Late Round RB Lottery Ticket? Booker, Washington, C-Mike, Howard?

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

1. I care when the starter is an all time nfl great with zero chance of being benched for performance like some of the other guys starters.

 

2. You are overrating Jerrick. Right before Hills breakout, I traded him for Jerrick who was the new starter and had a decent game. Jerrick did squat while Hill took over the nfl, cost me the title. He is mediocre. Vikings are nothing without AP.

 

3. Oh no one to steal carries? Like when Jerrick was starting and Matt Asiata got all the tds? Dont assume they wouldnt do something like that again, he aint some star waiting for his chance.

 

4. Not even sure what you are saying here. 800 attempts? He has 165 carries. Alot of backups to studs have high ypc, they play in garbage time or clean up, its misleading.

 

5. Didnt say he was a lesser option than Michael, I just said he wasnt better. He is equal at best.

1 & 2. Ok, so you're biased. That's fine. Here's what I find interesting though, you were burned by a rookie (McKinnon in 2014), so you'll hate on him, but will side with other rookies? Seems a little odd to me.

3. Asiata is a guy who will get his touches, sure, but there's not 4 hands in the cookie jar like in Seattle.

4. Ok, I'm an idiot, I saw was looking at his yardage total. It happens. I never claimed to be perfect. Still, in 165 carries, 4.5 ypc is better than what any of these other guys have.

5. He's a way better option than Michael.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,101]

1 & 2. Ok, so you're biased. That's fine. Here's what I find interesting though, you were burned by a rookie (McKinnon in 2014), so you'll hate on him, but will side with other rookies? Seems a little odd to me.

3. Asiata is a guy who will get his touches, sure, but there's not 4 hands in the cookie jar like in Seattle.

4. Ok, I'm an idiot, I saw was looking at his yardage total. It happens. I never claimed to be perfect. Still, in 165 carries, 4.5 ypc is better than what any of these other guys have.

5. He's a way better option than Michael.

He isn't as physically gifted as michael. Michael can run through or around guys. If he has his head screwed on straight he is a top 5 talent in this league, and this is coming from a guy who really likes Mckinnon. Way better is purely opinion and there isn't much to back it up with both of their limited involvement.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

He isn't as physically gifted as michael. Michael can run through or around guys. If he has his head screwed on straight he is a top 5 talent in this league, and this is coming from a guy who really likes Mckinnon. Way better is purely opinion and there isn't much to back it up with both of their limited involvement.

I assure you, I don't "really like" McKinnon. I won't even consider drafting him. What I said was, I like him more than the 4 mentioned. Also, Michael is an idiot who can't stay on the field because he's stupid. I don't trust stupid. I don't care how gifted he is.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,101]

I assure you, I don't "really like" McKinnon. I won't even consider drafting him. What I said was, I like him more than the 4 mentioned. Also, Michael is an idiot who can't stay on the field because he's stupid. I don't trust stupid. I don't care how gifted he is.

He did fine for them last year. If he was so stupid why was he the Seahawks starting RB in the playoffs? Why did they even bother keeping him on the roster after drafting all of those other rbs? Why even give him so many starting carries when the rooks should be getting those important reps if they are to take his roster spot? It doesn't make any sense to do all that and then just drop him to the bottom of the depth chart.

 

If Rawls gets hurt again, who steps in? The rookie that has had a hammy injury all preseason? The rookie who hasn't gotten any love as a potential starter in the preseason? It will be Michael. It wasn't just stupidity that cost him, it was a lack of effort to be the pro he needed to be.

 

Cmike has the highest ceiling if all of them are named the starter right now, that's why I take him.

[tanatastic 2,062]

1 & 2. Ok, so you're biased. That's fine. Here's what I find interesting though, you were burned by a rookie (McKinnon in 2014), so you'll hate on him, but will side with other rookies? Seems a little odd to me.

3. Asiata is a guy who will get his touches, sure, but there's not 4 hands in the cookie jar like in Seattle.

4. Ok, I'm an idiot, I saw was looking at his yardage total. It happens. I never claimed to be perfect. Still, in 165 carries, 4.5 ypc is better than what any of these other guys have.

