Darren McFadden

[weepaws 2,461]

Yeah agree he looks really good , really thought he would be used in the passing game and would be a good flex play on ppr teams , but sure enough he has shown up to work and is no question at the very least a number 2 rb at this time . Good for him , I did not believe in him at all and did not even think about him at any of the drafts I did . So he has proved me wrong .

[DaBeerz 88]

Yeah agree he looks really good , really thought he would be used in the passing game and would be a good flex play on ppr teams , but sure enough he has shown up to work and is no question at the very least a number 2 rb at this time . Good for him , I did not believe in him at all and did not even think about him at any of the drafts I did . So he has proved me wrong .

 

Well to be fair, who would. Was McFadden even drafted in most leagues? I mean it was pretty clear Dallas wanted Randle to be the main guy. He was drafted an owner who was absent for one draft (basically autodrafted) and in another league he was undrafted (10 team though).

[thewrathofkuhn 40]

 

Well to be fair, who would. Was McFadden even drafted in most leagues? I mean it was pretty clear Dallas wanted Randle to be the main guy. He was drafted an owner who was absent for one draft (basically autodrafted) and in another league he was undrafted (10 team though).

 

Fantasy Pros has a ADP of rd. 10 in 12 team, rd. 11 or so in 10 team. I think that's probably skewed a bit due to early drafts where he was still listed as 1st on the depth chart. He went in rd. 8 of mine (to a DAL fan...), but he's been w/ me for last 5 weeks.

[R8RMick 242]

 

In all honesty, he's looking like the guy the Raiders thought they had all those years but could never see the field. Looks young and fast and decisive.

I'm waiting, we should get the bullet from Roto any day now that he's pulled one of those hammys. It's a miracle he's last 75 carries these last three games. But hey, miracles happen.

[brotherbock 349]

I'm waiting, we should get the bullet from Roto any day now that he's pulled one of those hammys. It's a miracle he's last 75 carries these last three games. But hey, miracles happen.

But sometimes there's a Fragile Freddy who manages to overcome the label, right? Taylor shrugged that off at the second half of his career.

[sirensong 111]

I'm waiting, we should get the bullet from Roto any day now that he's pulled one of those hammys. It's a miracle he's last 75 carries these last three games. But hey, miracles happen.

 

same was said of murray all last season.

 

we were all waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[R8RMick 242]

Fair enough, but let me ask you a question.

 

McFragile as your long term answer?

 

Uh huh. Once/If they are mathematically done, they should see what they have in Michael. Dude has an even more team friendly contract than McFadden.

[rallo 132]

Oh lord no lol... McFragile's knock is that he's pretty bad too. My opinion is that once Michael is given opportunity he will take that job outright.

 

Again I ask, has Michael officially been ruled out of Sunday's game yet?

 

hmmm... after this comment, it is weird that you are still trolling the McFadden thread. I'm sorry he didn't work out for you in Oakland, but he's more than serviceable, and just what the cowboys need, as they have shown that they are not willing to spend the big $$$ to get a franchise RB

[R8RMick 242]

 

hmmm... after this comment, it is weird that you are still trolling the McFadden thread. I'm sorry he didn't work out for you in Oakland, but he's more than serviceable, and just what the cowboys need, as they have shown that they are not willing to spend the big $$$ to get a franchise RB

After pulling a post from two entire focking months ago, I should tell you to go hump somebody else's leg. But your words have some merit, using hindsight of course.

 

McFragile had brief flashes while a Raider. Last season folks pointed to the Oakland offensive line as his problem, yet other backs did well after they benched him. I think he's tentative and just not that skilled of a runner, injury history aside. He's having success behind arguably the best offensive line in football, sure, but I stand by my statement of Michael taking that job if given opportunity, of which he's had none. Seriously dude must be the worst practice player and meeting room idiot in the league to have not even been given a sniff in his career.

 

Of course you took hindsight, and some weak analytical integrity , to pile on. Nice form, but it's just business. I'll lower my opinion of your contribution here accordingly in the future.

[brotherbock 349]

Fair enough, but let me ask you a question.

 

McFragile as your long term answer?

 

Uh huh. Once/If they are mathematically done, they should see what they have in Michael. Dude has an even more team friendly contract than McFadden.

