McLaurin's value with Heinicke?

[RedzoneMonster 102]

Anyone still think he puts up anywhere near WR1 numbers with heinicke at the helm?  WR2, WR3 at this point?  Someone offering me Miles Sanders for McLaurin straight up and I'm kinda considering it now.  

[AxeElf 787]

I didn't see much of the game, but the reports I've read said that the passing game "came alive" when Heineke came in the game.  Fitz was 3/6 for 13 yards before the injury.

So maybe wait and see, although if you need the RB help more than you need McLaurin, the trade offer isn't insane.

[BuschWack 56]

I think Heinicke is a very capable backup QB.  He knows where to put the ball.  I'd hold McLaurin.

[polecatt 399]

I don't think it's going to effect his numbers much.

The Football Team hasn't had a good QB in ages. His entire career, he's basically been playing with back ups.

I guess the deal kind of depends on how much you need a RB vs a WR, but I don't really think Miles Sanders is going to be any more reliable. He's not been so far in his short career.

Philly hasn't had RB consistency since McCoy

[RedzoneMonster 102]

2 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

I didn't see much of the game, but the reports I've read said that the passing game "came alive" when Heineke came in the game.  Fitz was 3/6 for 13 yards before the injury.

So maybe wait and see, although if you need the RB help more than you need McLaurin, the trade offer isn't insane.

My only other RBs are A. Jones and Henderson.  I worry Henderson will be phased out and I'll be stuck with no RB2.  For WR I also have Diggs, Dionte Johnson and I'd start Devonta Smith in McLaurin's place if I traded him.  

[AxeElf 787]

1 minute ago, RedzoneMonster said:

My only other RBs are A. Jones and Henderson.  I worry Henderson will be phased out and I'll be stuck with no RB2.  For WR I also have Diggs, Dionte Johnson and I'd start Devonta Smith in McLaurin's place if I traded him.  

Yeah, you almost kind of DO need Sanders more than you need McLaurin.

[Ray_T 587]

3 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Yeah, you almost kind of DO need Sanders more than you need McLaurin.

from the look of your team I'd have to agree with the Elf.

there are some times where you make trades more for need.  in cases like this sometimes you pay a bit more than fair market value to get the job done.

This may be one of those times.

[BuschWack 56]

6 minutes ago, RedzoneMonster said:

My only other RBs are A. Jones and Henderson.  I worry Henderson will be phased out and I'll be stuck with no RB2.  For WR I also have Diggs, Dionte Johnson and I'd start Devonta Smith in McLaurin's place if I traded him.  

Although I still like McLaurin with Heinicke at QB, considering your roster, this trade would make sense.  Can you also pick up Gainwell off waivers?

[RedzoneMonster 102]

1 minute ago, BuschWack said:

Although I still like McLaurin with Heinicke at QB, considering your roster, this trade would make sense.  Can you also pick up Gainwell off waivers?

Unfortunately Gainwell is owned already.

[BuschWack 56]

2 minutes ago, RedzoneMonster said:

Unfortunately Gainwell is owned already.

tough call.  

[RedzoneMonster 102]

I put the offer up. "No risk it, no biscuit!"  Thanks for all your advice.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

18 minutes ago, RedzoneMonster said:

My only other RBs are A. Jones and Henderson.  I worry Henderson will be phased out and I'll be stuck with no RB2.  For WR I also have Diggs, Dionte Johnson and I'd start Devonta Smith in McLaurin's place if I traded him.  

I wouldn't do the deal, whether you "need" Sanders or not.  For McLaurin, you can get better.  I'd wait and see if you could.  McLaurin had 6 for 72 from Heinicke in the playoff game vs Tampa, so I think he'll be fine.  It's not like Fitzpatrick is a star or anything.

Sanders did have 15 carries and 4 receptions, but he had 0 rush attempts inside the red zone.  Gainwell only had 1, on 8 carries, but Hurts threw 4 passes inside the red zone.  That's a trend that may continue.