5. He's a way better option than Michael.

1/2. My anecdote was just an example, im not biased. Yes I will trust a rookie who is unknown vs a guy I know to have minimal chance at value behind an all time great (not debateable).

 

3. Asiata was a better option than Jerrick when Jerrick was starting for some games. There are plenty of hands, not one time has anyone said Jerrick would be the man if AP were down. We dont know what they would do. Prob panic.

 

4. Of course its better they have 0 for 0. Unfair to say.

 

5. Pure opinion and a bad one at that. Let it be known that I despise Michael. But lets take that bias away for a sec. One guy is behind a sophomore who was recently injured and already has blurbs saying he could see significant work. The other is a strict backup behind an all timer and has zero shot of significant work barring injury. Use logic, which scenario above is more conducive to possible value?

[Kent 228]

 

 

Would he count? His ADP is about 2 to 4 rounds better than the guys previously mentioned.

He's fallen in mock drafts I've done to where those guys are being drafted.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

1/2. My anecdote was just an example, im not biased. Yes I will trust a rookie who is unknown vs a guy I know to have minimal chance at value behind an all time great (not debateable).

 

3. Asiata was a better option than Jerrick when Jerrick was starting for some games. There are plenty of hands, not one time has anyone said Jerrick would be the man if AP were down. We dont know what they would do. Prob panic.

 

4. Of course its better they have 0 for 0. Unfair to say.

 

5. Pure opinion and a bad one at that. Let it be known that I despise Michael. But lets take that bias away for a sec. One guy is behind a sophomore who was recently injured and already has blurbs saying he could see significant work. The other is a strict backup behind an all timer and has zero shot of significant work barring injury. Use logic, which scenario above is more conducive to possible value?

 

I'm not, and never have downplayed Peterson's career, I'm simply saying that father time is now more against him than in the past.

 

McKinnon was also a rookie compared to a 3-year vet (at the time), obviously a more familiar player with the system would get touches. But as you saw, Asiata lost the job pretty quickly, I believe it took 5 games for the team to turn to McKinnon. They didn't really go back fully to Asiata until McKinnon got hurt. I don't think they'll panic at all. I think they'll probably go with McKinnon as a 2-down back and Asiata as the goal line/3rd down back. Bridgewater and McKinnon aren't rookies anymore like they were that year.

 

I don't see why it's unfair... those are the facts?

 

I don't doubt that those other guys could have a faster track to get playing time, I just highly doubt their productivity. Also, with respect to Michael, we've heard for the last 3 years that he could see significant playing time because of his talent, and in the end, he did nothing... well, he did get cut by 2 different teams, so I guess that's something. He's lost all benefit of the doubt. He's completely in the "totally worthless until you prove otherwise" category.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

He's fallen in mock drafts I've done to where those guys are being drafted.

 

Ok.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,101]

 

I'm not, and never have downplayed Peterson's career, I'm simply saying that father time is now more against him than in the past.

 

McKinnon was also a rookie compared to a 3-year vet (at the time), obviously a more familiar player with the system would get touches. But as you saw, Asiata lost the job pretty quickly, I believe it took 5 games for the team to turn to McKinnon. They didn't really go back fully to Asiata until McKinnon got hurt. I don't think they'll panic at all. I think they'll probably go with McKinnon as a 2-down back and Asiata as the goal line/3rd down back. Bridgewater and McKinnon aren't rookies anymore like they were that year.

 

I don't see why it's unfair... those are the facts?

 

I don't doubt that those other guys could have a faster track to get playing time, I just highly doubt their productivity. Also, with respect to Michael, we've heard for the last 3 years that he could see significant playing time because of his talent, and in the end, he did nothing... well, he did get cut by 2 different teams, so I guess that's something. He's lost all benefit of the doubt. He's completely in the "totally worthless until you prove otherwise" category.

Asiata as the least athletic 3rd down back in the league? That's Mckinnons wheel house. I think that would last for about two drives before the team decided to never do that again.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

Asiata as the least athletic 3rd down back in the league? That's Mckinnons wheel house. I think that would last for about two drives before the team decided to never do that again.

