2005 RB situation.... - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

2005 RB situation....

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Azrael » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:58 pm

1. Yes, Carolina was more of an inconsistency last year to start the year. And while Davis was the clear cut starter, he was by no means the feature back. It was understood going into last year that Foster could take up to 50% of the carries away from Davis. This year Foster will clearly be the starter and Davis may spell him. Goings will not figure into the mix. The only reason he played was because Foster and Davis were both done for the year. I think there was even another guy in front of Goings that was hurt.

2. I think Suggs will be the clear cut starter and Droughns will be a backup. Droughns is not that good of a running back. Of all the people who have been through Denver's stellar running system, he did the worst, even underachieved for what a running back should do in Denver. Sure he had a few big games but he started but he couldn't score TDs and started losing time at the end of the year after he fumbled 5 times in 7 games.

3. I don't see the StL situation as muddy. Jackson will start out the year in the role Marshall Faulk had last year and will produce and keep Faulk off the field, which Faulk could not do, but because Jackson is a big, strong, talented RB. He's good. He'll be the feature back and do well.

4. You're wrong on Tampa and Minnesota. Garner was only the clear cut starter because Pittman was suspended the first 4 games of the year for whoopin on his wife. No one drafted Garner as the starter because they knew Pittman would get back into the mix after his suspension. Bennett was not the clear cut starter going into the year. He had a broken foot remember? This left people wondering how Minnesota would use Smith and Williams and then what would happen when Bennett returned?

5. Staley was known to be the starter between the 10s but we also knew that Bettis was going to be the battering ram inside the 5 going into the year.

All of the situations I mentioned in the previous post were there to start the year.

6. If Miami and Arizona draft one of the big time runningbacks in this year's draft, you can guarantee that guy will be their main man all the way because everyone else they have at RB is garbage.

You're also talking about players that you can "rely on". That's all debatable on who you can rely on as a RB. You've got your studs, a few solid producers, an then a slew of guys that could go one way or the other and all I'm saying is there are quite a bit more of those guys this year than last year. And if you take studs at other positions early on, you will not lose much value at RB from those guys who drafted RBs in the late 2nd and early 3rd round.

And as for RBs you can rely on, someone has to rely on them. With a 12 team league, there are at least 24 RBs that have to be relied on.
Image
Azrael
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 8283
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight

Postby Free Bagel » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:20 pm

Azrael wrote:1. Yes, Carolina was more of an inconsistency last year to start the year. And while Davis was the clear cut starter, he was by no means the feature back. It was understood going into last year that Foster could take up to 50% of the carries away from Davis. This year Foster will clearly be the starter and Davis may spell him. Goings will not figure into the mix. The only reason he played was because Foster and Davis were both done for the year. I think there was even another guy in front of Goings that was hurt.


Yes, to start the year, because that's what we're talking about here. Davis was definitely the clearcut starter and feature back last year, Foster was rumored to get a couple carries a game, kind of like we hear about 10 different teams every offseason that never amounts to anything. Had Davis not gotten hurt Foster would never have gotten more than 5 carries a game. If you're seriously saying that something like that means that the player is in a muddy situation then you can't even count Priest this year, because apparently "LJ is going to get carries this year." Same kind of situation going into last year w/ Davis/Foster.

And where in the world did you hear that Foster will clearly be the starter? If Foster were clearly the starter he'd be a 2nd round pick. The reason he's going in rounds 5-7 is because nobody has any idea who's going to be the starter in Carolina this year.

Azrael wrote:2. I think Suggs will be the clear cut starter and Droughns will be a backup.


You think?? That makes this a clear situation? Suggs value has had the bottom fall out since Droughns came aboard, and with the ferver that Cleveland has been searching for another RB there's no way you could possibly say that it's clear that they'll be making Suggs their feature back.

Azrael wrote:3. I don't see the StL situation as muddy. Jackson will start out the year in the role Marshall Faulk had last year and will produce and keep Faulk off the field, which Faulk could not do, but because Jackson is a big, strong, talented RB. He's good. He'll be the feature back and do well.


There's not an ounce fact in that statement. So Jackson will break the RBBC because he's a big, strong, talented RB? There's not a more general statement you could make there. I could say the same thing about TJ Duckett but that doesn't make it any closer to true. A bench player Marshall Faulk is not.