I suspect teams already know what they have in Michael before he hits the field. I say that only looking at the lack of opportunities everyone has given him. They say wow, what a stud, we need him. Two weeks later, he rides the bench,even in losses. They know something about him.

[rallo 132]

After pulling a post from two entire focking months ago, I should tell you to go hump somebody else's leg. But your words have some merit, using hindsight of course.

 

McFragile had brief flashes while a Raider. Last season folks pointed to the Oakland offensive line as his problem, yet other backs did well after they benched him. I think he's tentative and just not that skilled of a runner, injury history aside. He's having success behind arguably the best offensive line in football, sure, but I stand by my statement of Michael taking that job if given opportunity, of which he's had none. Seriously dude must be the worst practice player and meeting room idiot in the league to have not even been given a sniff in his career.

 

Of course you took hindsight, and some weak analytical integrity , to pile on. Nice form, but it's just business. I'll lower my opinion of your contribution here accordingly in the future.

 

 

 

Your mistake was thinking my contribution had any merit to begin with

 

Over the past month you have been sticking to your guns in saying "McFragile sucks, and CMIke will take over given the chance" which I can respect as McFadden hasn't had much longevity without injury. That said, CMike hasn't shown any indication of being able to carry the load... he hasn't been given much of a chance, but when he has seen the field he has averaged an abysmal 3.5 ypc and has only caught 2 passes out of the backfield in his entire career... I guess i just don't see him ever cracking the lineup and getting any real playing time outside of the roster being cleared of RBs (it's well on its way).

 

What does this guy do at practice??? Is he that inept either physically or mentally that he doesn't even get to sniff the field even with 2 other RBs done for the season in Dallas???

[R8RMick 242]

 

Your mistake was thinking my contribution had any merit to begin with

 

Over the past month you have been sticking to your guns in saying "McFragile sucks, and CMIke will take over given the chance" which I can respect as McFadden hasn't had much longevity without injury. That said, CMike hasn't shown any indication of being able to carry the load... he hasn't been given much of a chance, but when he has seen the field he has averaged an abysmal 3.5 ypc and has only caught 2 passes out of the backfield in his entire career... I guess i just don't see him ever cracking the lineup and getting any real playing time outside of the roster being cleared of RBs (it's well on its way).

 

What does this guy do at practice??? Is he that inept either physically or mentally that he doesn't even get to sniff the field even with 2 other RBs done for the season in Dallas???

Now we're having a discussion. The trolling bit hit home as I've lived in Arlington for 18 years. Though I'm a Raider fan I've a vested interest in the Boys.

 

It's my opinion that RBs need at least double digit carries to get into ANY sort of rhythm in a game. That's why I detest clowns like Mike Pettine who rotate his backs. I'd like to see what Michael can do with 15-20 carries, as opposed to the bits and crumbs he's been thrown. We've both guessed perhaps practice issues or falling asleep in meetings, but so far I've heard none of that on the airwaves here. In fact they've raved about his practices. The probable answer is maybe he's just not that bright? I've heard some whisperings of the knucklehead factor in Seattle, and can probably link to an article or two. But I'd hope a player would be more prone to outgrow a knucklehead label easier than one of being injury prone.

 

Was I wrong on McFadden so far? Absolutely he's played well behind that line. But if Dallas is looking for a permanent answer at RB, and it may be that time soon enough, my bet is it won't be him based on injury pedigree alone. Will it be Michael? The only way to find out is give the dude the rock. If he goes Matt Asiata on us then yeah, we can call him a bust. If he's a complete headcase where you can't trust him on the field, then cut him.

 

I also contend it will soon be a moot point as McFadden will likely go down, giving the job to Michael by default.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

Now we're having a discussion. The trolling bit hit home as I've lived in Arlington for 18 years. Though I'm a Raider fan I've a vested interest in the Boys.

 

It's my opinion that RBs need at least double digit carries to get into ANY sort of rhythm in a game. That's why I detest clowns like Mike Pettine who rotate his backs. I'd like to see what Michael can do with 15-20 carries, as opposed to the bits and crumbs he's been thrown. We've both guessed perhaps practice issues or falling asleep in meetings, but so far I've heard none of that on the airwaves here. In fact they've raved about his practices. The probable answer is maybe he's just not that bright? I've heard some whisperings of the knucklehead factor in Seattle, and can probably link to an article or two. But I'd hope a player would be more prone to outgrow a knucklehead label easier than one of being injury prone.