 

They didn't use them that way in 2014 when Peterson missed the whole year. Asiata was getting the bulk of the receiving work and the short yardage duties. Considering that McKinnon is more familiar with the playbook and the NFL, that certainly can change. I just saw so little of both of them last year that I never paid attention to their roles.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,101]

 

They didn't use them that way in 2014 when Peterson missed the whole year. Asiata was getting the bulk of the receiving work and the short yardage duties. Considering that McKinnon is more familiar with the playbook and the NFL, that certainly can change. I just saw so little of both of them last year that I never paid attention to their roles.

I remember it well. I had Mckinnon because I thought his athleticism would win out. But the staff kept rolling with stuck in mud Asiata. It was one of the first signs I saw that the offense was being run pretty poorly. Rookies get chances all the time. I saw nothing that showed Mckinnon was completely incapable of handling more responsibility. I did see Asiata being painfully unathletic.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

I remember it well. I had Mckinnon because I thought his athleticism would win out. But the staff kept rolling with stuck in mud Asiata. It was one of the first signs I saw that the offense was being run pretty poorly. Rookies get chances all the time. I saw nothing that showed Mckinnon was completely incapable of handling more responsibility. I did see Asiata being painfully unathletic.

Was it possible that Asiata was a better pass blocker? Maybe with Bridgewater being a rookie, they'd rather have a better pass blocking RB in their than in those situations, than the better pass catcher? I don't know, I didn't watch their games. I saw no reason to draft any Viking that year, LOL.

[tanatastic 2,062]

 

I don't see why it's unfair... those are the facts?

 

You dont see how its unfair to use "Mckinnon has better stats and ypc" than rookies with nothing as an argument? Name the worst RB in the nfl, he also has more yards and carries than Ezekiel Elliot, since he is a rookie. Is this terrible RB better than Zeke? "those are the facts" right? Christ almighty man.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

You dont see how its unfair to use "Mckinnon has better stats and ypc" than rookies with nothing as an argument? Name the worst RB in the nfl, he also has more yards and carries than Ezekiel Elliot, since he is a rookie. Is this terrible RB better than Zeke? "those are the facts" right? Christ almighty man.

 

The difference is that Elliot is an elite talent, as deemed by his top 5 draft pick. Those other guys were drafted in the 5th round. They clearly don't have elite talent. Also, the fact that Elliot was pretty much known to be the starter on day 1 as compared to no one even knowing if those 4 were going to be on the roster day 1 is an indication as well, that there is a talent/expectation difference.

[tanatastic 2,062]

 

The difference is that Elliot is an elite talent, as deemed by his top 5 draft pick. Those other guys were drafted in the 5th round. They clearly don't have elite talent. Also, the fact that Elliot was pretty much known to be the starter on day 1 as compared to no one even knowing if those 4 were going to be on the roster day 1 is an indication as well, that there is a talent/expectation difference.

Plenty of guys drafted late and called "non elite" have went on to become elite talents. Plenty of guys called elite, drafted in rnd 1 have went on to become no talent busts. Your black and white arguments and opinions are dampening your credibility.

 

Edit: Oof, just rereading the bolded makes me cringe.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,101]

 

The difference is that Elliot is an elite talent, as deemed by his top 5 draft pick. Those other guys were drafted in the 5th round. They clearly don't have elite talent. Also, the fact that Elliot was pretty much known to be the starter on day 1 as compared to no one even knowing if those 4 were going to be on the roster day 1 is an indication as well, that there is a talent/expectation difference.

Russel Wilson drafted in the third. Tom Brady in the 6th. Rawls undrafted. Plenty of guys come out of late rounds to be good/great

[tanatastic 2,062]

Russel Wilson drafted in the third. Tom Brady in the 6th. Rawls undrafted. Plenty of guys come out of late rounds to be good/great

We could spend all day listing great players and elite talents to be drafted 5th round or later or that came out of nowhere after people doubted them.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

Russel Wilson drafted in the third. Tom Brady in the 6th. Rawls undrafted. Plenty of guys come out of late rounds to be good/great

 

Some... not "plenty". Also keep in mind that a significant amount don't.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

Plenty of guys drafted late and called "non elite" have went on to become elite talents. Plenty of guys called elite, drafted in rnd 1 have went on to become no talent busts. Your black and white arguments and opinions are dampening your credibility.

 

Edit: Oof, just rereading the bolded makes me cringe.

