Chester Taylor

[Nichee 0]

* There is talk that Chester Taylor didn't show up to the team's offseason workout program in good shape and hasn't made any Brownie points with the new coaching staff.

 

Linkage.

[Vikings4ever 550]

Come on, MeMo!

 

Spoken as a Viking fan and a MeMo owner. B)

[football_scooter 0]

right...because "brownie points" are so important in the pre-camp pre-workout period.

 

that link is classic - a 1 sentence blurb about his showing up out of shape...I'm sure he'll be in fine shape after he starts to work out and participates in the manditory conditioning programs.

 

And I'm sorry, but where in the article does it say he's "lazy"?

 

 

To me, if a coach isn't being quoted as saying he is displeased with a player, then it's all crap. There's nothing to support any of this except unnamed sources - actually not even that good - just "talk". Uh, from no one in particular.

 

This is such non-news.

[ellisonb11 0]

right...because "brownie points" are so important in the pre-camp pre-workout period.

 

that link is classic - a 1 sentence blurb about his showing up out of shape...I'm sure he'll be in fine shape after he starts to work out and participates in the manditory conditioning programs.

 

And I'm sorr, but where in the article does it say he's "lazy"?

This is such non-news.

 

i know scooter is mad, C. Taylor is his boy, and scoot has said alot about him . this is just some preseason talk, no big deal. i still expect him to be the man in viketown

[football_scooter 0]

i know scooter is mad, C. Taylor is his boy, and scoot has said alot about him . this is just some preseason talk, no big deal. i still expect him to be the man in viketown

 

He's actually not "my boy" - I just think he's extremely underrated since his ADP is 3.0x - I am fairly confident he'll easily surpass that value behind what appears to be one of the best OLs in the NFL.

 

Added to that he's in the NFC, which looks like aside from a few decent teams will be weak defensively.

 

Finally, he's playing in what should be a run-heavy offense, simply based on having a caretaker QB.

 

So while he's not "my boy", I find myself constantly defending him against the blatent ignorance on this site.

 

What I should do is let everyone buy into the hype that he's a POS, so his ADP continues southward so I can steal him in multiple leagues this season.

[unckeyherb 2]

He's actually not "my boy" - I just think he's extremely underrated since his ADP is 3.0x - I am fairly confident he'll easily surpass that value behind what appears to be one of the best OLs in the NFL.

 

Added to that he's in the NFC, which looks like aside from a few decent teams will be weak defensively.

 

Finally, he's playing in what should be a run-heavy offense, simply based on having a caretaker QB.

 

So while he's not "my boy", I find myself constantly defending him against the blatent ignorance on this site.

 

What I should do is let everyone buy into the hype that he's a POS, so his ADP continues southward so I can steal him in multiple leagues this season.

 

 

I agree. I think the fact that he is running behind Hutch increases his value quite a bit. I am back and forth about keep ing him or Julius as my number 2 behind McGahee.

 

Oh and that "article" is one-man's speculation, no news, horseshite. When I see a quote I'll start to think about it.

[football_scooter 0]

Oh and that "article" is one-man's speculation, no news, horseshite. When I see a quote I'll start to think about it.

 

exactly - whenever i see "there's talk" my first thought is, "worthless speculation from a reporter who had no content and a deadline to make".

 

If there was any substance to this whatsoever, a source would be cited - and short of that, there would be SOMETHING to provide credibility, such as the classics, "an unnamed source with the team states that..." or "according to one league GM", or "members of the coaching staff suggested" - all equally uncommital, but by far just saying that "there's talk" is the weakest of all statements reported as "news", which this is not.

[Nichee 0]

exactly - whenever i see "there's talk" my first thought is, "worthless speculation from a reporter who had no content and a deadline to make".

 

If there was any substance to this whatsoever, a source would be cited - and short of that, there would be SOMETHING to provide credibility, such as the classics, "an unnamed source with the team states that..." or "according to one league GM", or "members of the coaching staff suggested" - all equally uncommital, but by far just saying that "there's talk" is the weakest of all statements reported as "news", which this is not.

