is Gallman worth a WW priority spot?

[cavern 70]

what are you guys doing with the Saquan injury?  i tend to hold a ww priority for just this situation where a feature back gets hurt and you use the WW on the backup.

but gallman just doesn't FEEL like that guy that makes a difference in your season?  what are the thoughts on gallman?

[weepaws 2,459]

Agree with your statement. 

[SexyRexy 60]

If it’s a mere waiver claim yes but I wouldn’t dump any substantial faab on him

[mista-j 2]

I'm optimistic - Someone has to tote the rock and with the new QB, it looks like the offense is going to move the ball!

[SexyRexy 60]

I bet they bring in cj anderson

[zftcg 84]

I have Leveon on bye this week and need a starting RB. If I don't put in a claim on Gallman, my options are MSanders and Hyde. I'm really not sure I see Gallman as an upgrade over either of those two.

I don't always follow this, but one of my cardinal rules of fantasy is to never overemphasize opportunity over talent. Gallman just seems like the ultimate JAG.

[AxeElf 787]

7 minutes ago, zftcg said:

I have Leveon on bye this week and need a starting RB. If I don't put in a claim on Gallman, my options are MSanders and Hyde. I'm really not sure I see Gallman as an upgrade over either of those two.

I don't always follow this, but one of my cardinal rules of fantasy is to never overemphasize opportunity over talent. Gallman just seems like the ultimate JAG.

Yeah, you're fine with Hyde.

[weepaws 2,459]

Don’t think Gallman is a upgrade over Sanders nd Hyde either. 

[zftcg 84]

1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

Yeah, you're fine with Hyde.

Eh, the fact that they're apparently working out CJ Anderson would seem to be a vote of no confidence in him. But I still don't see Gallman as worth a waiver claim.

[AxeElf 787]

5 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Eh, the fact that they're apparently working out CJ Anderson would seem to be a vote of no confidence in him. But I still don't see Gallman as worth a waiver claim.

It could be a vote of no confidence in their starting RB, who is averaging 4.8 yards per carry and is on pace for 219 touches this season, or it could be a vote of no confidence in their backup RB, who has gone from 13 touches in Week 1, to 6 touches in Week 2, to 4 touches in Week 3.

[weepaws 2,459]

Either way if the Texans sign Anderson, it says a lot of the little confidence the Texans have in their rb. 

[AxeElf 787]

5 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Either way if the Texans sign Anderson, it says a lot of the little confidence the Texans have in their rb. 

I'm glad you used the singular of "RB" there, because it would certainly say a lot about the little confidence they have in the RB they sign him to replace--but not the other ones.

They may just be looking to upgrade Taiwan Jones, for that matter.

[GobbleDog 816]

This is what #1 waivers are for.  The Giants should be in no hurry to start Barkley soon.... "4 to 8 weeks" probably means 8 weeks.

Trade bait, screw teams out of RB depth, chance he blows up, chance you need a starting RB within next 8 weeks... hell yes he should be taken with the top waiver.

[vino 21]

12 hours ago, weepaws said:

Either way if the Texans sign Anderson, it says a lot of the little confidence the Texans have in their rb. 

I agree.  Unless Hyde is dealing with an injury unlisted, CJ is a similar RB. There's a chance they're trying him out to back up Hyde, but there's also a chance that they feel that they have seen Hyde's ceiling.  Idk.  But I'm curious, because I like Hyde. 

[zftcg 84]

Wow, Gallman wasn't claimed. Now I have a decision to make between Hyde and Gallman, and I have to start one of them (or else M Sanders) this week with Bell on bye. Talent-wise,  I prefer Hyde (relatively speaking) but if we're talking about a spot start I think I may prefer Gallman's guaranteed volume. The CJA thing had me a little spooked (even though they haven't even signed him, and even though the Giants will almost certainly be signing another vet as well. I'm not saying this is totally rational)

[AxeElf 787]

6 hours ago, zftcg said:

Wow, Gallman wasn't claimed. Now I have a decision to make between Hyde and Gallman, and I have to start one of them (or else M Sanders) this week with Bell on bye. Talent-wise,  I prefer Hyde (relatively speaking) but if we're talking about a spot start I think I may prefer Gallman's guaranteed volume. The CJA thing had me a little spooked (even though they haven't even signed him, and even though the Giants will almost certainly be signing another vet as well. I'm not saying this is totally rational)

I would think he would be worth picking up for free, but is Hyde really the worst player on your roster?  No redundant QB or TE?  If that's your only choice, then I guess I would stay with Hyde for now--he won't go back to the bench after Week 11.

[zftcg 84]

1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

I would think he would be worth picking up for free, but is Hyde really the worst player on your roster?  No redundant QB or TE?  If that's your only choice, then I guess I would stay with Hyde for now--he won't go back to the bench after Week 11.

