Fantasy Football News and Rumors

[SmokingMonkey]

I most certainly can and have accepted that fact..and for the third time during this debate, I have never suggested teams give an inordinate amount/percentage of their cap to a RB, so where are you coming from with all this chatter about over paid, high dollar contracts, and examples of lowly paid SB winning leading rushers?
What type of investment does a team have to make for you to quantify it as an investment, and why is it tied to a dollar amount?
Why isn't the Eagles acquiring of Blount and Ajayi to get them to the Super Bowl and win it a qualifying argument, when it is a very prime example of a team making a recognition of a need, and filling it with a real asset, not just some schmuck off the street and hoping it pans out?
Why isn't the Rams drafting Akers in the second and trading for Michel a qualifying point jsut because both were on rookie contracts and cheap?
Why isn't Fournette a prime example? the Bucs needed a RB, there was a multiple 1000 yard back avaialabe, they signed him rather than just hope Ronald Jones was good enough

thos are INVESTMENTS..the dollar figure attached is irrelevant

I mean every time you bring up salary, its a moot point in my opinion. you can overpay for POS's like Edmonds, doesn't make Edmonds a good signing, doesn't mean you invested in a real RB..it means you royally screwed up by signing a sub par committee member instead of addressing a need on your team and acquiring a real RB..had they signed Melvin Gordon, likely wouldn't have been a totally egregious contract, likely would've panned out better than Edmonds, but maybe not, and to me, I'd say, well, they definitely tried to get a real RB in there, it just didn't work out, but the effort was made, and Id' stop raking themover the coals for ignoring the position every year. they tried.

But they didn't

so Michel to the Rams = investment, but Michel to the Dolphins = not trying

 

[SmokingMonkey]

I most certainly can and have accepted that fact..and for the third time during this debate, I have never suggested teams give an inordinate amount/percentage of their cap to a RB, so where are you coming from with all this chatter about over paid, high dollar contracts, and examples of lowly paid SB winning leading rushers?
What type of investment does a team have to make for you to quantify it as an investment, and why is it tied to a dollar amount?
Why isn't the Eagles acquiring of Blount and Ajayi to get them to the Super Bowl and win it a qualifying argument, when it is a very prime example of a team making a recognition of a need, and filling it with a real asset, not just some schmuck off the street and hoping it pans out?
Why isn't the Rams drafting Akers in the second and trading for Michel a qualifying point jsut because both were on rookie contracts and cheap?
Why isn't Fournette a prime example? the Bucs needed a RB, there was a multiple 1000 yard back avaialabe, they signed him rather than just hope Ronald Jones was good enough

thos are INVESTMENTS..the dollar figure attached is irrelevant

I mean every time you bring up salary, its a moot point in my opinion. you can overpay for POS's like Edmonds, doesn't make Edmonds a good signing, doesn't mean you invested in a real RB..it means you royally screwed up by signing a sub par committee member instead of addressing a need on your team and acquiring a real RB..had they signed Melvin Gordon, likely wouldn't have been a totally egregious contract, likely would've panned out better than Edmonds, but maybe not, and to me, I'd say, well, they definitely tried to get a real RB in there, it just didn't work out, but the effort was made, and Id' stop raking themover the coals for ignoring the position every year. they tried.

But they didn't

you're looking at the end results and determining the moves that panned out to be investments, just cause they panned out, and the moves that didn't pan out equals not trying.

that's not what an investment is, especially when you have a finite amount of a certain resource to build your team

 

[TREFF]

Looking at the highest paid RB...
Only 4 were on the 14 playoff teams.
Zero in this year's SB.

Disclaimer: i only looked at the short list. (I'm just killing time in TJ Maxx while my wife shops.)

Zeke's contract was a mistake, and I gladly said as much when they signed it..and said the same about Aaron Jones, Kamara, Cook.

Off the highest paid RB's, only Henry is actually worth the value of that deal commensurate to what he means to the overall offense. And even he is outliving the value of that deal at this point

 

[TREFF]

so Michel to the Rams = investment, but Michel to the Dolphins = not trying

after he's proven spent? no. Funny attempt at an owning, but falls way short Mr Cuban..and stil completely dismissing the investment of a 2nd round pick in Akers to begin with.

 

[TREFF]

you're looking at the end results and determining the moves that panned out to be investments, just cause they panned out, and the moves that didn't pan out equals not trying.

that's not what an investment is, especially when you have a finite amount of a certain resource to build your team

no there's no revisionist history here..your the one tying everything to SB winners, there's limited examples to point to within your given parameters of the debate. It just so happens that all the SB winners who did make those invests, they worked...weird coincidences that demolish your premise I know, but hey, they're your parameters

Like I JUST wrote- hypothetically-had the Phins signed MGIII, credit would've been given, and this is after the fact that Gordon was proven to be spent, done and over.

oddly enough, Michel on the Rams is an example where it didn't exactly work all that great, because he was spent, but the overall point is, they recognized a need, and made a real attempt at addressing it. Akers in the second wasn't exactly a lynchpin in their super bowl season either, doesn't mean they didn't still make that investment regardless.