Azrael wrote:4. You're wrong on Tampa and Minnesota. Garner was only the clear cut starter because Pittman was suspended the first 4 games of the year for whoopin on his wife. No one drafted Garner as the starter because they knew Pittman would get back into the mix after his suspension.


Well gee, you'd better go back and tell that to all those people that were taking Garner in the 4th round last year, because I dunno about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't take a RB that's only gonna be the feature back for 4 games on one of the (at the time) worst offensive teams in the league in the 4th round. No way Garner would've gone that early in the situation you described. Garner was drafted as the clear starter, before last year's breakout Pittman was an inch away from being out of the league.

Azrael wrote:Bennett was not the clear cut starter going into the year. He had a broken foot remember? This left people wondering how Minnesota would use Smith and Williams and then what would happen when Bennett returned?


Notice that in the Minn. section I said at draft time, which is what we're talking about. Bennett was a late 2nd/early 3rd round pick as a starter last year in most drafts up until he got hurt, and I'm pretty sure that date that he got hurt was after most drafts were already complete.

Azrael wrote:6. If Miami and Arizona draft one of the big time runningbacks in this year's draft, you can guarantee that guy will be their main man all the way because everyone else they have at RB is garbage.


Garbage? Garbage like Artose Pinner, Eddie George, and a tiny scared RB named Quentin Griffin? Because those are the great RBs that last year's rookies had to contend with, and none of them claimed the feature back role until after week 10. People all assumed the guys like KJ last year were the automatic feature backs just like they assume brown, cadillac, etc are going to go into week 1 this year getting all the carries. Ask those people that drafted KJ as a starter last year how the first 8 weeks or so of the season went for them. People just don't get it with rookies, you cannot draft rookies to start for you immediately, because they are always worked slowly into the game, even when they lack any decent competition at the position as was the case with Detroit, Dallas, and Denver last year.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby Free Bagel » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:34 pm

Just for kicks:
Going into 2004:
Priest
LT
Ahman
Portis
Deuce
SA
J. Lewis
Edge
Taylor
DD
Henry
Rudi
Barlow
Dillon
Faulk
Westy
Tiki
Brown
Bennett
Davis
Cmart
TJ
Garner

Total: 23


2005:
LT
Priest
Willis
SA
Brown
Edge
Ahman
Deuce
Portis
J. Lewis
DD
Tiki
KJ
Rudi
Cmart
JJ
Westy
TJ
Taylor
Bell

Total: 20

Now, I felt I was pretty generous on this list to in not counting KJ, Staley, and Griffin for 2004, and even still 2004 actually came out ahead.

So where exactly is this mysterious added RB depth this year?
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby MadScott » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:37 pm

Free Bagel wrote:Just for kicks:
Going into 2004:
Priest
LT
Ahman
Portis
Deuce
SA
J. Lewis
Edge
Taylor
DD
Henry
Rudi
Barlow
Dillon
Faulk
Westy
Tiki
Brown
Bennett
Davis
Cmart
TJ
Garner

Total: 23


2005:
LT
Priest
Willis
SA
Brown
Edge
Ahman
Deuce
Portis
J. Lewis
DD
Tiki
KJ
Rudi
Cmart
JJ
Westy
TJ
Taylor
Bell

Total: 20

Now, I felt I was pretty generous on this list to in not counting KJ, Staley, and Griffin for 2004, and even still 2004 actually came out ahead.

So where exactly is this mysterious added RB depth this year?
For starters Lamont Jordan and Kevan Barlow are not on your list.
Image
I like simple pleasures, like butter in my ass, lollipops in my mouth. That's just me.
MadScott
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5924
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Azrael » Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:13 pm

Ok, obviously we are not on the same page here. You observed certain people as one thing and I think that they are another. That's where the RB depth is coming into play. You are discounting certain people I am assuming to be starters in 2005, such as Foster, Suggs, and Steven Jackson and are considering people to be feature backs at the start of 2004 that I think were not clear cut starters, namely Garner, Bennett, and Stephen Davis. Throw in Arizona and Miami, who I believe at least one will if not both will obtain a feature back for this year and there's the mysterious RB depth. My reasoning is that these RBs drafted early in the first round getting the big money aren't going to be sitting on their asses "learning" for a year in a backup or mixed role. They'll play right away and all the time.

