Jump to content
NBC Sports EDGE Forums

SadFaceHappy

Established Members
  • Posts

    4,452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

SadFaceHappy last won the day on September 25

SadFaceHappy had the most liked content!

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

SadFaceHappy's Achievements

On the Ballot

On the Ballot (9/11)

2.9k

Reputation

  1. Annnnnnnd we can stop reading there. Maybe we'll get back to it, maybe not.
  2. I think it's very possible Herbert has played himself into a consistent 6-12 carry role. Bears would love to run 30+ times every game, so Monty's attempts could be reduced a bit but still left with plenty of meat on the bone. I think DW maintains as 3rd down/hurry up back role, since he's very good at that, but sees limited rushing attempts. Real life football, the Bears have a great situation with 3 above average backs who each bring a little something different to the table. Fantasy football wise, it could be a real headache. Monty's ceiling would be capped, while DW and Herbert are too good to drop but to unpredictable to play. But who knows, they've got an offensive super genius guru in charge. Maybe they'll just have Fields take a knee every play. Edit: Have him on two teams, even though TB is a bad matchup and he's got the bye in 3 weeks. He's looked very good so far, and he'll be locking down a spot on my rosters as long as I can hold him. Dropping Latavius instead on one of those teams where I need to fill a bye player.
  3. Disclaimer: I don't have Damien anywhere. FWIW, I'm holding onto Herbert where I have him. DW's availability is a complete unknown at this point, don't know how much to read into them working out other rbs, but that's not the main reason I'm holding him (TB is obviously a **** matchup). I think Herbert has looked really good and done a lot with his opportunities. That probably sucks for not only DW owners, but Monty owners too. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that Herbert's played himself into regular 10 rushes/game role. I think DW keeps his passing down role when he comes back, both with and without Monty playing. He's very good at it. I do think he'll lose some rushing work. Had 16 carries vs LV, which isn't really what he's about. But LV was the rare game in which they pretty much led throughout and had the luxury of running it almost 30+ times. DW should still get a handful of carries/game and a few targets.
  4. Wrong thread, but I kinda like Aiyuk as a speculative add this week regardless of Deebo. Definitely showed he's got explosive ability last year - who knows, maybe he'll have used the bye to crawl out of the doghouse a bit. For all his Shanahanigans, coach isn't trying to make his offense less capable if he can help it. 80% replacement is higher than I'd predict, but you might not be wrong there. Would be great if he could do that.
  5. Great analysis, guys. Really well thought out. Totes convincing that you spent all your faab based on sound, logical process instead of getting swept up in hype and hope. You've made a believer of me.
  6. I'll address this more specifically, and try to be more succinct. Eli vs D'Ernest? No idea, haven't thought about. I'm not going after D'Ernest with any of my teams since I don't have huge expectations for him, but I would bid something on Eli if he were available. You're right that the odds of Eli starting for 10 or more weeks are higher than most of the hot waiver pickups of the last two weeks, but I wouldn't put it higher than 60% or so. I clearly prefer Hubbard. I think his chances for starting 10+ games are only slightly less than Eli's, maybe 50% vs 60%, and I think his production will be higher. Conveniently, both have started 3 games this year. Stats for their 3 starts: Mitchell: 45/189/1 rushing, 4/4/30/0 receiving. Longest gain = 14 yards. Hubbard: 53/219/1 rushing, 11/8/51/0 receiving. Longest gain = 26 yards. Close enough that it doesn't really prove anything. Mitchell can reasonably be expected to start more games, though the gap in that expectation is subjective, while it should be noted that he's already missed games due to injury while Hubbard has not. I still don't know how predictable this 49ers backfield is going to be. Wilson will presumably return at some point this season, could be a couple weeks or more than a month, and we don't know how that will affect Mitchell's usage. Sermon is present, though out of favor. There are multiple variables at play impacting his outlook. Hubbard's situation is much simpler. If McCaffrey is healthy, he's not usable. If McCaffrey is out, Hubbard will get 20+ touches/game. The only variable is McCaffrey's health. Betting on injury is usually an unlikely proposition, but we have precedent for this situation just last year, with a variety of injuries to McCaffrey over just a year. It is not unreasonable to think there's a relatively high chance McCaffrey's 2021 goes a lot like his 2020, especially with a hamstring problem. So we have coach/situation variability vs injury variability. What about talent? I didn't know much of anything about Mitchell prior to week 1, and didn't do any homework on him. I'm a big NFL draft nerd and didn't hear/read much about him prior to it, so I presume he wasn't some sleeper prospect that many saw much special in. Kylin Hill and Javian Hawkins got some of that, but not Mitchell the 6th round pick. Hubbard, on the other hand, ran for 2,000+ yards 2 years ago and generated a lot of buzz in draft circles. A lackluster 2020 took the shine off Hubbard, and he "fell" to the 4th round. Mitchell was the 2nd rb drafted by the 49ers, while Hubbard was picked to be the direct understudy to McCaffrey. I thought Mitchell's highlights looked good week 1, but nothing that really stood out. I watched Hubbard that Thursday night after McCaffrey went down and was impressed enough. Maybe I missed something not watching Mitchell vs the Lions closely, but I concluded Chuba had plenty of juice to produce if/when McCaffrey missed games.
  7. I'll take Chuba + some combination of the others or high end bye fillers. Their situations really aren't, or only slightly, any less promising/certain than Mitchell's was/is. If you want to gamble all in on a 6th round pick who pops off in a notoriously unpredictable backfield week 1, go for it. I just don't think it's good process. There's a reason he wasn't drafted, and that's unpredictability. Like I said, I think he was the #1 waiver priority heading into week 2 and worth using a #1 rolling claim on or 25+% of faab. Indeed, I bid around 25% on him in my faab leagues and narrowly lost. I then wasted that same amount on Rondale Moore a week later. But I could afford to make a mistake on Moore and still have enough to get Chuba precisely because I didn't go all in on Mitchell. When you go all in like that, about as early as possible, you pretty much eliminate your margin for error going forward. No, it's not 100% due to injury. He had 17 rushes for 42 yards against Philly, who the Falcons ran for 100+ on the week before despite a historically poor offensive line performance and pass-inducing game script, the 28th ranked rush defense in the league. He got stuffed at the goal line, while Hasty had a 20+ yard run and Sermon 8 before getting ko'ed. Week 5 against AZ he was better and got the bulk of rb touches, but nothing special. Since week 1, he has 85 yards rushing and 30 receiving on 30 opportunities, with 0 TDs. Again, the opportunities are encouraging, but his production hasn't been all in worthy (imo). And yes, he did get injured enough to miss 2 weeks. In his 2nd game, less than 40 touches into his career. That would concern me if I had to rely on him, which you probably do if you've gone all in. Again, I'm not saying he wasn't worth taking a shot on. But I'm going to use another reference to poker here: you can't win a tournament on the first hand, but you can lose it. If you spent all of your faab on Mitchell, you haven't lost yet, but your margin for error has been reduced. If nothing else, a freak injury buries you. Take that same amount of faab and spread it around on 3 or 4 players, and your odds of hitting, of being right on one of them, are higher and you have room for error. I spent 25ish% on Rondale and 50ish% on Chuba. Didn't have quite enough room to get Toney after that. Well, Rondale was a swing and miss. Overspending on Chuba seemed real foolish 2 weeks ago when it was looking like McCaffrey would only miss a game, but a little less foolish now that he's on IR. But I considered the risk/reward calculus with both Chuba and Mitchell. It led me to a 25% bid on Mitchell after week 1 and a 50% bid on Chuba after week 3. If you come to a different calculation there, that's fine. We're not all robots running the same program. I understand the calculus of getting your guy early and maximizing his value to your team, which is why I was willing to go big on Chuba with 80%+ of the season to go. My reasoning is in the Chuba thread, so I'll leave it there. Point is, I had/have at least a little breathing room with 12 weeks ahead. I think Chuba and Mitchell both have "league winner" ceilings, and were worth significant investment when they were available and potential appeared, but it was potential, not certainty. The only situation I can think of that might have warranted