 

You're right. It's not NEWS!!!! It's talk. That's all. Take it for what it's worth. If we hear something later in the summer about Taylor dogging it, maybe we spot a trend. Maybe not.

 

Ligthen up. God, what are you, Taylor's agent?

[football_scooter 0]

Ligthen up. God, what are you, Taylor's agent?

 

No, I'm someone who feels that FFT is an excellent source of information for people seeking it...and that as such, unsubstantiated crap-ola like this has no place on this forum. Leave it to KFFL to print baseless speculation from unnamed sources - I try to hold the geeks of FFT to a higher standard.

 

It's what makes this place better than the rest - our members have a lower tollerance for BS and expect information to be of quality. This was not.

 

[gatorbait7391 0]

i know scooter is mad, C. Taylor is his boy, and scoot has said alot about him . this is just some preseason talk, no big deal. i still expect him to be the man in viketown

[Nichee 0]

Gimme a break. This is a lot of stupid crap on this site.

[football_scooter 0]

Gimme a break. This is a lot of stupid crap on this site.

 

So why be part of the problem?

 

If the rest of the site jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you?

[Nichee 0]

So why be part of the problem?

 

If the rest of the site jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you?

 

I already said that I felt it was information that 'could' be useful. Do you really think someone from the Vikings organization with all that its been through the last few years - boat scandal, coach calling out culpepper after he's gone - do you think they're going to badmouth their free-agent acquisition before preseason even starts?

 

Now, let's say a beat writer happened to be around a vikings coach or front-office person and overheard him say something about Chester. And asked him, as a true journalist would, if he would like to officially comment. The request is denied.

 

So he runs with it and throws out the idea while protecting his source. Is that what happened here? I don't know. And you don't know that it didn't.

 

But you're so quick to dismiss it, because it happens to contradict with your view on a player who have pegged for a breakout year. But then again, I forgot, you know more about Chester Taylor then a person who is paid to cover the team for a living.

[Second Place Don't Pay 0]

Do you really think someone from the Vikings organization with all that its been through the last few years - <edit> - do you think they're going to badmouth their free-agent acquisition before preseason even starts?

 

Yes, yes they would. Unsubstantiated/unsourced reports like this are often "leaked" because somebody feels it will motivate a player. Parcells does it without using the media as a shield, but other organizations like to put it in front of their players and say, "look what they say about you. Are you going to prove them wrong?"

 

New coaching staff, new players - why not challenge the fitness of their prize acquisition to show the whole team that the expectation is that they're all in prime physical condition and that nobody is exempt? Maybe it gets them to work even harder...

[football_scooter 0]

Now, let's say a beat writer happened to be around a vikings coach or front-office person and overheard him say something about Chester. And asked him, as a true journalist would, if he would like to officially comment. The request is denied.

 

So he runs with it and throws out the idea while protecting his source. Is that what happened here? I don't know. And you don't know that it didn't.

Were this the case, he would have said, "an unnamed team source" as reporters always do. The 1st step of producing an article is to establish credibility - which is why the author said, "there's talk that". It's the weakest supporting statement possible, but it's a supporting statement nonetheless.

 

 

But you're so quick to dismiss it, because it happens to contradict with your view on a player who have pegged for a breakout year. But then again, I forgot, you know more about Chester Taylor then a person who is paid to cover the team for a living.

 

Actually, it neither supports nor contradicts my view on Taylor - he is what he is. A feature back being paid a lot of money in an offense that appears to have rebuilt itself to lean heavily on the run based on the revamping of the O-Line.

 

And I am quick to dismiss it because there's nothing to prevent me from doing so - no named source, nothing other than "there's talk" - "there's talk" about a lot of things - I've seen "talk" here that Minny is going to be a RBBC with MMoore, CTaylor and others - does it make it true? No. Does it make it even worth considering? No. It's just "talk" and is hardly credible at that - just like this "news".

 

As for the idiotic statement you followed that with, you have no idea who said what about Taylor, so there's zero credibility - the only thing that journalist has shown is that he gets paid to write things and had nothing better to say...and as we all know, saying something negative always gets more attention than saying, "Chester Taylor is rumored to be a little out of shape" - which no one would care about.

 

Contrary to your assertion, I claim no knowledge about Chester Taylor, but at least I'm man enough to admit I'm speculating. I have never once started an opinion post with "my sources say that Chester Taylor blah blah blah".

 

You have done yourself and everyone here a disservice by posting this non-news. Good job.

[HawgWild 0]

Well if it is true then this could be good info to have.. This whole site is about bringing opinions and info out to generate discussion.. If you don't want to participate in the discussion that is everyones right... I say the more info the better... JMHO

[football_scooter 0]

Well if it is true then this could be good info to have.. This whole site is about bringing opinions and info out to generate discussion.. If you don't want to participate in the discussion that is everyones right... I say the more info the better... JMHO

 

I disagree 100%

 

It's the quality of information that seperates FFT from the other schwag out there.

 

This is a low quality rumor, baseless and unsupported, acredited to no one in particular. All it serves to do is rabble rouse, and if you look at the link, it's a one sentence blurb passed along as somehow being substantual.

 

If you want crap like this, go to KFFL or one of the other sites that posts anything and everything. What helps people is good information, not just information. If everything like this gets posted, no one benefits whatsoever. I remember last year when someone started a rumor using one of those fake-news sites about a car crash (on April Fool's day) and KFFL picked it up and ran with it as though it were real - I'd say that "the more the merrier" approach tends to do far more harm than good.

 

One man's opinion.

[DA BALLHOG 0]

Well if it is true then this could be good info to have.. This whole site is about bringing opinions and info out to generate discussion.. If you don't want to participate in the discussion that is everyones right... I say the more info the better... JMHO

 

 

I agree, I am in a 2 player keeper league and he will be one of the players I will be looking at with my 1.03 pick.

[Nichee 0]

You have done yourself and everyone here a disservice by posting this non-news. Good job.

 

Based off the responses so far, it appears people would rather read the info and judge for themselves if it has any merit rather then be subjected to your shortsighted censorship.

[uubeee 0]

With no regard or bias to Chester Taylor, Mewelde Moore, or Ciatrik Fason. I would say after reading this thread, Scooter has serious wood for Chester.

 

$.02

[mozzy84 0]

Based off the responses so far, it appears people would rather read the info and judge for themselves if it has any merit rather then be subjected to your shortsighted censorship.

Blah I hate to say it but I'm actually with scooter on this one, this doesn't deserve its own topic and this "news" was allready posted anyways in the other Taylor topic that is still on the first page here, plus you insued my boy Taylor is lazy.

[football_scooter 0]

Based off the responses so far, it appears people would rather read the info and judge for themselves if it has any merit rather then be subjected to your shortsighted censorship.

 

lmfao - censorship?

 

I haven't censored anything. I just pointed out that your topic is a turd.

 

You can defend it until the cows come home, but it's not news, it's not newsworthy and it's 100% undeserving of a topic.

 

Anyone who reads that one sentence and gleans some insight from it is a complete moron - you know, those you are using to support this topic's existance? Idiots, all of them. If they actually use that unsupported, baseless anonymous crap-ola to change their rankings, they are the losers of the FFB world and deserving of every loss they take.

 

I'd say the only thing "shortsighted" is believing everything you read. You believed this so much that you're here defending it. My looking at it objectively and evaluating it's merrits (or lack thereof) seems like the opposite of short sightedness. You might want to look into your definitions before using big terms like that so you don't hurt yourself.

 

I love how suddenly I'm the resident CTaylor man-lover of FFT because of this, and my other topic...just because I have a positive opinion on the guy's value as a 3rd rounder doesn't mean I have wood for him.

 

This fluff piece could have been about any player and I'd say the same thing: worthless waste of time & space, unfounded and unsupported rumor: 100% worthless.

[uubeee 0]

You've got wood for the man. Say his name 3 times then look at your crotch. You'll see.

[lennie75 0]

lmfao - censorship?

 

I haven't censored anything. I just pointed out that your topic is a turd.

 

You can defend it until the cows come home, but it's not news, it's not newsworthy and it's 100% undeserving of a topic.

 

Anyone who reads that one sentence and gleans some insight from it is a complete moron - you know, those you are using to support this topic's existance? Idiots, all of them. If they actually use that unsupported, baseless anonymous crap-ola to change their rankings, they are the losers of the FFB world and deserving of every loss they take.

 

I'd say the only thing "shortsighted" is believing everything you read. You believed this so much that you're here defending it. My looking at it objectively and evaluating it's merrits (or lack thereof) seems like the opposite of short sightedness. You might want to look into your definitions before using big terms like that so you don't hurt yourself.

 

I love how suddenly I'm the resident CTaylor man-lover of FFT because of this, and my other topic...just because I have a positive opinion on the guy's value as a 3rd rounder doesn't mean I have wood for him.

 

This fluff piece could have been about any player and I'd say the same thing: worthless waste of time & space, unfounded and unsupported rumor: 100% worthless.

I agree with you scoot this probably is nothing. But, it is Newsworthy...it is actually grumblings on a real site. However, people need to understand that preseason is full of grumblings...much of it is used to motivate players. While right now it may mean something...the guy still has a few months to get in shape...and I am sure he can do it!!!!

[t.j 35]

Finally, he's playing in what should be a run-heavy offense, simply based on having a caretaker QB.

 

Actually, it neither supports nor contradicts my view on Taylor - he is what he is. A feature back being paid a lot of money in an offense that appears to have rebuilt itself to lean heavily on the run based on the revamping of the O-Line.

 

I'm not sold on your evidence that the Vikings are going to have a run-heavy offense. In one sentence you say you hold this opinion because of the QB, and in another you say this opinion is based on the o-line moves. Neither one is convincing to me and your inconsistent reasoning doesn't help either. I think one of the biggest mistakes FF players can make is to make assumptions about what a new coaching staff is going to do.

Did the Vikings take steps to improve their running game? Yes, Taylor and Hutchinson where obviously brought in for that purpose. Does that mean they are going to be a run-heavy offense? Not necessarily. The Vikings (and Childress' Eagles) have been really bad in the run game lately. Thus, wanting improvement is a given, but is no guarantee that the run will be emphasized by the Vikings more than your average team. Minnesota and Philly ranked 27th and 28th rushing last year, and 18th and 24th the year before. The case may be that they felt the need to try to get up to around 16th, but aren't intending to be a "run-heavy offense."

With Brad Johnson as the starter, are they likely to throw close to 600 passes? Probably not, but the Vikings did rely on the pass with Johnson as the QB last year. Until the new guys step on the field and perform, the coaching staff won't know what the best balance is.

 

I agree that the evidence mostly points to Chester being the main guy among the Minnesota RBs, but that in and of itself is not enough to make him more valuable than where he is currently going in drafts. Who knows if he will even get goal-line carries.

[football_scooter 0]

You've got wood for the man. Say his name 3 times then look at your crotch. You'll see.

 

It didn't work.

 

 

 

I tried uubeee uubeee uubeee though and

 

 

 

 

[Second Place Don't Pay 0]

It didn't work.

I tried uubeee uubeee uubeee though and

 

 

I rarely like your tone or how you make every post personal, but that was damn funny, scooter.

[football_scooter 0]

I'm not sold on your evidence that the Vikings are going to have a run-heavy offense. In one sentence you say you hold this opinion because of the QB, and in another you say this opinion is based on the o-line moves. Neither one is convincing to me and your inconsistent reasoning doesn't help either. I think one of the biggest mistakes FF players can make is to make assumptions about what a new coaching staff is going to do.

Did the Vikings take steps to improve their running game? Yes, Taylor and Hutchinson where obviously brought in for that purpose. Does that mean they are going to be a run-heavy offense? Not necessarily. The Vikings (and Childress' Eagles) have been really bad in the run game lately. Thus, wanting improvement is a given, but is no guarantee that the run will be emphasized by the Vikings more than your average team. Minnesota and Philly ranked 27th and 28th rushing last year, and 18th and 24th the year before. The case may be that they felt the need to try to get up to around 16th, but aren't intending to be a "run-heavy offense."

With Brad Johnson as the starter, are they likely to throw close to 600 passes? Probably not, but the Vikings did rely on the pass with Johnson as the QB last year. Until the new guys step on the field and perform, the coaching staff won't know what the best balance is.

 

I agree that the evidence mostly points to Chester being the main guy among the Minnesota RBs, but that in and of itself is not enough to make him more valuable than where he is currently going in drafts.

 

I find it amusing that you refer to my knee-jerk speculation as my "evidence" (when I've gone into far more detail in other CT topics).

 

I find it even more amusing that in the same post you use 2 solid examples of flawed logic to support your arguments against the possibility that Minny is gearing up to be run-based.

 

Flaw #1:Childress was a coach with the Eagles, so he is not capable or desirous of running a run-first offense. He must be pass-happy because of his track record with the Eagles.

 

Fact: the Eagles tried to run every year. They had RB after RB who was expected to be the thunder to Westbrook's lightning. And RB after RB got hurt. So the Eagles had to pass. I've read time and again how the Eagles were reacting to the position they were in rather than game-planning based on desire. God gives you lemons, you make lemonade - which is why the Eagles were so pass happy with Childress at the helm. He had no RB, except an undersized above average receiver in Westbrook, so they worked with what they had. Seems pretty obvious already, but since Childress and Andy Reed have both stated this was the case, I expect Childress to run a balanced offense in Minny, as he's been saying he wants to since he got the gig. Hell, he was saying it in Philly, too.

 

 

Flaw #2. The Vikings are a pass-first team, based on last season, or previous seasons.

 

Fact: The Vikings had a craptastic RBBC and not the greatest run blocking OL last year and leaned more on Johnson than they wanted to. Pretty well the same story as Philly, but with slight variation. It should be obvious that the Vikings aren't happy with the results, since they went out and signed a premier OL to the biggest contract anyone got this off season. Seems to reek of a desire to run the ball, hmm?

 

 

Not that either of us are right or wrong - it's just sort of ironic you calling me out for my "evidence" when you then post two things that seem to make little sense. Past performance is in no way a guarentee of future practice. You see these two examples as proof that I am wrong and that the Vikes will be a pass happy team. I see them as exactly the opposite, for the reasons given. I think my reasoning is a little better thought out - but no guarentee I'm right of course.

 

Time will tell. I still think Chester Taylor is an outstanding RB2 value in the early 3rd and I'll be thrilled if I get a high 1st round pick so I can go RB1=>WR1=>CTaylor. To me, that's an ideal upside start to a draft.

 

But like I said - time will tell.

[Sweetness_34 0]

Scooter's boyfriend is = baby jesus

 

Please leave Chesta Taylor alone

[football_scooter 0]

Scooter's boyfriend is = baby jesus

 

Please leave Chesta Taylor alone

 

Go sign up for the league you inspired with your all-injured-team draft, you lazy bastehd.

 

 

Then we can find out our draft picks.

[Ilov80s 0]

Scooter, why is Taylor more valuable then Mewelde Moore? Who is to say he earns the job over Moore?

[uubeee 0]

It didn't work.

I tried uubeee uubeee uubeee though and

 

I actually laughed out loud....well done!

[t.j 35]

I find it amusing that you refer to my knee-jerk speculation as my "evidence" (when I've gone into far more detail in other CT topics).

 

Replace the word "evidence" with "support" then.

 

I find it even more amusing that in the same post you use 2 solid examples of flawed logic to support your arguments against the possibility that Minny is gearing up to be run-based.

 

Flaw #1:Childress was a coach with the Eagles, so he is not capable or desirous of running a run-first offense. He must be pass-happy because of his track record with the Eagles.

 

That's not what I was trying to say at all. You misunderstood me completely. My point about Childress and the Eagles is that he, like the Vikings as a team, is familiar with the problems of having a weak rushing attack and it goes without saying that he's going to want to improve it in Minnesota. However, wanting to improve a bad rushing attack and wanting to become run-heavy are two different things. You jumped to the conclusion that they want to become run heavy. My point is that you cannot make that assumption, even though they clearly are trying to improve the run game. Maybe they want a run-heavy offense, maybe they don't, we don't have enough information to tell.

 

Flaw #2. The Vikings are a pass-first team, based on last season, or previous seasons.

 

I didn't say the Vikings will be a pass-first team. My argument was this: Just because Brad Johnson is their QB, that doesn't prove that they are going to be a run-first team. I used last year's Vikings offense as evidence that they can be a pass-first team, not that they will be. Whereas you recklessly suggested that they will be a run-first team because Johnson is their QB.

 

Get a clue, HTH.

[football_scooter 0]

Scooter, why is Taylor more valuable then Mewelde Moore? Who is to say he earns the job over Moore?

 

gee, let me think about that....might be the millions that the Vikes went out and signed Taylor for, while MMoore was sitting there for league minimum.

 

Some things actually are as good as being "the writing on the wall" - this happens to be one of them. Obviously Moore is not "the man".

[t.j 35]

I expect Childress to run a balanced offense in Minny, as he's been saying he wants to since he got the gig.

 

You need to be more consistent with your message. A "balanced" offense and a "run heavy" offense are not the same.

[football_scooter 0]

Replace the word "evidence" with "support" then.

That's not what I was trying to say at all. You misunderstood me completely. My point about Childress and the Eagles is that he, like the Vikings as a team, is familiar with the problems of having a weak rushing attack and it goes without saying that he's going to want to improve it in Minnesota. However, wanting to improve a bad rushing attack and wanting to become run-heavy are two different things. You jumped to the conclusion that they want to become run heavy. My point is that you cannot make that assumption, even though they clearly are trying to improve the run game. Maybe they want a run-heavy offense, maybe they don't, we don't have enough information to tell.

I didn't say the Vikings will be a pass-first team. My argument was this: Just because Brad Johnson is their QB, that doesn't prove that they are going to be a run-first team. I used last year's Vikings offense as evidence that they can be a pass-first team, not that they will be. Whereas you recklessly suggested that they will be a run-first team because Johnson is their QB.

interesting back-track. Since I will respect the remote possibility that this is actually what you meant, I will say, "my bad" and call it a day.

 

Sure sounded like you meant what I thought you meant though.

[t.j 35]

interesting back-track. Since I will respect the remote possibility that this is actually what you meant, I will say, "my bad" and call it a day.

 

Sure sounded like you meant what I thought you meant though.

 

Your bad indeed.

[football_scooter 0]

Your bad indeed.

 

Actually I think you got pwnd, then backtracked and made something up to save face, but I was trying to be diplomatic.

[t.j 35]

Actually I think you got pwnd, then backtracked and made something up to save face, but I was trying to be diplomatic.

 

No, I didn't backtrack. I was being nice by simply agreeing with you that it was your bad and not calling you a douche (which clearly you were being when you made the original backtrack comment). But now I'll just call you what you are, a douche.

 

Notice the way I phrased sentences in my original post, douche. "I'm not sold on your evidence that the Vikings are going to have a run-heavy offense." Nowhere did I say the Vikings will be a pass-happy offense. "The case may be that they felt the need to try to get up to around 16th, but aren't intending to be a run-heavy offense." "May be" is the kind of non-assuming approach that would have served you well in many of your posts, and could have prevented you from getting owned by me in this thread. Nowhere did I say this is what I believe they are going to do. "With Brad Johnson as the starter, are they likely to throw close to 600 passes? Probably not, but the Vikings did rely on the pass with Johnson as the QB last year. Until the new guys step on the field and perform, the coaching staff won't know what the best balance is." Nowhere did I suggest that they want to repeat last year's run/pass balance. And keep in mind that this comment was in response to your comment that they will have a run-heavy offense based on having a caretaker QB.

I didn't say these things because I didn't mean these things. Just as you read too much into the Vikings' offseason moves, you read too much into what I said. The reasons being because doing so suited an argument for you, and because you're a douche.

[Ravens 03 0]

He will be a 1st rounder in my 14-team league.