at WR was lacking to start the year. There I take thompkins. If I need better RB depth it's Blount. I don't know your team so I can't address your positional need.

It is more or less the same. I have 3 every week starters at RB who were 3 of my first 4 picks. I have Bernard and Woodhead as bench depth. With WRs, I have 3 guys I would feel comfortable starting every week and only need to start 2. I also have Broyles and Jeffrey as back-ups, so I am pretty good there too.

This spot would ideally be trade bait to help me upgrade my lone weakness at QB if I were able to hit it. Really, I need the player most likely to have trade value in a few weeks. I am currently thinking that Thompkins is more likely to have actual fantasy value, but I doubt he will ever have the trade value that Blount could bring if something were to happen to Ridley (injury or fumblitis).

Also, there is a very high possibility that neither player will be on my roster by opening week.

I ask because as a Redskins homer, I had a good feeling about Morris after watching pre-season games and either drafted him or picked him up late in 3 of 4 leagues. I know what the fantasy experts say about Blount vs. Thompkins, but I want your specific take assuming that you have no positional needs.

 

[tlance]

I am guessing most 4 WR sets will be Dobson, Amendola, Thompkins and Vereen?

 

[JDM]

I'd think about dumping woodhead and doing both. Woodhead was entirely a product of New England IMO and is less talented in a situation where I'm not sure he gets any more or better touches than Blount, and almost certainly has less upside (can you see him as the primary back?). Another thing to consider is availability. Thompkins stock is rising more rapidly than blount's and Blount may be available for a touch longer.

You're intelligent enough to make the best decision for you, but those are my thoughts.

 

[JDM]

I am guessing most 4 WR sets will be Dobson, Amendola, Thompkins and Vereen?

If you count that, maybe. Vereen will move around a bit, but I think eventually Boyce breaks through and gets some looks. I'm not sure exactly the distribution of where vereen lines up so I can't answer too confidently.