 

Was I wrong on McFadden so far? Absolutely he's played well behind that line. But if Dallas is looking for a permanent answer at RB, and it may be that time soon enough, my bet is it won't be him based on injury pedigree alone. Will it be Michael? The only way to find out is give the dude the rock. If he goes Matt Asiata on us then yeah, we can call him a bust. If he's a complete headcase where you can't trust him on the field, then cut him.

 

I also contend it will soon be a moot point as McFadden will likely go down, giving the job to Michael by default.

 

Great post.

 

I just thought I would point out this is premised on two things: 1. Mac's health or likeliness to get injured, and 2. the Cowboy falling out of playoff contention and then handing a carry share to Michael.

 

The Cowboys haven't won a game started by Weeden or Cassel, but they have the Bucs this week and they're still not out of it. When Romo comes in I don't think they are going to just let Michael go in there and pass protect, McFadden happens to be a pro at that and other things like receiving. He's a complete back. If Romo comes back week 11 and the team is even 2-7 or 3-6 they have to gauge if they can still make the playoffs. At that stage, being within spitting distance of a 5-4/5-5 Giants or Eagles team is not out of the realm of possibility.

 

Basically if McFadden keeps carrying the load and being as productive as he is, I'm not sure I see why they let Michael take on anything. He got zero snaps this week. Zero. Rod Smith had 8 snaps. With McFadden getting 30 (!) touches per game, there's no reason why they would not spell him with Michael right now, but they don't at all.

[R8RMick 242]

 

Great post.

 

I just thought I would point out this is premised on two things: 1. Mac's health or likeliness to get injured, and 2. the Cowboy falling out of playoff contention and then handing a carry share to Michael.

 

The Cowboys haven't won a game started by Weeden or Cassel, but they have the Bucs this week and they're still not out of it. When Romo comes in I don't think they are going to just let Michael go in there and pass protect, McFadden happens to be a pro at that and other things like receiving. He's a complete back. If Romo comes back week 11 and the team is even 2-7 or 3-6 they have to gauge if they can still make the playoffs. At that stage, being within spitting distance of a 5-4/5-5 Giants or Eagles team is not out of the realm of possibility.

 

Basically if McFadden keeps carrying the load and being as productive as he is, I'm not sure I see why they let Michael take on anything. He got zero snaps this week. Zero. Rod Smith had 8 snaps. With McFadden getting 30 (!) touches per game, there's no reason why they would not spell him with Michael right now, but they don't at all.

 

Your post is based on the model of Dallas still being in contention, and I agree with every single word of it.

 

I'd even ratchet it up a notch further. With the way McFadden's played and stayed off the trainer's table, I'd say the addition of a fairly healthy Romo makes them an extremely dangerous team down the stretch. Record or not. Excellent point on the reasons for not turning to Michael, and yes, McFadden is a proven pass blocker.

 

Folks are talking about the brutal second half schedule Dallas has coming up. But this team right now, adding a healthy Tony Romo, can beat anyone in the NFC regardless of location.

[sirensong 111]

Fair enough, but let me ask you a question.

 

McFragile as your long term answer?

 

Uh huh. Once/If they are mathematically done, they should see what they have in Michael. Dude has an even more team friendly contract than McFadden.

 

 

honest answer: i don't think DAL is looking for a long term answer at RB. i think they're thinking that they paid DMC for 2 years, and they're going to ride him for 2 years unless someone else emerges. at the end of his contract, he will be almost 29, and will have earned a raise, which DAL won't give him. i think this is part of their new business model--the belichick approach to RBs.

 

garrett is huge on practice performance. he's not a big fan of 'gamers' who don't show up during the week. so if michael is going to get meaningful snaps, it means that he has to impress on the practice field and in the meeting room. i get the sense that this is not happening, and therefore michael isn't earning gameday snaps.

 

don't get me wrong--i would like to see him get a couple of series, especially if the boys lose another game. i agree that at some point, you have to put your investment to work. but i just don't see the FO looking at the RB room, and saying "we need to figure out who is going to play the position for the next 5 years."

[weepaws 2,461]

Yeah agree Cowboys did not sign McFadden for a long term replacement .