something close to going all in so early in the season would be the season Lev Bell sat out and James Connor was set to take his spot. But that situation had a lot more certainty with Connor's pedigree and Pittsburgh's unwavering commitment to having a bellcow back, though even then there was the looming possibility of Bell's return. Not a perfect parallel since it was just before the season instead of after the first week, but close enough. I guess if Cook were to go down with a season ender week 1 and Mattison was on waivers, that could warrant all in. I don't see Mitchell or San Fran nearly as predictable as Connor or Mattison and Pittsburgh or Minnesota, but if you did it's reasonable to take your shot. I'll bold this for those who wish to skip the wall of text. I criticize the process here because I don't think anybody did the calculation and came to the same level of certainty, or predictability, with Mitchell/SF as they would have with Connor/PIT or Mattison/MIN. Which makes sense because the confidence in projection is based on a lot less evidence, thus much thinner. Instead, I think people were met with a completely out of the blue opportunity, excited at the possibilities it presented, and let hope of hitting jackpot take over. That hope and false confidence was reinforced by the circular reasoning of the ff community hyping each other up. With that hopeful hype, the corollary fear of missing out was inflamed, and the threshold of risk investment was pushed to irrational levels. This is why, even if Mitchell produces amazing results when all is said and done, I don't think it was good process to go all in on him.
  8. Mitchell might be a season long starter, which will get him touches, but he's not Najee Harris here. The automatic rb2 talk is ridiculously optimistic. He's got a chance to put up those kinds of numbers, but it shouldn't be expected. He had a good week 1, debuting with 100+ yards against the worst team in the league. He followed that up with 17/42 against the same defense Mike Davis went 15/46 on, and CP 7/54, the previous week, and is now a bottom 5 run defense. He got hurt that game and missed the next 2 weeks. He came back to the apparent starting role and put up 62 yards on 11 touches. So you've got 1 good game, 1 poor game, 1 mediocre game, and 2 games missed to injury. Long term, he may pay off. He should at least have the opportunity to take over if he can take advantage of it. But short term, with a non-zero but lesser possibility of being long term, guys like Collins, Hubbard, both D. Williamses, Herbert, Booker, Mattison were all superior plays. Even Mitchell's backup, Sermon, had a 19/90 game filling in. It's a positive sign that Mitchell went back to primary status in week 5. So at least the pecking order appears to be settled for now. But if you went all in on this dude after week 1? That's questionable process, like shoving with an open ended straight draw on a paired flop. It was a lot less clear after 1 week that this dude had the backfield locked up. It was, and still is, unclear if he's actually any good, and/or if the 49ers running game is. If you spent all your faab on Mitchell 1 game into the season, you couldn't grab any of the other RBs (edit: not to mention players like Tony or Knox) that became valuable as the season has progressed, and you've yet to realize any gains. Maybe it'll work out, maybe it won't. Regardless, it strikes me as bad process. Decision making was driven by a snowball of hype and hope that was a bit out of control. I realize there are plenty of people who got him without going all in. He was certainly the #1 player to add on standings-based waivers and a smart use of priority with rolling waivers. He went for 25-35% faab in my faab leagues, so I imagine plenty of people got him around that price, which is reasonable. But shoving around 100% with 95% of the season left to be played? Maybe a bit irrationally aggressive.
  9. That's a good call, I might do so myself. He's available in about half my leagues. Only thing is how much production Aiyuk will make up. His numbers will surely increase, but maybe the offense just tanks? I wouldn't necessarily priotize it if there are other guys you like better, like Bateman or Sheppard, that have independent value, but it's a good idea if you're otherwise set and want some security.
  10. Royse Freeman LITERALLY face planted when given a chance at the goal line after McCaffrey went down, and came up a full yard short. Chuba is getting 90% of the backfield touches. Plug and play as long as McCaffrey isn't playing.
  11. I have to put him in Najee's spot due to the bye. I am not happy about it.
×
×
  • Create New...