Ray_T

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.

Marinos era, Shula was the coach everyone was trying to imitate. back in those days if you got 240-250 yards almost weekly you were considered a very good fantasy QB. but offenses have evolved drastically since then. Marino broke through that wall (more or less) and that was the point where offenses started to convert from run based to passing offenses. it didnt happen overnight. Marino and Fouts, and Joe montana were QB's that changed (to some degree) the way an NFL offense operates. Mahomes was the second generation of new age QB for Andy Reid. first generation was Donovan McNabb. both players take features of the running QB and use a drop back passing scheme to make it happen. its almost like a hybrid west coast offense that is somewhat unique. granted that has evolved since the McNabb days but Reid knows what he is doing.

I'd agree with this. Brees was by far a more efficient QB his stats are better. I dont see why we would even question his admission to the HOF. there is no way his team wins a superbowl without him there. gotta also agree. 5000 yard season for Winston, but arguably he was as much of a help as he was a hindrance. when I played HS football, as a rookie I put up a ton of yards passing. but turned the ball over too much. coach told me to think of it this way: an INT is worth 30-40 yards passin6). and a fumble is worth 50. Pick 6 is likely worth more. (lets say 100 yards for fantasy purposes) factor that into your stats and then you see who the better QB truly is. and honestly this method of analysis has rarely failed me in terms of ranking of the QB. I fully acknowledge there is likely an exception to every rule so if you find one, feel free to post it here. but for my purposes, this tells me all I need to know most of the time.

yeah, and this is one of those situations where his stats can improve in 2 ways. 1) (the obvious one) bring in players to improve the offense. 2) the not so obvious one, bring in players to help the defense. while this seems to be not as important I fully disagree. if the other team is constantly putting together long, sustained drives, the offense does not get enough time on the field. so when the D gets better, your time of possession and the number of plays you can run on offense gets larger. and if the D gets some turnovers the short field means more of their offensive drives end in points (hopefully TD's) in my mind the D was pretty bad last year, so any improvement there helps the offense too.

yep. Russ was pretty good. its only in recent years his game had to change as he got older and couldnt run the ball like he could before. Today, hes basically a drop back pocket passer now who can occasionally run when the occasion calls for it. not the running dual threat QB he was to start his career. think Alex Smith who was capable of running but didnt do so with all that much regularity. I think he peaked at 4 or 500 yards rushing. but most years was closer to 200 or so. either way, the early part of his career he was a fantasy darling. and thats not bad

I hope you are right. I drafted him in my keeper league and I'd like to see him fulfil his potential

I fully agree. it feels like the offense was well designed. how much of that is good coaching and how much is good QB play remains to be seen. but if Darnold stinks it up in his new home, I'd be inclined at that point to think it is the coach.

that might be a stretch, but he looked decent. not quite top end, but good.

of course you do. thats the main reason you make this deal. if the floors not there, you're not making that trade.

and you might be right. but based on where the market is. I felt it was a fair trade overall. you got a guy who is more likely to make it as a QB. and while the guy you gave up has a higher ceiling, the chances of fulfilling his potential are somewhat low. its one of those deals that is close enough that I could see some people thinking you may not have made the smartest trade. but I like the deal. my two cents worth.

McCarthy doesnt have the upside of richardson, but I think he has a better chance of being a Plus starter. Richardsons potential is sky high, but at this point in his career his chances of meeting that potential is considerably below 50-50. (i'd say probably closer to 20%) McCarthy has a better chance of being a good starter. Likely at least 50-50. possibly 60-40. but his upside isnt where Richardsons is. in the end, you got a solid, likely above average starter for a boom bust prospect and a first. I think thats likely a fair trade.

that is the problem. we dont know the reason. not for sure anyways. but yeah, I thought Palmer was gonna have a good year, but maybe the issue is that hes not where he needs to be. when I played QB there was a WR on my team who used to get open a fair bit, but he often did not run the route he was supposed to run. To that end, he asked why I didnt hit him and the answer was, you were my second read. I looked at my first read, and he wasnt open. I looked for you and you were not in the place I thought you were supposed to be. I have big O linemen in my face at that point and I had to check it down. I didnt have time to look for you. then I said, if you want the football, you need to be where you are supposed to be if you want the ball. if I have to look for you, I'm gonna take a sack. eventually he started running the routes I wanted, but it took some time for him to make this connection and make it happen on the field. He eventually became my #1 WR but it did not happen overnight.

this largely says it all. and fully agree with Dr. G. he was on a lot of bad teams and put up numbers that varied between Meh and good with one very good year mixed in. as a real life QB I ranked him higher because of the # of 4th quarter comebacks he led (which were numerous) but that admittedly isnt a stat that counts for fantasy. Fantasy wise hes been a mid to high end QB2 or low end QB 1 most years.