Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 15:30:04 GMT
Out of the 47 eligible backs (I believe eligibility is 25 carries) 3.5 ypc is good for 37th in the league...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 15:36:27 GMT
Which in a 32 team league where you start 2 backs (meaning you have 64 starting positions, not counting flex), 37th in the league makes you a starter. 37 < 64 Add in flex, which we'll say half the teams use a RB, half use a WR, you get 80. 37 is right in the middle of 1-80. As a matter of fact, it's better than average Am I saying he's a stud? Of course I'm not. I'm saying he's a capable starter in a league where RB is important.
|
|
|
Post by Patriots GM (Daniel) on Oct 12, 2012 15:48:44 GMT
Hes not a capable starter when he'll be racking up a grand total of 0 points until the playoffs which by the looks of things the steelers wont be making
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 15:53:46 GMT
I guess the fact that it's not a 1 year deal comes into play then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 16:04:48 GMT
9ers, you'assuming that his ypc is better than all those timeshare backs. If you brought all them into the equation he most likely slides down to 55-65 out of those 80.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 16:20:22 GMT
Would love to see the numbers on that.
I gave you facts... feel free to counter with things better than "most likely"
Also, define a timeshare back for me please.
The site I'm using for those stats are ranking RBs that have 25 carries or more on the season. That's 5 a game.
If you dont have 5 carries or more a game, you're not a timeshare back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 16:40:08 GMT
Would love to see the numbers on that. I gave you facts... feel free to counter with things better than "most likely" Also, define a timeshare back for me please. The site I'm using for those stats are ranking RBs that have 25 carries or more on the season. That's 5 a game. If you dont have 5 carries or more a game, you're not a timeshare back. Site I was using was using 25 carries as the bench mark too, and he was 37 out of 47. It was espn.com in case you were curious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 16:42:16 GMT
OK, so go back to your point.
What running backs dont have 25 carries right now (5 a game) that you consider time-share backs?
If they dont have 25 carries (barring injury), they dont deserve to be listed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 16:46:42 GMT
OK, so go back to your point. What running backs dont have 25 carries right now (5 a game) that you consider time-share backs? If they dont have 25 carries (barring injury), they dont deserve to be listed. I agree. I was just trying to meet and counter you on your 37 of 80 argument. Now that we have successfully established that as not really worthy of consideration we will just have to stick to the 37 of 47 number
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 17:14:45 GMT
But 37 of 47 is flawed. You're telling me there are only 47 RBs that are started in this league? Rosters would be very bare if that was the case.
It comes down to this. If I'm an NFL team and I need a RB next year, and I saw how productive Cedric Benson was before the injury, I would spend xxx dollars to put him on my roster. He'll have a team next year (and most likely the year after that). Stephen Jackson is the same age, and are you telling me that if the Rams parted ways he wouldn't be picked up by anyone because of his age? No chance.
Heading into the season, yes Cedric Benson was a laughing stock among fantasy players. But what has he done prior to the injury?
He's 21st in rushing yards, 29th in overall yards, and 37th in YPC.
He's the exact same age as Steven Jackson, and if Steven Jackson was hurt for 8 weeks, and in the same situation, nobody would bat an eye at this deal.
Get off the name "Cedric Benson" and just look at production. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by Bengals GM (Darryl) on Oct 12, 2012 18:32:46 GMT
But 37 of 47 is flawed. You're telling me there are only 47 RBs that are started in this league? Rosters would be very bare if that was the case. It comes down to this. If I'm an NFL team and I need a RB next year, and I saw how productive Cedric Benson was before the injury, I would spend xxx dollars to put him on my roster. He'll have a team next year (and most likely the year after that). Stephen Jackson is the same age, and are you telling me that if the Rams parted ways he wouldn't be picked up by anyone because of his age? No chance. Heading into the season, yes Cedric Benson was a laughing stock among fantasy players. But what has he done prior to the injury? He's 21st in rushing yards, 29th in overall yards, and 37th in YPC. He's the exact same age as Steven Jackson, and if Steven Jackson was hurt for 8 weeks, and in the same situation, nobody would bat an eye at this deal. Get off the name "Cedric Benson" and just look at production. That's all I'm saying. Good explanation. However you are only scratching the surface of what's real. You are attempting to incorporate the here and now (current stat line) against next year and beyond - as though that's the way it will be without considering the avg. shelf life of an RB. Don't get me wrong, I believe Benson very well may have a team next year - just like Jackson will. Will they actually start next year? Maybe, maybe not. Of course if Jackson stays he will most likely start. Much like if Benson would of stayed with the Bengals. Again, in keeping it real, if Jackson is released he would most likely be a complementary back, more so than a lead. Even in that, it's still a year by year basis with no guarantees. So to pay a back (whether Benson or Jackson) that type of money with no guarantees of starting doesn't make sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 20:17:51 GMT
If the Steelers league roster is correct, he cant afford Benson anyways. He just took on more cap in deal with Bills and barely had like a 1.5M in cap to start. Someone on TAB should verify.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 20:22:19 GMT
he would be taking on .272 (272,000) from me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 20:25:05 GMT
He would take a cap hit of 2,020,000 if waiving Johnson so would be out of sorts
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 20:31:18 GMT
49ers IS GOING TO CLAIM JOHNSON.
|
|