Alot of things could change between now and draft time of course; but right now I view the RB pool to be deeper than last year.
Image
Azrael
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 8283
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight

Postby Santacruzer » Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:09 am

I also heard that "going" into last year that Foster / Davis were going to split about 50 / 50 as well. I would have definitely not called Davis a clear cut starter.

People just don't get it with rookies, you cannot draft rookies to start for you immediately, because they are always worked slowly into the game, even when they lack any decent competition at the position as was the case with Detroit, Dallas, and Denver last year.


I parcially agree with you. I would not start a rookie on my roster in week 1, but I would sure draft one.

Your examples are not accurate either. KJ started the first 3 weeks, he carried the ball 15 times in week 1(Pinner, and Bryson had a combined total of 8), week 2 he carried 12 times (P & B total 7), and then got hurt. So you can't base that as slowly being worked in, or not being adjusted to the NFL.

Julius was outright hurt for the first 9 games, and then even played in what some figure to be an extraordinary amount of pain. So if you want to call his first games week 10, 11, and 12, well.......he carried for 30, 33, and 30 times respectively.

And Denver. Quentin was not a rookie. And Tatum was hurt.

So yes, I do get it with rookies.
Santacruzer
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 2691
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Calgary, Canada

Postby Tyr » Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:52 am

Welcome back, Plindsey.. your threads last season were almost all money. Being new to IDP, and competitive FF in general, some of your posts were amazingly helpful. ;-D

On to your revised list..

For the most part, I think it's gold.. it almost exactly matches the list that I've scrawled out for myself, with only a few minor exceptions. I have Priest at 4 and McGahee at 5, and I have Tiki bumped over DD and Dillon. Westy, JJ, and TJ are all over LaMont Jordan, as well... although the TJ thing is more gut than based in reality :-b
Image
Tyr
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 762
Joined: 5 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: NH

Postby Plindsey88 » Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:18 am

Tyr wrote:Welcome back, Plindsey.. your threads last season were almost all money. Being new to IDP, and competitive FF in general, some of your posts were amazingly helpful. ;-D

On to your revised list..

For the most part, I think it's gold.. it almost exactly matches the list that I've scrawled out for myself, with only a few minor exceptions. I have Priest at 4 and McGahee at 5, and I have Tiki bumped over DD and Dillon. Westy, JJ, and TJ are all over LaMont Jordan, as well... although the TJ thing is more gut than based in reality :-b



Thanks.... I'm always happy to be of any assistance I can....
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Azrael » Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:33 pm

Yeah thanks Plindsey, I hadn't had a good argument in awhile. :-b
Image
Azrael
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 8283
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight

Postby Free Bagel » Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:32 pm

MadScott wrote:Lamont Jordan and Kevan Barlow are not on your list.

Whoops, I was going down the Cafe Rankings list and those must've been done before Jordan got signed in Oaktown so I didn't see his name, Barlow was just an oversight.
Azrael wrote:You are discounting certain people I am assuming to be starters in 2005, such as Suggs

Well Suggs is easy to discount:
From Fanball.com:

The Browns' acquisition of running back Reuben Droughns means the position will be a job share, according to GM Phil Savage. "We wanted to bring in somebody that would be different than Lee Suggs," Savage told the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "We feel those two guys will be working in combination with each other. We think there's even a situation where maybe both can be on the field together."

Azrael wrote:Foster

Do you REALLY think that if Foster was the clearcut starter in Carolina he'd be going in rounds 5-7 of most mocks with the numbers he's put up when he's played and the numbers Carolina produces out of their RB's? Not a chance, he'd be going in the 2nd round EASILY. Last I'd checked, Davis has started every game he's been healthy for since he's been on the Panthers, and I haven't heard ANY news out of ANYONE in Carolina or the media that says that Foster is the starter. This situation is about as muddy as it gets, and I'll cover it even deeper further down.
Azrael wrote:Steven Jackson

This one in my mind is at least semi-arguable, whereas the last two I don't think were. Regardless of whether you think he's going to get 85+% of the carries or not, there's NO WAY you can claim he's the clearcut starter while saying that last year guy's like Quentin Griffin were not.
Azrael wrote:and are considering people to be feature backs at the start of 2004 that I think were not clear cut starters, namely Garner, Bennett, and Stephen Davis.