 

"Plenty"? That's an extreme over statement, don't you think? If you and I started listing all the 5th round picks (and later)... you noting the one's who turned out to be elite talents, and I noting the one's who didn't... who do you think is going stop first?

[tanatastic 2,062]

 

Some... not "plenty". Also keep in mind that a significant amount don't.

Plenty. The fact that plenty also dont pan out is neither here nor there. You are stating that they wont as a hard fact, and are wrong. You said in an earlier post, "they have a 0% chance".

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

Plenty.

 

LOL

[tanatastic 2,062]

 

LOL

There is nothing to LOL, you are getting a beatdown of epic proportions in this thread and its getting worse with every post. You said that because they were drafted in rnd 5+ that they clearly were not elite talents. The fact that some players in rnd 5+ have become elite talents, plenty in fact, right there discredits that statement. There are alot of 1st rounders who bust and flame out as well.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

There is nothing to LOL, you are getting a beatdown of epic proportions in this thread and its getting worse with every post. You said that because they were drafted in rnd 5+ that they clearly were not elite talents. The fact that some players in rnd 5+ have become elite talents, plenty in fact, right there discredits that statement. There are alot of 1st rounders who bust and flame out as well.

 

Yeah, ok...

[Ray_T 738]

As for elite vs non elite.

 

at this level nearly everyone has talent. only the super elite talents really stand above everyone.

 

For most, its more mental thing. In some cases, you need to make the same plays as you do in college but you need to do them faster and make your decisions faster.

 

Talent or no talent, some players just dont learn to make that connection.

 

at the NFL level, the players are also stronger. So the kid who was physically dominating in college may be only average to above average in strength at the NFL level. some players need to get over that mental hurdle. inevitably some make it, and some dont.

 

This is why rookies are considered to be risky picks (especially in round 1)

 

That's not to say there arent exceptions, but if thinking of grabbing a rookie in round 1 I strongly suggest you do your homework on that player.

 

Thats all I have to say.

[smash-a-mus 6]

+ Jerrick

+ Booker

- on the rest

 

I think you guys are saying the same thing. Put your money in where you think the player has the best chance of taking the #1 role. Jerick happens to be through injury and Booker might just take it cuz that's the way denver does it. There is no right or wrong.. there is only lucky.

[smash-a-mus 6]

Something I might throw out is.. I try to get 3rd down backs on shitty teams cuz I figure that they will be in passing situations a lot when they are down. I love Sims this year. Could prove to be a decent plug and play for bye weeks and a diamond gem if something happens to the hamster.

[Little Big Head 6]

Michael easily for me. He's starting out in a RBBC in the role they likely envisioned for Prosise with upside for more depending on how Rawls looks/recovers

[Flgatorguy87 160]

It kinda feels like Mr. Tampa is telling us all how bad our sh!t stinks while polishing his own turd.

[Quickolas1 80]

"It seems for every Miles Austin or Odell Beckham Jr. (remember, he missed the first four games of his rookie year due to a hamstring injury), there are at least five or 10 running backs that come out of the woodwork to power fantasy teams to championships. Last year alone, James White (fourth), Tim Hightower (sixth), Javorius Allen (eighth) and Bilal Powell (ninth) powered their fantasy teams to the title by finishing inside the top 10 in PPR scoring over the final five weeks of the season."

 

That's me quoting me... quoting Orth! None of those RBs were 1st rounders nor are as athletic as McKinnon. That is irrelevant.

 

The point is Booker and Washington and CMike might each get a shot... and those are pretty good running offenses.

 

To say only McKinnon is worth it sounds:

A. completely biased

B. like you play in an 8 team league where no one rosters backup RBs... "just pick them up off the wire"

C. there is no C

[Frozenbeernuts 2,101]

Cmike should be the starter.... just sayin

[SpenceToons 70]

Cmike should be the starter.... just sayin

 

PreSeas1 7 for 44

PreSeas2 10 for 55

PreSeas3 7 for 58

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

It kinda feels like Mr. Tampa is telling us all how bad our sh!t stinks while polishing his own turd.

 

If it makes you feel better, you certainly can believe that.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

That's me quoting me... quoting Orth! None of those RBs were 1st rounders nor are as athletic as McKinnon. That is irrelevant.