 

[eaglesnut]

Looking at the highest paid RB...
Only 4 were on the 14 playoff teams.
Zero in this year's SB.

Disclaimer: i only looked at the short list. (I'm just killing time in TJ Maxx while my wife shops.)

KC spent a 1st rounder on a RB and the Eagles spent a 2nd on their starter. The "it uses up valuable resources" defense is played out. You need to have an nfl caliber running game if you are going to compete without a top 10 all time QB.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

no there's no revisionist history here..your the one tying everything to SB winners, there's limited examples to point to within your given parameters of the debate. It just so happens that all the SB winners who did make those invests, they worked...weird coincidences that demolish your premise I know, but hey, they're your parameters

Like I JUST wrote- hypothetically-had the Phins signed MGIII, credit would've been given, and this is after the fact that Gordon was proven to be spent, done and over.

oddly enough, Michel on the Rams is an example where it didn't exactly work all that great, because he was spent, but the overall point is, they recognized a need, and made a real attempt at addressing it. Akers in the second wasn't exactly a lynchpin in their super bowl season either, doesn't mean they didn't still make that investment regardless.

so how is the Dolphins recognizing a need and making a move not an investment or "not trying"?
you don't get to have it both ways here.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

@TREFF

my bad, you are always right, anyone with a differing thought is always wrong.
You get back to work now, I've got more important things to do as well

 

[eaglesnut]

I most certainly can and have accepted that fact..and for the third time during this debate, I have never suggested teams give an inordinate amount/percentage of their cap to a RB, so where are you coming from with all this chatter about over paid, high dollar contracts, and examples of lowly paid SB winning leading rushers?
What type of investment does a team have to make for you to quantify it as an investment, and why is it tied to a dollar amount?
Why isn't the Eagles acquiring of Blount and Ajayi to get them to the Super Bowl and win it a qualifying argument, when it is a very prime example of a team making a recognition of a need, and filling it with a real asset, not just some schmuck off the street and hoping it pans out?
Why isn't the Rams drafting Akers in the second and trading for Michel a qualifying point jsut because both were on rookie contracts and cheap?
Why isn't Fournette a prime example? the Bucs needed a RB, there was a multiple 1000 yard back avaialabe, they signed him rather than just hope Ronald Jones was good enough

thos are INVESTMENTS..the dollar figure attached is irrelevant

It's impossible to give too much of your cap to a running back because the franchise tag is only 10 million. Lowest of any position. So contracts are small for RBs. Even for the best. The difference between having shit RBs that cost nothing and having real runningbacks that cost 8M or 1/2 round picks is worth it.

 

[eaglesnut]

Especially when you have a finite amount of a certain resource to build your team

Just going to focus on this part.

Finite? If my team can draft useful 4th rounders and your team can't then how are my resources as finite as yours?

If I'm at the salary cap and I can still trade for and sign AJ Brown with using cute cap tricks how is that finite?

I create resources by being smart. Just like anything else. Being runningbackless is not smart.

 

[TREFF]

@TREFF

my bad, you are always right, anyone with a differing thought is always wrong.
You get back to work now, I've got more important things to do as well

Well no, I've been proven wrong many many times, and generally I'm all for admitting it when I'm proven wrong. But when reality disproves a theory, I'm not sure why I'd just roll over on it.

Regardless, I still admire and respect you, nothing about this was ever an effort to belittle you or your thoughts. I thought we were having a simple debate about football theory

 

[TREFF]

so how is the Dolphins recognizing a need and making a move not an investment or "not trying"?
you don't get to have it both ways here.

because they gave a massive contract to a career backup who had proven nothing? Rather than one of the various more proven options available, or at least investing in the draft? To me, no that's not credit worthy.
I mean technically, black and white, yes, your correct, it is an investment, and an effort. But one that virtually everyone could've, or should've, or did, foresee as not working out from jump, so its really tough for me to quantify that as a true effort.
I mean form my perspective, Maimi's entire approach was to rectify that gaping wound with bandaids, not stiches or staples, ya know?

 

[Clayton]

KC spent a 1st rounder on a RB and the Eagles spent a 2nd on their starter. The "it uses up valuable resources" defense is played out. You need to have an nfl caliber running game if you are going to compete without a top 10 all time QB.

In terms of the draft it is relative to the rest of the talent where they are drafted, too. Zeke getting drafted in the first round wasnt a mistake. He just should have been pick 10 instead of pick 4. KC picking a RB at 32 wasnt a mistake. They just should have picked Jonathan Taylor instead of CEH. Taylor wasnt even the 2nd RB off the board, though, so a lot of teams made that mistake.

That said, there are 5 or 6 epic busts drafted right before CEH. The 2020 draft is probably a faulty measuring stick because of COVID. I dont think KC was wrong to take a RB there.

 

[averagejoe]

The 2020 draft is probably a faulty measuring stick because of COVID. I dont think KC was wrong to take a RB there.

Just out of curiosity, does KC sports radio lament CEH when Jonathon Taylor was available?

 

[Clayton]

Just out of curiosity, does KC sports radio lament CEH when Jonathon Taylor was available?

KC fans do. I personally think Tee Higgins is the obvious pick in hindsight. I was a pretty big Higgins fan although I did think CEH was going to be better than what he was. KC sports radio...or at least what I listen to...usually focuses on the positive. Nothing but good things to say about Jet McKinnon the past two seasons. Really hyped him up last year so its not a shock that he was brought back and played well. The local sports people were also the first ones to report that Pacheco was passing everyone up in the depth chart.

Generally Chiefs fans were mad at even the idea of taking an RB in rd1 before the draft. I wanted a CB but once there was a run on them I figured the pick was either going to be CEH or Kristian Fulton. Fulton fell quite a bit in the draft process. I do remember liking CEH less and less the more I looked at him as a draft prospect. I think the idea was that he was supposed to be a good receiver but it didnt show up on film at all. Burrow made him. He still had the ability to make college players miss but has only been average at that in the NFL level. Still, I thought D'andre Swift was JAG and the Jonathan Taylor was the best pure runner. I thought JK Dobbins was an equivalent to Damien Williams....which would have been fine.

CEH is probably the 2nd worst pick by Veach as a GM (he traded up to get Breeland Speaks in rd2....who was seen as a 4th rounder and played like it and wasnt a scheme fit).

 

[Clayton]

Since we're talking about average trait guys on stacked teams, Jaxon Smith-Njigba is certainly a polarizing prospect at WR. I've seen lists having him as a 2nd rounder but man does he have some fans.

 

[eaglesnut]

In terms of the draft it is relative to the rest of the talent where they are drafted, too. Zeke getting drafted in the first round wasnt a mistake. He just should have been pick 10 instead of pick 4. KC picking a RB at 32 wasnt a mistake. They just should have picked Jonathan Taylor instead of CEH. Taylor wasnt even the 2nd RB off the board, though, so a lot of teams made that mistake.

That said, there are 5 or 6 epic busts drafted right before CEH. The 2020 draft is probably a faulty measuring stick because of COVID. I dont think KC was wrong to take a RB there.

Right and I'm saying as a resource that first rounder was spent. Whether it was Taylor or CEH depends on the evaluators. But the resource is spent either way.

It could be spent on a bust at another position and KC would still be in the Super Bowl, because using the resource on a RB doesn't eliminate your ability to build a competitive roster. If they had used it on Taylor that would increase how dangerous an offense they are and would be well worth the expenditure of that resource.

Dallas would have gotten more out of Zeke if they didn't run him into the ground, but that's not a resource problem. Giants put Barkley behind a bad Oline. They wasted more resources on bust Olinemen than they did RBs.

 

[Clayton]

Right and I'm saying as a resource that first rounder was spent. Whether it was Taylor or CEH depends on the evaluators. But the resource is spent either way.

It could be spent on a bust at another position and KC would still be in the Super Bowl, because using the resource on a RB doesn't eliminate your ability to build a competitive roster. If they had used it on Taylor that would increase how dangerous an offense they are and would be well worth the expenditure of that resource.

Dallas would have gotten more out of Zeke if they didn't run him into the ground, but that's not a resource problem. Giants put Barkley behind a bad Oline. They wasted more resources on bust Olinemen than they did RBs.

It might sound counter-intuitive but I think its worth spending that resource when you do have a QB more than when you don't. The issue for me isnt that RBs lack value. Its that they lack longevity. If you have a Super Bowl window open, investing in a RB in the draft isnt a bad idea. You can build around good RBs and they usually show their value immediately.

The Giants won a playoff game with Barkley, a decent oline (finally), and a bunch of dudes at WR and QB. That team massively overachieved and RB was part of it. Niners are in a Super Bowl window and they traded for CmC. Yeah, their team fell apart but that can happen to anyone. Eagles invested in running but they also have a QB

 

[eaglesnut]

It might sound counter-intuitive but I think its worth spending that resource when you do have a QB more than when you don't. The issue for me isnt that RBs lack value. Its that they lack longevity. If you have a Super Bowl window open, investing in a RB in the draft isnt a bad idea. You can build around good RBs and they usually show their value immediately.

I completely agree with this.

The problem for some teams is they are so bad they don't get use the RB as much as they could. McCaffrey has more value to the Niners than the Panthers.

 

[TREFF]

Niners are in a Super Bowl window and they traded for CmC. Yeah, their team fell apart but that can happen to anyone. Eagles invested in running but they also have a QB

No RB, (or anyone else for that matter) is going to overcome you having to play a QB who can't use his throwing arm for half the game