rschroeder1

Members
  • Content count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About rschroeder1

  • Rank
    Triple-A

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

409 profile views
  1. Outside of Bell and DJ, I honestly can't think of a RB who is not going to lose volume when his team drastically ramps up the passing game. I don't mean to be snarky, but it seems you're pinning the blame on CJ for the Broncos tilting the balance more towards the passing side. Was that circumstance or a concerted effort by the Broncos to run less? I have a hard time believing it's the latter. Booker's percentages of the workload were: 13%, 32%, 20%, 24%, 33%, 33%, 50%, but in games 5 and 6, we're talking about 6 carries and 5 carriers for Booker. Again, yes it's 33%, but 5 and 6 carries are, in my book, the definition of "change of pace." I guess we'll agree to disagree; I think the context matters here.
  2. With all due respect, isn't that the point of averaging? Yes, his numbers would look a lot worse if you toss out his good games. But his two good games, and five subpar games, averaged out over 16, come to 1300/11. I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that because 5 of his 7 games were just meh, 9 of his 9 remaining games would also be the exact same. As for volume, CJ's carries largely matched the game flow. I certainly didn't watch all the Broncos games last year, but even with suspect QB play it seems they found themselves in games with heavier passing volume required. Here are CJ's shares of non-QB carries (called carries). I've defined a pass play as a pass or QB run, so there could be a bit of variability if the run was a QB sneak, for example. 1 - 20/24 (31 pass plays) 2 - 20/30 (34 pass plays) 3 - 14/20 (38 pass plays) 4 - 19/29 (34 pass plays) 5 - 11/18 (41 pass plays) 6 - 10/15 (41 pass plays) 7 - 16/34 (26 pass plays) In his three games with the fewest carries, the Broncos had their highest passing totals. Yet even in those games, he maintained his share of the workload.
  3. I don't think the stats bear out this claim about CJA. In his 7 games last year, CJ's carries were 20-20-14-19-11-10-16. Booker's were 3-9-4-7-6-5-17. Targets for CJ were 5-5-4-1-4-5-0; for Booker, 0-1-1-1-6-2-2. For six games, CJA was the clear lead back. In the seventh game, they essentially split carries. CJ was of course out for the season after the seventh game. CJA's stats for seven games, extrapolated to a full season, come out to 1300 total yards and 11 TDs. In my 12-team, .5 PPR league, that put him as the #11/12 RB, or low RB1 status. If you want to make the claim that based on one game (game #7), CJ was destined to split carries with Booker the rest of the way, I guess you can, but one game is a pretty small sample. Even in that one game, CJ averaged 6.69 YPC to Booker's 4.88.
  4. I think there's another factor with Meredith beyond his numbers with and without Jeffery. His splits are pretty stark for playing time with the (nominal) starting QB - Cutler - and when Bears' back-ups were starting. Stats with Cutler (Targets - Rec - Yards - TD) 3-2-24-0 2-1-24-0 2-1-50-1 4-4-49-0 Stats with Hoyer 5-4-28-0 12-9-130-1 15-11-113-0 Stats with Barkley 2-1-12-0* 9-2-19-0 4-3-67-0 8-6-72-1 13-9-104-0 12-9-135-0 6-4-61-0 (1 TD pass thrown) * This was the game against Green Bay when Hoyer was injured in the first quarter. The Bears literally did nothing all night, so probably not fair to count that game as meaning anything. Maybe I'm grasping at straws here, but the numbers bear out, and I thought the eye test did as well, that Meredith was much more present on the field when the Bears' back-up QBs were in. There could be multiple reasons for this: as a back-up entering the season, he had more time working with Hoyer and Barkley than the Bears' starting WRs. The Bears' offensive game plans definitely simplified without Cutler, in particular with Hoyer, a lot of quick reads. Again, there might not be any meaning here. A full off-season working with Glennon might net the same familiarity gains that are possibly evident in these stats. Part of me wonders though how much of this may have been from a simplified game plan.
  5. Hilton was on the injury report 4 of 16 weeks, according to FOX. With questionable being the new probable, four questionables don't tell us a whole lot. http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/ty-hilton-player-injuries Moncrief had a hamstring injury in the second half of the season, after recovering from the broken bone. It's the exact type of injury one could play through but be dogged by, in particular a player with speed and vertical abilities. I don't think the injury comparison with Hilton is fair, in this context. If you're worried about the hamstring recurring, I can't argue with that. The injury is not an excuse. It's not a slight to Hilton. He's a great player. Some players with physical ability never put it all together. I'm not ready to put Moncrief in that camp until he has a legit, healthy chance to fail. Last year there was anticipation of a breakout year for Moncrief. Honestly, I don't recall anyone at the time saying it was a make or break year.