 

The point is Booker and Washington and CMike might each get a shot... and those are pretty good running offenses.

 

To say only McKinnon is worth it sounds:

A. completely biased

B. like you play in an 8 team league where no one rosters backup RBs... "just pick them up off the wire"

C. there is no C

 

I didn't say "only" McKinnon... I said I'd prefer him over the others. Didn't say he was the only option.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,101]

Cmike is still owning. I wonder how much play time he will get next week. Anyone think that will be telling of how they plan to use him week 1? I an already leaning toward flexing him in non ppr over Marvin Jones or Larry Fitzgerald.

[tanatastic 2,062]

Cmike is still owning. I wonder how much play time he will get next week. Anyone think that will be telling of how they plan to use him week 1? I an already leaning toward flexing him in non ppr over Marvin Jones or Larry Fitzgerald.

No, next weeks useage won't give you any clue on their plans. In fact their goal will be to show as little of their plans as possible and just get out healthy and evaluate. I think the role for week 1 is locked in as a change of pace or hot hand situation. They will prob give both guys a series in the first few drives and go from there. Probably aiming for 10 carries or so, that's just what I'm guessing.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

 

PreSeas1 7 for 44

PreSeas2 10 for 55

PreSeas3 7 for 58

 

Anyone have totals on his production in previous seasons... you know, when he was hyped up and still got cut, TWICE?

[Frozenbeernuts 2,101]

 

Anyone have totals on his production in previous seasons... you know, when he was hyped up and still got cut, TWICE?

I just think it would be shltty of Pete Carroll to talk up Michael like he has made significant strides in his commitment to football, but really not mean a word of it just to motivate Rawls. A coach can lose the respect of every player on that team by doing that.

 

If they really thought Michael was just a camp body like some make it seem on here, the rookies would have gotten a lot more time with the first team this preseason. There aren't any quality backs in non ppr going after him according to ffc. Maybe Morris, but he is most definitely not the starter. Michael has a chance at being significant right away, like starter significant. No one is saying to take him as a starter or even rb3.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

I just think it would be shltty of Pete Carroll to talk up Michael like he has made significant strides in his commitment to football, but really not mean a word of it just to motivate Rawls. A coach can lose the respect of every player on that team by doing that.

 

If they really thought Michael was just a camp body like some make it seem on here, the rookies would have gotten a lot more time with the first team this preseason. There aren't any quality backs in non ppr going after him according to ffc. Maybe Morris, but he is most definitely not the starter. Michael has a chance at being significant right away, like starter significant. No one is saying to take him as a starter or even rb3.

 

I don't think Carroll would do that... though he did in the past, and then cut him. I also don't think him getting cut in the past is an indictment on them, but on Michael himself, being an idiot. As I said above, because he's shown himself to be stupid (twice), I'm not putting any faith in him at all until he proves it. It may come back to bite me in the butt, but I'll be ok with that.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,101]

 

I don't think Carroll would do that... though he did in the past, and then cut him. I also don't think him getting cut in the past is an indictment on them, but on Michael himself, being an idiot. As I said above, because he's shown himself to be stupid (twice), I'm not putting any faith in him at all until he proves it. It may come back to bite me in the butt, but I'll be ok with that.

Just doesn't make sense for a guy being drafted as late as he is. You are passing on him in favor of crap most likely. Charles Simms in non ppr? That guy may be the single worst rb to take a carry in the nfl.

[TBayXXXVII 2,477]

Just doesn't make sense for a guy being drafted as late as he is. You are passing on him in favor of crap most likely. Charles Simms in non ppr? That guy may be the single worst rb to take a carry in the nfl.

 

You're basing that on what? Last year, not counting receptions of course, Charles Sims had almost 1100 all-purpose yards and 4 TD's. In Michael's 3 year career, he has 525 all-purpose yards and 0 TD's. Just in rushing alone, Sims had 529 yards on 107 carries while Michael has 497 yards on 106 carries (in his career).

 

On top of that, considering how both Dallas and Seattle have continually better OLine's than Tampa, I'd say that even puts Sims even further higher than Michael. Last year, Seattle was ranked 4th, Dallas 6th, and Tampa 9th. In 2014, when Michael was in Seattle all year, they ranked 4th in run blocking where as Tampa was 32nd.

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol