Ray_T

Yeah, thats what it feels like doesnt it?

more often than not I've found this to be more of a joke thread myself. occasionally you will see some serous predictions but there is a lot of nonsense here too. My recommendation is not to take this thread TOO seriously.

I get where you are coming from. but at the same time there are definitely some players who get injured more than average and some who just never seem to get hurt. while this is not the sole reason to pick or reject a player, I'd suggest that its important in determining risk. there are an awful lot of people who ignore this in their risk analysis, and players prone to injury will sometimes not be drafted when they should. without a doubt injury history of the player needs to factor into your analysis and ranking system. if you dont do it, you probably should. determining risk of a player with injury isnt just about saying hes injured and not performing. you actually need to research the reasons and the recovery timelines as well. ACL injuries are generally 16-20 month injuries. you can usually play in 12 months, but likely wont be able to perform at 100% at that point. There are exceptions to this, but not many. If the ACL is combined with an additional ligament injury or meniscus, you can likely tack on 6-12 months onto that recovery time as the rehab is slower and more difficult. there is also the risk of additional soft tissue injuries after returning from surgery (especially if you return early) these are the numbers I go with and I've researched this fairly extensively a couple years back so I'm reasonably confident in this recommendation. I have also not seen anything recently that suggests the numbers have changed on this recently. if you go back I have made similar posts to this effect. feel free to reference those if you like.

if you mean the burgers at the tailgate party, then yeah hes gonna cook.

agreed. the Raiders might have been one of the top 3 dysfunctional organizations in the NFL over the last 10-15 years. they may not have been the worst every year, but they were consistently very bad. There were a number of years where if someone asked you to name his WR most of the people in the fantasy community couldnt do it. Thats how bad his WR were and even then he managed to put up average to above average numbers (depending on the year) not saying he deserves to be in the hall of fame or anything, but hes better than his stats would indicate.

yeah that was a classic case of ruining the QB by not investing in your O line. it puzzles me that teams still do this. you would think they'd learn their lesson but that is clearly not the case. If I had a poor line and I was spending big time to move up in the draft to grab a QB or using a #1 overall, the first thing I'd do is I'd see if I have a good defensive player that I could trade straight across for an O lineman. throw in a draft pick if need be but get at least one solid O line guy. 2nd round pick could likely get you a decent guard or centre. and you can likely sign a free agent to plug a third hole. At that point the line still has holes, but likely at least is borderline passable. then what you do is you dont start your new QB in game 1. let him watch a few games and aim for a start after the teams bye week (or mid season whichever is later)and work on some things to get him ready. if he gets a cup of coffee in the 2nd half of the season, you have draft picks next year to draft a plug and play O lineman in year 2. Maybe sign a solid free agent as well at that point and the line (hopefully) isnt an issue. sure the defense you robbed to fix the line will need work but my general belief is that defenders are more likely to make an immediate impact than offensive guys who can sometimes take a couple years. so the opportunity will be there to rebuild the Defense. it is a process. but too many teams decide to go for the shiny new prospect on offense (wr, RB, TE) when they should be making the non sexy OT/OG pick.

well, on this one issue I'll say this. it does not matter how good your player is if they are not on the field. to that end the best ability is availability but nearly all players have it. so then you go to the tiebreakers. which would involve the skill of the player

one thing I will say. in most leagues it has been my experience if you have a RB injury, RB's seem to be harder to trade for than WR most of the time. for that reason I give the tie to the RB when I value a RB and a WR roughly equally. but that is my personal preference

I really liked Ray davis when I saw him play. I'd like to see what this kid could do with more playing time

100%. acceleration, start stop and change of direction are far better indicators for a RB. Cone drill helps there. pure speed by itself is nothing without those other abilities. as well as the ability to read the blocks. I've seen RB with slightly subpar speed perform decently because they are so good at reading the blocks that they see the hole is about to open up and they head that direction before the hole opens up and they are through the moment that hole opens up. elusiveness and/or ability to break a tackle are huge too. I dont care how a RB gets through the line. by being elusive so its hard to get to them or if they power through the tackle. the important thing is that they can get through the line and gain their 4-6 yards. after that everything they earn is gravy.

I dont know.... with multiple ACL surgeries for Chubb, and 29 years old. I'm not sure hes gonna start. they only signed him for like 2.2 or 2.3 mil I think. thats not starter money. My guess is hes gonna be the short yardage back and mixon will be the every down guy. I suppose there is always the chance Chubb blows the doors off but I'd honestly bet against that. it hasnt even been 12 months since the surgery. I'd put my money on Mixon to have a similar year to last year minus a couple TD which Chubb will vulture.

he has a far better chance at success here than he did in New York. its now up to him to make good on this.

without a doubt. if hes not the first RB off the board in whatever draft format you have, I'd be seriously surprised.

Look at that I agree too. Me, Iceman and Weepaws all agree on something. has this ever happened before? just kidding mostly, but you guys were saying exactly what I was thinking.

yeah, he seems a little entitled now. but that sometimes happens when players become as good as he became. hes been like this for a while but nobody cared about that as long as he is producing. the fact that his numbers are down a bit has made people focus on other things like this sense of entitlement. I personally dont mind if a player gains that sense of entitlement so long as hes bringing it on the field. Rodgers is not as good as he once was, so that sense of entitlement is now suddenly viewed as a problem. To be clear, his numbers were not actually bad this last year. they just were not in line with what we are accustomed to seeing from him just under 4000 yards 28 TD and 11 INT. not all star calibre, but when you look at that TD-INT ratio its not bad. part of the problem there was that the defense was a shadow of what it was the year prior. so when the offense sits while the other team puts up a long, sustained drive, it can kill your momentum and timing. either way, hes still a solid QB. but hes now at a stage in his career where he needs to be in the right situation to be successful. In Pittsburgh, they run a fairly conservative offense. I actually expect similar numbers to what he put up last year. maybe slightly better as the D is better so they should have more plays from scrimmage. likely a few extra TD as Rodgers will start on a short field more often. so from that perspective I'll predict 4100-4200 yards passing. 32 TD and 10 INT. perfectly adequate if the defense does their job. He just wont be a fixture on my fantasy team unless there is reason to roster more than one QB I do reserve the right to adjust this prediction as more info comes available lol.