Eh, I really only need him for this week while Bell is on bye. Start 2 RBs with no flex, and I have Sanders and Singletary backing up Bell and Ingram. It's possible that neither of the rookies will be start-worthy by the time of Ingram's bye in Week 8, but I'm not going to contort my roster for that possibility. Likelihood is Hyde will be long gone by that point.

Gallman was eventually picked up as a FA, which I figured would happen. I'm OK with that. He may be fine for a few weeks, but there are those moments when you're facing a dilemma and you suddenly realize, "Is my season going to be determined by whether or not I have Wayne Gallman on my roster?" And the answer is of course not.

[AxeElf 787]

7 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Eh, I really only need him for this week while Bell is on bye. Start 2 RBs with no flex, and I have Sanders and Singletary backing up Bell and Ingram.

I probly would have dropped Singletary for Gallman, because like you said, Gallman's only worth to you would be this week and Week 8, and I see Gallman as a better play in both of those weeks than either Sanders or Singletary at this point.

But if you still have Hyde, I guess that covers you adequately enough.

[zftcg 84]

4 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

I probly would have dropped Singletary for Gallman, because like you said, Gallman's only worth to you would be this week and Week 8, and I see Gallman as a better play in both of those weeks than either Sanders or Singletary at this point.

But if you still have Hyde, I guess that covers you adequately enough.

Yeah, I want to hold on to the rookies in the hopes that at least one of them pans out. At some point I may have to cut bait on one or both of them, but I'm not there yet.

[AxeElf 787]

1 minute ago, zftcg said:

Yeah, I want to hold on to the rookies in the hopes that at least one of them pans out.

I would agree with you in a vacuum, I just think that Gallman for the two weeks you would need him is more valuable to your team at this time than Singletary is.  If it's a keeper/dynasty league, then I would have kept Singletary, but in a redraft, I would have met the immediate need.

[Gepetto 985]

37 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Eh, I really only need him for this week while Bell is on bye. Start 2 RBs with no flex, and I have Sanders and Singletary backing up Bell and Ingram. It's possible that neither of the rookies will be start-worthy by the time of Ingram's bye in Week 8, but I'm not going to contort my roster for that possibility. Likelihood is Hyde will be long gone by that point.

Gallman was eventually picked up as a FA, which I figured would happen. I'm OK with that. He may be fine for a few weeks, but there are those moments when you're facing a dilemma and you suddenly realize, "Is my season going to be determined by whether or not I have Wayne Gallman on my roster?" And the answer is of course not.

I disagree on your Wayne Gallman point.  Yes, he won't help you win a championship this year because Saquon will be back, but he could definitely help you get to the playoffs, of course no player is necessary to get to the playoffs on their own.  Damien Williams helped me win a championship last year and I wasn't the Kareem Hunt owner.

[weepaws 2,459]

I would keep Hyde over picking up Gallman 

[zftcg 84]

41 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

I disagree on your Wayne Gallman point.  Yes, he won't help you win a championship this year because Saquon will be back, but he could definitely help you get to the playoffs, of course no player is necessary to get to the playoffs on their own.  Damien Williams helped me win a championship last year and I wasn't the Kareem Hunt owner.

It's possible he could be another DWill. I certainly didn't expect Williams to do what he did last year (if I had started him in the playoffs, I probably would have won a championship). 

Nonetheless, Gallman is no Williams, Jones is no Mahomes and the overall NYG offense is no KC. Could it still happen? Sure. But my point was I didn't feel all that strongly about it.

[AxeElf 787]

On 9/24/2019 at 11:55 AM, AxeElf said:

Yeah, you're fine with Hyde.

 

On 9/24/2019 at 1:18 PM, zftcg said:

Eh, the fact that they're apparently working out CJ Anderson would seem to be a vote of no confidence in him.

 

On 9/24/2019 at 1:27 PM, AxeElf said:

It could be a vote of no confidence in their starting RB, who is averaging 4.8 yards per carry and is on pace for 219 touches this season, or it could be a vote of no confidence in their backup RB, who has gone from 13 touches in Week 1, to 6 touches in Week 2, to 4 touches in Week 3.

In the course of replying to another post, I realized that the trade Houston made with Cleveland was a fourth round pick in 2020 for Duke, with the condition that it would become a third round pick if Johnson was active for 10 games or more.

I think we can all see where that condition is heading...

[zftcg 84]

39 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

In the course of replying to another post, I realized that the trade Houston made with Cleveland was a fourth round pick in 2020 for Duke, with the condition that it would become a third round pick if Johnson was active for 10 games or more.

I think we can all see where that condition is heading...

I don't disagree with your overall conclusion, but if I were Bill O'Brien and I was disappointed in my receiving back, I don't think the first guy I'd look to sign would be Fat CJ. But who knows? They still haven't actually signed anyone, so this may all end up being idle talk.