[R8RMick 242]

 

 

honest answer: i don't think DAL is looking for a long term answer at RB. i think they're thinking that they paid DMC for 2 years, and they're going to ride him for 2 years unless someone else emerges. at the end of his contract, he will be almost 29, and will have earned a raise, which DAL won't give him. i think this is part of their new business model--the belichick approach to RBs.

 

garrett is huge on practice performance. he's not a big fan of 'gamers' who don't show up during the week. so if michael is going to get meaningful snaps, it means that he has to impress on the practice field and in the meeting room. i get the sense that this is not happening, and therefore michael isn't earning gameday snaps.

 

don't get me wrong--i would like to see him get a couple of series, especially if the boys lose another game. i agree that at some point, you have to put your investment to work. but i just don't see the FO looking at the RB room, and saying "we need to figure out who is going to play the position for the next 5 years."

 

 

If you're correct it's a damn shame. The Cowboys found a model which worked for them last season, and it was light years from the Belichick approach to RB's. Remember, we're talking about a team which has struggled BADLY for the last five years at least. All of the sudden last season they are one of the best, if not the best, teams in the NFC. That model was a hammer running game ran by Tony Romo, not the Belichick approach to RBs... Remember, Romes passed 19 times in the playoff loss to GB.

 

I've made no secret of my disdain for committees, in relation to a power running game. Nobody really knows if the committee would have worked this season, as losing Romo has upset everything. And at this point it's academic as McFragile has seized the gig. When I implied 'longterm' I did indeed mean 2-3 yrs as after all this is the NFL. I'm thinking next year is their run, barring a 2014 miracle, and planning for such should be a priority.

 

As for Garrett, who the fock knows what goes through his head. Is he a rehabilitator or a football coach? Dude talks about shaping characters, etc. when he should be worried about winning football games. On at least ONE of those fourth and shorts in the Philly game he may have thought about going for it rather than settle for the trey.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

 

honest answer: i don't think DAL is looking for a long term answer at RB. i think they're thinking that they paid DMC for 2 years, and they're going to ride him for 2 years unless someone else emerges. at the end of his contract, he will be almost 29, and will have earned a raise, which DAL won't give him. i think this is part of their new business model--the belichick approach to RBs.

 

garrett is huge on practice performance. he's not a big fan of 'gamers' who don't show up during the week. so if michael is going to get meaningful snaps, it means that he has to impress on the practice field and in the meeting room. i get the sense that this is not happening, and therefore michael isn't earning gameday snaps.

 

don't get me wrong--i would like to see him get a couple of series, especially if the boys lose another game. i agree that at some point, you have to put your investment to work. but i just don't see the FO looking at the RB room, and saying "we need to figure out who is going to play the position for the next 5 years."

 

Garrett's not the only one who feels that way about practice. Head coaches and offensive coordinators want players they know they can rely on to do what they want, how they want it, when they want it. they see that in practice and in film room. I agree that this is where Michael has lagged. Meanwhile Mac is a real pro. He struggled in Oakland but those were bad teams.

[GobbleDog 816]

Darren McFadden

 

Week 7....29 carries, 2 rec targets

Week 8.... 20 carries, 8 rec targets

Week 9... 27 carries, 2 rec targets

Week 10...17 carries, 4 rec targets

 

I love VOLUME!!!!

 

Week 11 vs MIA (31st run D)

Week 12 vs CAR (13th run D)

Week 13 vs WAS (30th run D)

Week 14 vs GB (24th run D)

...........................................................

Week 15 vs NYJ (2nd run D)

Week 16 vs BUF (9th run D)

 

Good schedule til late in the playoffs. Romo coming back could help soften run D. Just pray for good health.

[ManitowocDave 1]

Oh lord no lol... McFragile's knock is that he's pretty bad too. My opinion is that once Michael is given opportunity he will take that job outright.

 

Again I ask, has Michael officially been ruled out of Sunday's game yet?

 

Or Michael could be cut from the team. Hahaha, McFaddy FTW!

[R8RMick 242]

 

Or Michael could be cut from the team. Hahaha, McFaddy FTW!

That's nice form on the pile on. Way to pick up that half a sack...

 

Obviously what transpired with this knucklehead took place in practice and in the meeting room. In any event, hind sight has far reaching vision for you. Well played!

[ManitowocDave 1]

That's nice form on the pile on. Way to pick up that half a sack...