  6. I agree that fewer but longer commercial breaks would be welcome. With a second game on TV or fantasy, for me personally, longer wouldn't be a hardship. However, I feel like I'm missing something regarding replay. Replays are almost always television timeouts now, so I'm not sure where the time-saving will come into play. I suppose with fewer TV timeouts, fewer repays could become timeouts.
  7. From a Bears fan's perspective here: if you place great value on offensive line play when drafting fantasy RBs, the Bears have one of the best situations available now. C Whitehair and RG Long are both Pro-Bowl caliber, and while tackles Leno, Jr. and Massie have questions in the pass game, they are adequate, if not above average, in the run game. The return of Hroniss Grasu from injury gives them starter-level depth on the bench in case of an injury. The other factor I like in Howard's favor is that the Bears' defense should be marginally better. Maybe not an actual good NFL defense, but with early strong showings from some of their draft picks and a competent defensive coordinator, even a middling defense would put the Bears in more situations in which they can rely on the run game and not Mike Glennon.
  8. Pro Football Reference helpfully has these stats for 2016 (receiving plays are when a player was targeted, does not include passing plays when they were on the field but not targeted): Isaiah Crowell Run plays: 122 - 1st Down, 71 - 2nd Down, 6 - 3rd Down, 2 - 4th Down Receiving Plays: 26 - 1st Down, 21 - 2nd Down, 6 - 3rd Down Duke Johnson Run plays: 36 - 1st Down, 24 - 2nd Down, 14 - 3rd Down, 2 - 4th Down Receiving plays: 20 - 1st Down, 25 - 2nd Down, 31 - 3rd Down
  9. I'm not as worried about the Jeffery pursuit for two reasons. One, they may have simply been trying to acquire him at a discount and had no desire to sign him at the market rate the Eagles offered. Two, teams with hot-seat head coaches sometimes make desperation one-year pushes. From Pagano's perspective, a one-year contract for Jeffery would be perfect for Pagano's situation of needing job security now. For me, I'm more curious to see if the Colts begin contract talks with Moncrief. If they don't, that's a tell-tale sign.
  10. I should have written more specifically. I was referring to my (amateur) evaluation of his technique. Especially in the red zone, he seems to have pretty developed skills positioning his body. It's definitely a small sample, as you pointed out, and thus perhaps not worth extrapolating from.
  11. I can't figure this guy out. When the ball gets thrown his way, in my opinion, he shows the traits of an elite WR. But the targets aren't there. The Colts played some odd games last year, in which they had ridiculous totals like 12 yards for the first half. Now this obviously can't be an excuse for Moncrief - see Hilton. If the Colts can generate a little more offensive consistency, which would start with the line play, perhaps Moncrief can better get involved in the game plan. There's so much negativity around Moncrief that I will probably seek to acquire right at or just above his ADP. Shouldn't require too much of an investment in that regard.
  12. I think the other question is whether the Browns have found a clever loophole to hit the salary floor without improving your team - i.e. still be in a good position for the 2018 draft, which would make some sense if they hoped to acquire a QB in that draft. Of course, this could be sheer insanity, or if they plan to trade for Garapolo, certainly a different story.
  13. I can't claim to know much about Sarkisian's play-calling, but I think there's a big difference between being a head coach and a coordinator - how many have succeeded at coordinator and failed as a head coach at the NFL level? I'm also leery about tying college head coaching success to coordinating success - recruiting teens to come to your school, particularly one that had a disastrous program and one recovering from NCAA sanctions - don't seem to correlate to coordinator success (or failure). None of that means Sarkisian will be a success, though. And his recent job transitions certainly are odd.
  14. Look, this is no slight on Coleman. But to say that Coleman won't be affected by the loss of the team's fullback when he has fewer catches, fewer targets and fewer receiving yards than Freeman, while saying that Freeman will, doesn't make sense to me. YPC is definitely more important in real life, but volume matters in fantasy as well. There's no parsing that Freeman finished with more receiving yards and thus more fantasy points from receiving yards (and more targets) than Coleman, despite having a lower YPC.
  15. I haven't been able to find anything like that. Would definitely be a useful marker.