Fantasy Football News and Rumors

[shopson67]

Indy is going somewhere?

He's done there apparently. Is Taylor's only requirement that he gets paid, or does he want to go to a team with a chance to win?

 

[shopson67]

I look at the entire thing this way--
if you're not the Chiefs or Eagles, how do you beat the Chiefs or Eagles? Realistically, you're unlikely to outscore them any given week, yes it could happen, but is that the plan? if so great, than keep on doing what you're doing, and best of luck to you come playoff time.
Can your defense stop them? Again, realistically, with very few exceptions, very unlikely.
So what can you do? keep the ball away from them, control the clock, bleed the time dry. How do you do that? by running the ball, period.

No RB has to lead a team to a SB to be worth a big investment, they just have to do their job, exceedingly well. I really can't understand why we keep going back to that tired line. No WR, other than MAYBE Kupp, has ever 'led' his team to a SB, and he needed Stafford to do it, otherwise he could've done it with Goff, so its arguable at best as to whether he 'led' the team to a SB, and they get whatever they want, traded for #1's whatever..so its an entirely irrelevant point.
If a number 1 pick, or equivalent to it, and a new 12+ million dollar a year contract are what it takes, to kill the clock vs the Chiefs or Eagles, or whomever, in a the SB, or Conference title game, or a playoff game, nursing a 2 point lead with 4 minutes to go, than what's the problem?
If trading/signing a guy who 9 out of ten times, you hand him the ball 6 times, he gets you two first downs and ends the game, that seems like one helluva small price to pay. And couldn't you care less as to whether he had 200 yards and 3 scores in that game, or 50 and zero?.
If you think you can do that with Jeff Wilson and Mostert, or Mattison, or J. Cook and Harris, or Mixon, or who ever, than great, enjoy that blissful ignorance from the comfort of your easy chairs in January.

and obviously, if your roster is not in a place where that type of moves makes that type of difference, you don't even consider a deal..ridiculous for anyone not on the short list of realistic SB contenders to even consider this move outside of making a PR splash

The problem is that the replacement level RBs are getting the job done adequately and RB is a position where these guys get worn down with use and are increasingly prone to injury as they age. Maybe these top RBs should refuse to sign 4 year deals as rookies, since once they are through the 4 year rookie contract (and 5th year option if a 1st round pick), they are 26-27 years old and considered a risk if extended more than a year or two. Locking up a RB beyond their 28 or 29 year old season is playing with fire.

 

[eaglesnut]

The problem is that the replacement level RBs are getting the job done adequately and RB is a position where these guys get worn down with use and are increasingly prone to injury as they age. Maybe these top RBs should refuse to sign 4 year deals as rookies, since once they are through the 4 year rookie contract (and 5th year option if a 1st round pick), they are 26-27 years old and considered a risk if extended more than a year or two. Locking up a RB beyond their 28 or 29 year old season is playing with fire.

Can't listen to rams fans about this because they forget that Gurley was on borrowed knees his whole career. No replacement RB is as good as Taylor. That is incredibly stupid.

 

[shopson67]

Can't listen to rams fans about this because they forget that Gurley was on borrowed knees his whole career. No replacement RB is as good as Taylor. That is incredibly stupid.

he Rams' careless nature is not limited to any one position, and I was not implying Taylor is a bad spend, just that the two might match up for a trade/extension rather easily. They actually own their 1st rounder next year and it must be burning a hole in their pocket...

 

[TREFF]

The problem is that the replacement level RBs are getting the job done adequately

But are they though?

that's where we disagree. I don't consider what these guys have been doing, by and large, to be 'adequate'. In some cases, sure, Isiah Pacheco, Mostert, Wilson, and so on and such, are doing an 'adequate' job. They are not the reason their teams are not winning or not in the playoffs, or didn't advance in the playoff, they are, more or less, fulfilling their job adequately, yes.

And for those that are, why is 'adequate' acceptable when your trying win? IF your a team realistically competing for the playoffs, for the SB, why would you settle for adequate, when 'better', or 'great', is easily achievable?

Honestly, there's only one question that needs to be answered-
If your season is on the line, playoffs or otherwise, who do you feel better about handing the ball to in order to get that last first down, close the game and advance/make confetti snowmen? Jonathon Taylor or random, cheaper RB X? The answer is easy IMHO, so what's the discussion, honestly?

 

[Bandit]

I look at the entire thing this way--
if you're not the Chiefs or Eagles, how do you beat the Chiefs or Eagles? Realistically, you're unlikely to outscore them any given week, yes it could happen, but is that the plan? if so great, than keep on doing what you're doing, and best of luck to you come playoff time.
Can your defense stop them? Again, realistically, with very few exceptions, very unlikely.
So what can you do? keep the ball away from them, control the clock, bleed the time dry. How do you do that? by running the ball, period.

No RB has to lead a team to a SB to be worth a big investment, they just have to do their job, exceedingly well. I really can't understand why we keep going back to that tired line. No WR, other than MAYBE Kupp, has ever 'led' his team to a SB, and he needed Stafford to do it, otherwise he could've done it with Goff, so its arguable at best as to whether he 'led' the team to a SB, and they get whatever they want, traded for #1's whatever..so its an entirely irrelevant point.
If a number 1 pick, or equivalent to it, and a new 12+ million dollar a year contract are what it takes, to kill the clock vs the Chiefs or Eagles, or whomever, in a the SB, or Conference title game, or a playoff game, nursing a 2 point lead with 4 minutes to go, than what's the problem?
If trading/signing a guy who 9 out of ten times, you hand him the ball 6 times, he gets you two first downs and ends the game, that seems like one helluva small price to pay. And couldn't you care less as to whether he had 200 yards and 3 scores in that game, or 50 and zero?.
If you think you can do that with Jeff Wilson and Mostert, or Mattison, or J. Cook and Harris, or Mixon, or who ever, than great, enjoy that blissful ignorance from the comfort of your easy chairs in January.

and obviously, if your roster is not in a place where that type of moves makes that type of difference, you don't even consider a deal..ridiculous for anyone not on the short list of realistic SB contenders to even consider this move outside of making a PR splash

So here's the thing. This is all true, but the problem is that it's not at all how the NFL executives feel and I'm not exactly sure what will have to happen to change their minds. Me saying that a running back needs to excel and lead it's team to the Super Bowl and then have a monster game is only because I think that's the only way the NFL executives will change their mindset regarding the running back position. They clearly feel like the Jeff Wilson's, James Cook's, and Jerick McKinnon's of the world are good enough to win the Super Bowl with if they have a good enough offensive line and a great quarterback. The value that a great running back adds isn't enough to offset the cost of him comparable to paying the other positions so they just aren't going to do it. I think a lot of this just has to do with the offensive philosophy changing so much over the years. Teams used to identify and be proud of their running games. Being able to push another team around, dominate the line of scrimmage, and run it down their throats was a point of pride. Now if teams can't run the ball, they don't care, they just use it as an excuse to throw more.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

They actually own their 1st rounder next year and it must be burning a hole in their pocket...

1st one since....Goff

 

[averagejoe]

Now if teams can't run the ball, they don't care, they just use it as an excuse to throw more.

And it seems more GM's are taking @The Foot approach... draft a couple speedy wideouts and sling it. Even KC doesn't care about actually running the ball.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

Pat Mahomes is 1-2 vs the Titans in the regular season over the last 4 seasons, so grinding it out is still a path to victory if you have the horse for it

 

[MilkSpiller22]

And it seems more GM's are taking @The Foot approach... draft a couple speedy wideouts and sling it. Even KC doesn't care about actually running the ball.

but KC doesnt care about WRs either... really weird offense... similar to the Brady Patriots where it was Gronk time always...

 

[SmokingMonkey]

^his only victory was a come from behind OT victory by a FG against Malik Willis

 

[MilkSpiller22]

actually the Chiefs offense is exactly that... they are a more productive Patriots offense.... just the difference is that the patriots had a defense...

 

[shopson67]

But are they though?

that's where we disagree. I don't consider what these guys have been doing, by and large, to be 'adequate'. In some cases, sure, Isiah Pacheco, Mostert, Wilson, and so on and such, are doing an 'adequate' job. They are not the reason their teams are not winning or not in the playoffs, or didn't advance in the playoff, they are, more or less, fulfilling their job adequately, yes.

And for those that are, why is 'adequate' acceptable when your trying win? IF your a team realistically competing for the playoffs, for the SB, why would you settle for adequate, when 'better', or 'great', is easily achievable?

Honestly, there's only one question that needs to be answered-
If your season is on the line, playoffs or otherwise, who do you feel better about handing the ball to in order to get that last first down, close the game and advance/make confetti snowmen? Jonathon Taylor or random, cheaper RB X? The answer is easy IMHO, so what's the discussion, honestly?

It is easy? No bell cow back in last year's Super Bowl. Eagles leading RB had 21 yards, Pacheco had 76. The year prior? Mixon had 72, Rams leading RB had 21 yards. The prior year you had the Bucs splitting carries and the leading KC rusher with 9 carries.

Of these guys trying to get paid this year (Taylor, Chubb, Jacobs, Elliott, Hunt, Cook, Barkley), how many have led their teams anywhere significant?

 

[shopson67]

but KC doesnt care about WRs either... really weird offense... similar to the Brady Patriots where it was Gronk time always...

Zero RB and zero WR approach in FFL terms. Hero QB and Hero TE, definitely the path less traveled...

 

[TREFF]

And it seems more GM's are taking @The Foot approach... draft a couple speedy wideouts and sling it. Even KC doesn't care about actually running the ball.

I think they do..Reid has always had a strong running back, or at least always had an offense geared towards a strong running game overall. Staley, Mitchell, Westbrook, Shady, Charles. It was only after Jamaal Charles dropped off the face of the earth that KC has been unable to land a strong RB, but not for lack of trying, they didn't spend that #1 on CEH just because they didn't care about having a RB, they just picked a guy that wasn't what they thought he was.

 

[TREFF]

It is easy? No bell cow back in last year's Super Bowl. Eagles leading RB had 21 yards, Pacheco had 76. The year prior? Mixon had 72, Rams leading RB had 21 yards. The prior year you had the Bucs splitting carries and the leading KC rusher with 9 carries.

Of these guys trying to get paid this year (Taylor, Chubb, Jacobs, Elliott, Hunt, Cook, Barkley), how many have led their teams anywhere significant?

Same irrelevant argument already addressed.
Its okay for a WR who can't lead their teams anywhere to get paid, to get traded for #1's, but not the RB's, because "they don't lead their team to SB's"

Name me that WR who threw and caught the pass that won his team anything.

and to directly address the question- if not for Jacobs, Chubb, and Barkely, their teams would've been bottom of the barrel cellar dwellers, all were playoff contenders up until the last week of the season, Giants even got in and beat the VIkes..thats where they were led

 

[TREFF]

So here's the thing. This is all true, but the problem is that it's not at all how the NFL executives feel and I'm not exactly sure what will have to happen to change their minds. Me saying that a running back needs to excel and lead it's team to the Super Bowl and then have a monster game is only because I think that's the only way the NFL executives will change their mindset regarding the running back position. They clearly feel like the Jeff Wilson's, James Cook's, and Jerick McKinnon's of the world are good enough to win the Super Bowl with if they have a good enough offensive line and a great quarterback. The value that a great running back adds isn't enough to offset the cost of him comparable to paying the other positions so they just aren't going to do it. I think a lot of this just has to do with the offensive philosophy changing so much over the years. Teams used to identify and be proud of their running games. Being able to push another team around, dominate the line of scrimmage, and run it down their throats was a point of pride. Now if teams can't run the ball, they don't care, they just use it as an excuse to throw more.

I'm not even sure if a RB was named MVP of the regular season, and was named SB MVP, that GM's would change their minds much if any. Every time an later round pick or UDFA explodes out of nowhere for 1200 plus, that's all they see.

 

[eaglesnut]

But are they though?

that's where we disagree. I don't consider what these guys have been doing, by and large, to be 'adequate'. In some cases, sure, Isiah Pacheco, Mostert, Wilson, and so on and such, are doing an 'adequate' job. They are not the reason their teams are not winning or not in the playoffs, or didn't advance in the playoff, they are, more or less, fulfilling their job adequately, yes.

And for those that are, why is 'adequate' acceptable when your trying win? IF your a team realistically competing for the playoffs, for the SB, why would you settle for adequate, when 'better', or 'great', is easily achievable?

Honestly, there's only one question that needs to be answered-
If your season is on the line, playoffs or otherwise, who do you feel better about handing the ball to in order to get that last first down, close the game and advance/make confetti snowmen? Jonathon Taylor or random, cheaper RB X? The answer is easy IMHO, so what's the discussion, honestly?

Exactly. These teams are abusing RBs because they can get away with it. Not because it's smart or prudent or beneficial to winning.

 

[eaglesnut]

And it seems more GM's are taking @The Foot approach... draft a couple speedy wideouts and sling it. Even KC doesn't care about actually running the ball.

KC should already have Taylor. They spent a first on a terrible back.

 

[shopson67]

Same irrelevant argument already addressed.
Its okay for a WR who can't lead their teams anywhere to get paid, to get traded for #1's, but not the RB's, because "they don't lead their team to SB's"

Name me that WR who threw and caught the pass that won his team anything.

and to directly address the question- if not for Jacobs, Chubb, and Barkely, their teams would've been bottom of the barrel cellar dwellers, all were playoff contenders up until the last week of the season, Giants even got in and beat the VIkes..thats where they were led

What RB wins anything without an O-line, or the QB to hand it to him? A RB runs through open space created by others. The league leader (with something approaching starters' touches) last year in yards after contact averaged 2.6 (Pollard). The broken tackles leader was approx 2/game (Henry).

The Giants finally got a full season out of Barkley (and he did at least sign his franchise tag). The Raiders won 6 games, the Browns 7. If you're going to call those contenders, this discussion is pointless. The Vikings had one of the luckiest seasons in history, winning 13 games with a negative point differential on the season. They thought so much of their bell cow RB that they waived him.