 

Obviously what transpired with this knucklehead took place in practice and in the meeting room. In any event, hind sight has far reaching vision for you. Well played!

 

You're right, R8RMick, my post was in poor taste. I've had the worst fantasy season ever, dating back to 1996, and McFadden has been one of the few bright spots of my season. That's pretty sad. Hope you are having a good year and please accept my apologies for the low blow on a comment you made a long time ago.

[jgcrawfish 232]

 

You're right, R8RMick, my post was in poor taste. I've had the worst fantasy season ever, dating back to 1996, and McFadden has been one of the few bright spots of my season. That's pretty sad. Hope you are having a good year and please accept my apologies for the low blow on a comment you made a long time ago.

Dude, this is the Mange Bored...you don't apologize. EVAH!!! Everybody on here obviously knows more than EVERYBODY else about fantasy football and when one of us is wrong, you are obligated to serve them broiled crow, with a side of crow sprouts and wash it down with crow's blood.

 

 

Hey R8RMick, nice fockin' call on CMike man! For being so OBTUSE you get the following:

 

House. Wife. Kids. Face. Punch!

 

[R8RMick 242]

Dude, this is the Mange Bored...you don't apologize. EVAH!!! Everybody on here obviously knows more than EVERYBODY else about fantasy football and when one of us is wrong, you are obligated to serve them broiled crow, with a side of crow sprouts and wash it down with crow's blood.

 

 

Hey R8RMick, nice fockin' call on CMike man! For being so OBTUSE you get the following:

 

House. Wife. Kids. Face. Punch!

 

This ^

 

It ain't no disco.

[thewrathofkuhn 40]

This ^

 

It ain't no disco.

 

Did you just quote the Talking Heads?

[stonewall 647]

 

Did you just quote the Talking Heads?

 

No, Sheryl Crow

 

This ain't no disco; this ain't no country club either; this is LA (Lame Advice).

[GobbleDog 816]

 

No, Sheryl Crow

 

This ain't no disco; this ain't no country club either; this is LA (Lame Advice).

 

 

This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no fooling around. No time for dancing, or lovey dovey, I ain't got time for that now.

 

[thewrathofkuhn 40]

 

No, Sheryl Crow

 

This ain't no disco; this ain't no country club either; this is LA (Lame Advice).

 

Talking Heads

.

 

Goodness, Stop Making Sense may be one of the greatest musical DVD performances of all time.

[stonewall 647]

 

 

Stop Making Sense may be one of the greatest musical DVD performances of all time.

 

They did put on quite a live performance.....one heck of a workout.

[Crystal Meth Tweekers 26]

I hear now Rod Smith is they to grab off the waiver wire before run DMC gets hurt. That's Surrius radio's call for a deep bench player.

 

The guy does go down a lot.

[thewrathofkuhn 40]

I hear now Rod Smith is they to grab off the waiver wire before run DMC gets hurt. That's Surrius radio's call for a deep bench player.

 

The guy does go down a lot.

 

He's played in 34 of 37 games since the middle of 2013. This can be said of only a handful of starting running backs in the league – let alone one who is 28.

 

Everyone waited for the other shoe to drop last season on Murray and it never happened. I think it's awesome if an owner has the ability to roster a player who's an injury away 20+ touch potential this late in the season now that most BYEs have been dealt with, but I think there are a far greater number of options available and overlooked do to owners overpaying for youth.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

He's played in 34 of 37 games since the middle of 2013. This can be said of only a handful of starting running backs in the league – let alone one who is 28.

 

Everyone waited for the other shoe to drop last season on Murray and it never happened. I think it's awesome if an owner has the ability to roster a player who's an injury away 20+ touch potential this late in the season now that most BYEs have been dealt with, but I think there are a far greater number of options available and overlooked do to owners overpaying for youth.

 

Well the Raiders also used him pretty sparingly. Personally I do think he can last but he's getting roughly 25-31 touches a game he wasn't doing close to that for the Raiders.

[R8RMick 242]

 

He's played in 34 of 37 games since the middle of 2013. This can be said of only a handful of starting running backs in the league – let alone one who is 28.

 

Everyone waited for the other shoe to drop last season on Murray and it never happened. I think it's awesome if an owner has the ability to roster a player who's an injury away 20+ touch potential this late in the season now that most BYEs have been dealt with, but I think there are a far greater number of options available and overlooked do to owners overpaying for youth.

 

 

Lol... your analysis is flawed, and believe me I'd know. I see what you did, but actually 2013 was a disaster for McFadden. In reality he missed Week 5 due to a hammy, then missed five of the last eights games that season en toto and was an after thought in the others. In fact, from Week 9 on his rushing totals were 21 carries for 39 yards. That's over half a season of work. But according to you he's been Walter Payton. All this aside, the real killer about McFadden is the potential for him leaving games early. Of course there's a huge difference for fantasy managers in players who leave games with injuries, as opposed to those missing them with injuries.

 

Of course we may have turned a corner. Last season was a huge question mark, as his usage was limited. He topped 15 carries in a game only once, but to his credit he laced them up for nearly every one. This year school's still out, though he put himself behind by missing time early in camp with the hammys. He may very well mirror the season Murray had last year, but for those who've been burned oh so many times the confidence level is low.

 

Here's the full slate, for your perusal. It's some list.

 

http://sportsinjurypredictor.com/injury-predictor/player/8781

[thewrathofkuhn 40]

Lol... your analysis is flawed, and believe me I'd know. I see what you did, but actually 2013 was a disaster for McFadden. In reality he missed Week 5 due to a hammy, then missed five of the last eights games that season en toto and was an after thought in the others. In fact, from Week 9 on his rushing totals were 21 carries for 39 yards. That's over half a season of work.

 

The Raiders were blown out during those games, going 0-4. He averaged 5 carries on an awful team with one of the worst lines in football. More often then not a RB who sees just 5 or 6 touches on an awful team who are always playing from behind will fail. Citing 21 carries (less then 2% of his lifetime total) as a sample set for a guy who has a career 4.1 YPC on 1,200 attempts is a fairly weak argument.

 

But according to you he's been Walter Payton.

 

I've reread my post and can't find a single thing that would allude to or compare him to Walter Payton.

 

Of course we may have turned a corner. Last season was a huge question mark, as his usage was limited. He topped 15 carries in a game only once, but to his credit he laced them up for nearly every one.

 

He had 746 yards from scrimmage on 190 touches putting him in the neighborhood of Sproles and Tre Mason in terms of scoring and ahead of guys like Blount and Fred Jackson in terms of usage. He was the 27th ranked RB for touches. Sure his usage was limited when compared to the top 10 RB's, but he was used about as often as the average NFL running back.

 

This year school's still out, though he put himself behind by missing time early in camp with the hammys. He may very well mirror the season Murray had last year, but for those who've been burned oh so many times the confidence level is low.

 

As I said originally, he's played in 34 of his last 37 games. There's no question he has a history of injury, and I'm not arguing he has a greater risk of injury then many other running backs with his current workload – but it's not objective thinking to ignore his game time availability for the last two seasons and recent usage.

 

My overall point is this. Here in week 11 it's incredibly dumb to be debating his injury history or conveying your skepticism and the risk of injury associated with his ownership. A majority of owners are playing with house money. Those that didn't scoop him up as FA (he was less then 50% owned going into the BYE) paid next to nothing at the draft (9/10 rd. ADP) and now have a white buffalo – a unanimous lead back who's lead the entire league in touches for RB's during the past 4 weeks – the 7th best RB over that period.

 

If a light were to fall on him in the huddle or his hamstring go south (knock on wood) we've still received far more production than all but 2 other hot waiver players (both requiring #1 or #2 waiver priority or massive $), barely less than guys like Forte and McCoy and significantly more then Hill, Anderson, Lynch or any of the guys no longer standing. Saying your confidence is low for a player who, in limited usage has amassed enough points to be the 20th best RB in PPR is akin to being bummed that you spent all the money you won in Vegas. He could be injured tomorrow and it takes absolutely nothing away from what we've gained.

 

An injury at this point should merit no more then a shoulder shrug or 'Aw nuts' from his owners.

[R8RMick 242]

So you're one of those guys. Wow. I don't have the time or wherewithal to dissect your post and reply to it sentence by sentence and word by word. I know what I said, you don't have to cut and paste it back to me though I appreciate the banter though in that regard.

 

I've heard the 'Raiders offensive line and offense sucked in 2014' many times. After McFragile was sent to the pine Latavius Murray averaged almost 2 more yards per carry, giving the Raiders (finally) a running game which allowed them to go 3-3 down the stretch and beat Buffalo and Frisco teams fighting for their playoff lives. So who held back who?

 

I know this is a fantasy board, but often we like to talk real world team strategy as well. Much of my angst with McFadden and The Boys deals with a solid argument that he's not their longterm, or midterm for that matter, future. In other words the team is spinning its wheels with him. I'm VERY interested to see how he responds down the stretch, now that they've gone all in on him.

 

Lastly, and not sure you grasped this, McFadden has a real history of getting hurt in games throughout his career and leaving them for good. Those are the performances in fantasy that kill you, especially during the playoffs. I can picture more than an 'aw nuts' reaction to that lol...

 

I mean, you pays your money you takes your choice. If you want to roll that way bust a move. If he hits paydirt for you I'll be the first to acknowledge. But calling me dumb for submitting a rational take given a player's history is a reach.

[jgcrawfish 232]

I tend to agree with Kuhn here, McFadden is house money. If you're counting on him you were probably already desperate anyway. The one league I have him I have L Miller, L Murray and C Ivory. McFadden has displaced one of them in my starting lineup every week, but I don't have to have him, he's just a great depth option for me. For others who are relying on him, it's a lottery ticket with an unknown expiration date.

[weepaws 2,461]

I tend to agree with Kuhn here, McFadden is house money. If you're counting on him you were probably already desperate anyway. The one league I have him I have L Miller, L Murray and C Ivory. McFadden has displaced one of them in my starting lineup every week, but I don't have to have him, he's just a great depth option for me. For others who are relying on him, it's a lottery ticket with an unknown expiration date.

 

Can't you say the same about every one , that they are a lottery ticket with an unknown expiration date ?

[jgcrawfish 232]

Can't you say the same about every one , that they are a lottery ticket with an unknown expiration date ?

Not really. I can say that the guys I drafted have inflated values because I drafted them, which means the guys I didn't probably don't carry the same value (in my mind anyway). Snagging a guy off waivers because the starter got injured is more a factor of timing and luck than skill. As I pointed out, on the one team I have McFadden rostered I drafted Murray and Ivory. I traded to get Lamar Miller, sacrificing two other RB's I drafted. All of those guys have more "value" to me than McFadden, who I'm happy to have but realize it had little to do with my opinion of him or skill. Just my opinion though...

[General Gannicus 12]

Here's my take on McFadden..

 

I traded him a bunch of years ago to someone for a first round pick the following year since my team was 2-5 and fading fast..

 

My team caught fire after that and I made it all the way to the conference title game only to lose to - The guy I traded McFadden to who had a MONSTER game..

 

He went on to win the title with McFadden and Michael Vick carrying his team to glory..

 

He dropped McFadden the following year due to all the times he got injured brushing his teeth or got sand in his vag err turf toe/hamsring problems...

 

This year that same owner had Foster, Leveon, and picked up Dion Lewis after week 1 and lost them all... Well he now has McFadden starting for him again and is currently tied for first in my division..

 

That whole saying "A broken clock is right twice a day" is ringing loudly in my ear as I half expect McFadden to blow up down the stretch here with Romo back and carry this owners team deep into the playoffs again...

 

Normally I would be all doom and gloom about Kanye McFadden, since as a raiders fan I hated his penchant for limping off the field time and time again...

 

But whenever this certain owner in my league has had him and needed to use him he has been great, which leads me to believe he will in fact stay healthy and be even better with the Romo/Dez combo back to blast people..

 

Even though I know it has nothing to do with what actually happens on the field in the nfl, I can't help wondering how this certain owner has had McFadden twice and both times he has been great for him, whereas anyone else in my league who has owned him has been disappointed with the results...

[weepaws 2,461]

Not really. I can say that the guys I drafted have inflated values because I drafted them, which means the guys I didn't probably don't carry the same value (in my mind anyway). Snagging a guy off waivers because the starter got injured is more a factor of timing and luck than skill. As I pointed out, on the one team I have McFadden rostered I drafted Murray and Ivory. I traded to get Lamar Miller, sacrificing two other RB's I drafted. All of those guys have more "value" to me than McFadden, who I'm happy to have but realize it had little to do with my opinion of him or skill. Just my opinion though...

Yeah good response I gotcha .