mattb47 wrote:McClain was probably the other player I was really seriously considering there at that pick but I think that the Raiders moving to a 3-4 this year and that sometimes 3-4 ILBs can be somewhat inconsistent fantasy wise is what ended up moving me away from him and taking Thomas who fell pretty far from where he has normally gone.
After you took Thomas at 1.05 in NFL's Finest, I was 99% sure that's who you were going to pick after he slid to you. I haven't seen M.Williams go before Thomas and/or Benn, so I'm still interested to hear what water boy likes about him.
This just reminded me that I forgot to remind everyone before the draft that FA's are available in our rookie draft.
I'm going to edit the titles of the 6 draft threads. Hopefully everyone knew since we have 11 of 12 owners from last year (sorry Matt!). My apologies again. I usually remember to mention it before the draft & I usually make the draft threads read what they're going to read now.
mattb47 wrote:McClain was probably the other player I was really seriously considering there at that pick but I think that the Raiders moving to a 3-4 this year and that sometimes 3-4 ILBs can be somewhat inconsistent fantasy wise is what ended up moving me away from him and taking Thomas who fell pretty far from where he has normally gone.
If I wasn't already loaded at LB I'd have taken him, and still nearly did. There are plenty of 3-4 WILB that have all but put to rest the whole "3-4" myth. Hell, half my Top 12 Dynasty LBs are 3-4 WILB, including IDP numero uno hisself (and no, I'm not presuming to compare McClain to Willis).
Add in that he'll see a jillion tackle opps (approximately) playing 3 downs on that defense and I can see him finishing Top 20 fairly easily, and LB1 numbers (Top 12) wouldn't shock me a bit. Like the pick a lot, especially in that spot.
Thought about Thomas too, but between McEgo and TebowMania that team freaks me out.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
mattb47 wrote:McClain was probably the other player I was really seriously considering there at that pick but I think that the Raiders moving to a 3-4 this year and that sometimes 3-4 ILBs can be somewhat inconsistent fantasy wise is what ended up moving me away from him and taking Thomas who fell pretty far from where he has normally gone.
If I wasn't already loaded at LB I'd have taken him, and still nearly did. There are plenty of 3-4 WILB that have all but put to rest the whole "3-4" myth. Hell, half my Top 12 Dynasty LBs are 3-4 WILB, including IDP numero uno hisself (and no, I'm not presuming to compare McClain to Willis).
Add in that he'll see a jillion tackle opps (approximately) playing 3 downs on that defense and I can see him finishing Top 20 fairly easily, and LB1 numbers (Top 12) wouldn't shock me a bit. Like the pick a lot, especially in that spot.
Thought about Thomas too, but between McEgo and TebowMania that team freaks me out.
Yea, there are plenty of productive ones but there are also a whole bunch that don't quite fit as well in the 3-4 ILB spot as far as being real playmaking tacklers. I love McClain and think he'll be a great NFL player, but in the end I opted to go with the WR at my spot instead of taking McClain there. He could be a top IDP or he could even just be a great NFL player who doesn't quite translate into consistent fantasy production which does happen as well.
I'm not a huge Thomas guy either, I really took him in the other league at #5 because of need moreso than anything but here he had fallen so far that I couldn't pass him up with me needing a bit of WR depth and the fact that he'll almost certainly be getting plenty of playing time from the start.
mattb47 wrote:McClain was probably the other player I was really seriously considering there at that pick but I think that the Raiders moving to a 3-4 this year and that sometimes 3-4 ILBs can be somewhat inconsistent fantasy wise is what ended up moving me away from him and taking Thomas who fell pretty far from where he has normally gone.
If I wasn't already loaded at LB I'd have taken him, and still nearly did. There are plenty of 3-4 WILB that have all but put to rest the whole "3-4" myth. Hell, half my Top 12 Dynasty LBs are 3-4 WILB, including IDP numero uno hisself (and no, I'm not presuming to compare McClain to Willis).
Add in that he'll see a jillion tackle opps (approximately) playing 3 downs on that defense and I can see him finishing Top 20 fairly easily, and LB1 numbers (Top 12) wouldn't shock me a bit. Like the pick a lot, especially in that spot.
Thought about Thomas too, but between McEgo and TebowMania that team freaks me out.
Yea, there are plenty of productive ones but there are also a whole bunch that don't quite fit as well in the 3-4 ILB spot as far as being real playmaking tacklers. I love McClain and think he'll be a great NFL player, but in the end I opted to go with the WR at my spot instead of taking McClain there. He could be a top IDP or he could even just be a great NFL player who doesn't quite translate into consistent fantasy production which does happen as well.
I'm not a huge Thomas guy either, I really took him in the other league at #5 because of need moreso than anything but here he had fallen so far that I couldn't pass him up with me needing a bit of WR depth and the fact that he'll almost certainly be getting plenty of playing time from the start.
There are so-so 4-3 MLB as well...my point, and I'd like to stress it if only because I've become something of an IDP zealot (It's like my Backaholica only with more hittin'), is that scheme seems to have become a bit less of a bugaboo...3-4, 4-3, hybrid, whatever. Just tell me he's gonna be on the field for most of the snaps on a so-so (on a good day) defense (as Rolando will) and I'm a buyer.
Like Thomas too, the Denver heebies aside. I have an old team (on offense) getting older with a potential hole at RB, so I plugged with a guy whose 2010 upside is likely better than his 2012's. I'm the Dan Snyder of Dynasty...tomorrow can kiss my a**.
Fixing to win today.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
mattb47 wrote:needing a bit of WR depth and the fact that he'll almost certainly be getting plenty of playing time from the start.
That pretty much 'splains my drafting of Golden Tate. I need some WR explosiveness, and while his top end may be limited, I think the Maple Bar man should see a lots of passes and be a startable player by midseason.
I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 16215
(Past Year: 847)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Yards this season: 568
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows
mattb47 wrote:needing a bit of WR depth and the fact that he'll almost certainly be getting plenty of playing time from the start.
That pretty much 'splains my drafting of Golden Tate. I need some WR explosiveness, and while his top end may be limited, I think the Maple Bar man should see a lots of passes and be a startable player by midseason.
I actually do like Golden Tate a good amount...people seemed to like to focus on the measurables the guy didn't have but he was just a straight up good football player. Had the opportunity to see him play in person a couple times and he may not be the biggest or fastest, but he's a playmaker and I do think it will continue at the next level.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