[weepaws 2,450]

Based on the OP current roster doing the deal is the right move. N

 

[BuschWack 56]

If you can get some sort of trade done with the Gainwell owner first.. that would be ideal.  so you own both.  but may not be doable.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

9 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Based on the OP current roster doing the deal is the right move. N

 

Disagree.  Henderson averaged 4.4 yards per carry Sunday night on 16 carries against a top 10 run defense in terms of yards per attempt last year.  He may get a couple less, like only 14, but I don't think Michel is anything special to warrant more than 4 or 5 carries a game.  Teams generally run about 65 plays per game and the Rams only ran 52 the other night.  I see no reason why the Rams would be in such a hurry to push Henderson to a reduced roll for Michel.  Besides, it's not something that'll likely happen in the next 2 to 3 weeks anyway, even if it were to happen.  In that time frame, McLaurin will have time to put up better games.

[Ray_T 587]

5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Disagree.  Henderson averaged 4.4 yards per carry Sunday night on 16 carries against a top 10 run defense in terms of yards per attempt last year.  He may get a couple less, like only 14, but I don't think Michel is anything special to warrant more than 4 or 5 carries a game.  Teams generally run about 65 plays per game and the Rams only ran 52 the other night.  I see no reason why the Rams would be in such a hurry to push Henderson to a reduced roll for Michel.  Besides, it's not something that'll likely happen in the next 2 to 3 weeks anyway, even if it were to happen.  In that time frame, McLaurin will have time to put up better games.

well, I fully agree Michel needs time to learn the playbook.  

That wont happen overnight.  he will probably start with the short yardage team and expand his role from there.

To that end you have a week or two to figure it out.  you dont need to make a move today unless the deal is good and you dont wanna wait or shop around.

[tanatastic 2,061]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Disagree.  Henderson averaged 4.4 yards per carry Sunday night on 16 carries against a top 10 run defense in terms of yards per attempt last year.  He may get a couple less, like only 14, but I don't think Michel is anything special to warrant more than 4 or 5 carries a game.  Teams generally run about 65 plays per game and the Rams only ran 52 the other night.  I see no reason why the Rams would be in such a hurry to push Henderson to a reduced roll for Michel.  Besides, it's not something that'll likely happen in the next 2 to 3 weeks anyway, even if it were to happen.  In that time frame, McLaurin will have time to put up better games.

People seem obsessed with making Michel a thing but I don’t see it. Hendy  should have had an even better game. Rams we’re up the whole game yet barely ran the ball til late and then Henderson got some chunk yardage and a lot of carries. Not to mention a tough bears D. Coach will see that and fix it in practice and gameplan better for those type of situations to work the clock. 

[RedzoneMonster 102]

FYI, I made the trade.  Maybe I'll regret it, but feel good about it now.  Even if Henderson stays the starter and plays well, I think I'd rather have a solid backup RB in Sanders (rather than zero backup RB) and start D. Smith in place of Terry, than have Terry and risk losing my season with a RB injury.  We'll see what happens..

[weepaws 2,450]

2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Disagree.  Henderson averaged 4.4 yards per carry Sunday night on 16 carries against a top 10 run defense in terms of yards per attempt last year.  He may get a couple less, like only 14, but I don't think Michel is anything special to warrant more than 4 or 5 carries a game.  Teams generally run about 65 plays per game and the Rams only ran 52 the other night.  I see no reason why the Rams would be in such a hurry to push Henderson to a reduced roll for Michel.  Besides, it's not something that'll likely happen in the next 2 to 3 weeks anyway, even if it were to happen.  In that time frame, McLaurin will have time to put up better games.

Disagree about what? I didn’t say Henderson looked bad, didn’t say Michel will surpass him, Michel will keep getting more work everyone game going forward there’s no doubt about that . 

The OP said the OP rb are Henderson and A Jones, and that’s it, must be the only two he trust.  

I think the Redskins young Qb is going to be a sold match with Mclaurin, but the OP has three other WRs that the OP trust going forward , so if one of those two Rbs suffers an injury or if , or when Michel starts getting more work that would be a problem with no rb depth. 

I say do the deal. 

And the OP. 

Congrats Op good move.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

9 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Disagree about what? I didn’t say Henderson looked bad, didn’t say Michel will surpass him, Michel will keep getting more work everyone game going forward there’s no doubt about that . 

The OP said the OP rb are Henderson and A Jones, and that’s it, must be the only two he trust.  

I think the Redskins young Qb is going to be a sold match with Mclaurin, but the OP has three other WRs that the OP trust going forward , so if one of those two Rbs suffers an injury or if , or when Michel starts getting more work that would be a problem with no rb depth. 

I say do the deal. 

And the OP. 

Congrats Op good move.  

Your statement that I responded to was:
"Based on the OP current roster doing the deal is the right move."

That's what I disagreed with.  I don't think it was the right move.   I gave reasons why.  

[Ray_T 587]

1 hour ago, tanatastic said:

People seem obsessed with making Michel a thing but I don’t see it. Hendy  should have had an even better game. Rams we’re up the whole game yet barely ran the ball til late and then Henderson got some chunk yardage and a lot of carries. Not to mention a tough bears D. Coach will see that and fix it in practice and gameplan better for those type of situations to work the clock. 

I dont know about making Michel a thing.

but I do know hes gonna get some carries in this offense.

what we dont know is what role he will play.   I'd assume hed start with something like short yardage offense and the base offense. As he expands his knowledge of the playbook his role may expand.   But to some degree he will likely need to earn his extra playing time.   The best way to do that is to perform well at what he is doing.

in general I usually give the Incumbent the advantage because they are currently starting.   By the time Michel learns the playbook, the coaches will have a pretty good idea of what Henderson is capable of (and what he isnt)

so the areas where Henderson isnt doing as well, Michel will likely get a shot at filling that need.   But if Henderson plays well all around and the team is winning, the Coach wont likely risk ruining a good thing so Michel will stay off the field other than to spell Henderson.

 but if Henderson doesnt play exceptionally well, he opens the door to the competition.

To that end its all speculative.  people who picked up Michel I'm sure are hoping he gets the gig.   Thats probably  what most of this is.  in reality, its a bit of a tossup. 

Coach wont replace Henderson outright unless he has good reason to do so.  If Henderson sucks in games, or fumbles, or if Michel REALLY blows the doors off in practice and shows hes clearly the better back from day one.

I wouldnt bet on either scenario.  this is probably gonna take place over time (if it happens at all)

[weepaws 2,450]

2 hours ago, tanatastic said:

People seem obsessed with making Michel a thing but I don’t see it. Hendy  should have had an even better game. Rams we’re up the whole game yet barely ran the ball til late and then Henderson got some chunk yardage and a lot of carries. Not to mention a tough bears D. Coach will see that and fix it in practice and gameplan better for those type of situations to work the clock. 

What do you mean, making Michel out to be a thing, he’s the back up rb to a back up rb on a productive team, and he’s bound to get some work, agree? 

[weepaws 2,450]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Your statement that I responded to was:
"Based on the OP current roster doing the deal is the right move."

That's what I disagreed with.  I don't think it was the right move.   I gave reasons why.  

I think it was a very tough move, and the OP felt the same way, that’s why the OP posted it.  

But now the OP is three deep at rb and at wr. 

I think it was the right move , and when Michel starts to get more work next week the OP will be very happy, I expect for Michel to get no less then ten touches next game.  

 

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

If you want to acquire McLaurin, wait until after Bradbury locks him down

[Ray_T 587]

On 9/14/2021 at 11:09 AM, BuschWack said:

I think Heinicke is a very capable backup QB.  He knows where to put the ball.  I'd hold McLaurin.

this is the right answer.

from what I saw late last year from this kid I'm actually surprised the team brought in a QB to take over as the starter.  He looked legit.

that being said.... it is Washington

 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

If tonight is any indication it should still be pretty good. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

Looks like McLaurin's value just went up higher.