Garner - Not sure what to say here, didn't Pittman go undrafted in most leagues? If he had a chance to start even after his suspension you'd think he would've had some draft value in some league. People dont' draft rb's from one of the worst rushing teams in the 4th round unless they know they're the starter.

Bennett - Bennet had started every game the last few years that he had been healthy for. Onterrio was nothing more than a 4th round rookie that was a longshot to steal the job at some point during the season, Williams was nothing more than a goalline vulture (more on that later), and no one even knew who Mewelde Moore was. Bennett wouldn't have been going at the end of the 2nd round if people didn't think he was the starter.
Azrael wrote:Throw in Arizona and Miami, who I believe at least one will if not both will obtain a feature back for this year and there's the mysterious RB depth. My reasoning is that these RBs drafted early in the first round getting the big money aren't going to be sitting on their asses "learning" for a year in a backup or mixed role. They'll play right away and all the time.

Uh, why not? Teams let their high priced rookies "learn" for a year all the time. I'll get to more on rookies further down, but if you're going to count those two this year, then you'd have to count KJ and maybe even JJ (who I left off the list for last year) for last year. Plus there's just as likely to be another team that clouds up their RB situation in the draft, like all the mocks that have the Bears taking Cedric Benson which would knock the Bears situation off this year's list. So really even if you do try and count Zona and Miami you're going to end up just breaking even as you'll definitely have to count Detroit last year and may end up having to knock someone off this year if they cloud up their RB situation in the draft.

Santacruzer wrote:I also heard that "going" into last year that Foster / Davis were going to split about 50 / 50 as well. I would have definitely not called Davis a clear cut starter.

So let me get this straight. Foster and Davis were going to split carries evenly, and everyone drafted the old tired 30 year old Davis 5+ rounds ahead of the young up and coming Foster? Riiiiiiiiiiight. The fact of the matter is that the Davis/Foster situation last year was basically EXACTLY the same as the KC is this year. You've got a young gifted RB who's said to get "8-10 carries a game" by some coach in camp (and we all know how reliable that is), but who's real value comes from the fact that they're backing up and oft-injured stud in a system that produces good RB numbers.

So, you want to discount the Carolina situation last year? Fine, but then you'd have to discount KC this year, because they're pretty much the same damned thing.
Santacruzer wrote:Your examples are not accurate either. KJ started the first 3 weeks, he carried the ball 15 times in week 1(Pinner, and Bryson had a combined total of 8), week 2 he carried 12 times (P & B total 7), and then got hurt. So you can't base that as slowly being worked in, or not being adjusted to the NFL.

As a KJ owner last year, I can tell you that was most certainly not a 'feature back' in the true sense of the word until the end of last season. As I watched the game tracker I cringed as he constantly was taken out of the game. 15 and 12 carries are not something you see from a guy you want to be one of your 2 starting RB's. KJ was not given 20 carries in a game until week 12, which he followed up with games of 26 carries and 33 carries. It was at this point that he truly took the featured back role for himself, and it was at this point that he finally was a reliable fantasy starter. If I had drafted him as a starter, I would've been supremely hurting for 11 weeks. That's generally how it works with rookie players, they're worked in. To expect it to be clearcut that they're going to come in and immediately take on a featured role and have the ball fed to them is crazy. I can think of only two backs within a reasonable timespan that have done that: LT and (I think) Eddie George. Two guys in about 7 years, and we want to say that two guys are clearcut to do that this one year alone? Right....

Everyone just assumes every year that any highly drafted rookie on a team that doesn't have other good players at that position is going to immediately be involved in the offense to the extent that someone that's been in the league 5 years would, and every year they are proven wrong (I had almost this exact arguement with CBM last year about him relying on rookies to start for him -- and even with one of the best NFL-wide rookie campaigns in the last decade he finished dead last in that league), only to forget about it again when all the NFL draft hype comes back. You rely on a rookie to start for you out of the gates, and you lose 19 times out of 20.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 13:41 hours
(and 36 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact