wendellrott

Jaylen Samuels 2018 Outlook

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, KuNiT21 said:

 

Yeah I mean why would someone start a guy who consistently scores 9 points as opposed to someone with a 9 point floor and a huge ceiling.

 

DJ does have a great matchup, its close. Samuels offense gives him the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, All Knowing said:

 

DJ does have a great matchup, its close. Samuels offense gives him the edge.

 

He does, I agree with that.  But he has been garbage this year and frankly congrats to everyone who made the playoffs even despite the 1st round waste.  BTW, this has nothing to do with DJ as a person/player and everything to do with just fantasy.  I think he is a top 2/3 RB in the NFL who just has the short end of the stick in playing on a terrible team.

 

But I'd play Samuels over him anyday of the week.  Ideally Samuels in the TE position is a game changer unless you have Ertz, Kelce, Ebron.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

 

10 carries is a ton of carries taken away if you are starting him at RB

 

Also a RB doesn't 'easily' catch 6-8 balls.

Samuels' strength is catching balls out of the backfield. I'd expect something like 125 total yards and a TD, along with 6 catches. That puts him at 21.5 in half PPR. Ridley is a plodder who will get work early in the game on obvious running downs and perhaps to kill the clock in the last half of the 4th quarter. Still plenty of time for Samuels to get his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 carries for Ridley would be a lot considering they are averaging 20 carries a game. I can definitely see him getting a handful of carries though.

 

On the flip side, they are averaging almost 44 passes a game. 

 

I have a hard time envisioning Ridley dominating snaps if PIT continues to air it out. And it makes little sense to run out Ridley more than needed as it becomes predictably a run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

 

Lol. Good luck with that.

 

Thanks! It’s rare to see such genuine well wishes on this forum. And you even had a hearty chuckle to boot! If I didn’t know any better, I’d think you might be the real-life Santa Claus! 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mjb03003 said:

 

Just to add onto this... I saw a tweet from Brad Evans from Yahoo last night explaining that not only did Samuels play a lot of tight end in college, he tested at the combine as a tight end. The Steelers didn't view him as a TE when they drafted him, I think they saw him as an H-back all the way, but Yahoo added the rookies and their player designations immediately after the NFL draft, so they went with dual eligibility which seems reasonable given his hybrid role in college and the way he tested at the combine. 

 

I understand the frustration of those who feel like playing him at TE is a cheat code... but he's been RB/TE all season and he's been the known cuff to Conner all season. This isn't some new revelation. It's rare that this sort of thing happens in any sport, but it does happen occassionally and I feel like it would be more unfair to Samuels owners to suddenly change his position eligibility now that he's relevant.

 

Are you saying because he started out with both designations it should stay that way all year even though it has become obvious he is not playing TE and is in fact a back up RB? If you are saying that, I think it is not logical nor fair.  ESPN league changes designations during the season when it becomes obvious....that makes more sense to me. And I really am not saying this just because my opponent has this advantage. 

Edited by TennisMenace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KuNiT21 said:

 

Yeah I mean why would someone start a guy who consistently scores 9 points as opposed to someone with a 9 point floor and a huge ceiling.

 

DJ scored 30+ like 2 weeks ago.  And Jaylen having a 9 point floor is opinion.

 

Don't think I want to hang around this thread any longer. In summation;

 

-I think AB and JuJu benefit most from Conner being out.

 

- I'd start him at TE at Yahoo over most options, mostly because TE is a cesspool. I am doing this myself over Brate.

 

- I'd have to be hard up to play him at RB. I understand people have injuries or play in super deep leagues, and he is the best option.

 

- I think his stat line is something like 7/40   3 catches for 25. May or may not score. 

 

- If you are starting him over guys like Lamar and Mack you are making a mistake. 

 

Good luck this week 

Edited by dmb3684
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, KuNiT21 said:

 

He does, I agree with that.  But he has been garbage this year and frankly congrats to everyone who made the playoffs even despite the 1st round waste.  BTW, this has nothing to do with DJ as a person/player and everything to do with just fantasy.  I think he is a top 2/3 RB in the NFL who just has the short end of the stick in playing on a terrible team.

 

But I'd play Samuels over him anyday of the week.  Ideally Samuels in the TE position is a game changer unless you have Ertz, Kelce, Ebron.

I traded him away after week 2 for hopkins, then traded back for him when kupp got hurt the first time, kerryon/josh gordon for Dj/kupp..then traded kupp/fournette for ertz the week before fournette came back...he hasnt been that bad, still 12th highest scorer at rb, last weeks 2 vultured tds hurt becuase i was 8 points from 1st seed and high scorer on the year which both gets paid. DJ wont win you many weeks, but he wont lose you a week.

Edited by All Knowing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TennisMenace said:

 

Are you saying because he started out with both designations it should stay that way all year even though it has become obvious he is not playing TE and is in fact a back up RB? If you are saying that, I think it is not logical nor fair.  ESPN league changes designations during the season when it becomes obvious....that makes more sense to me. And I really am not saying this just because my opponent has this advantage. 

 

I am saying that. I've never heard of a player losing designation at any position(s), only adding them. For example in baseball there are games played requirements and players will add positional eligibility if they get a certain amount of starts or appearances at a certain position. But never, ever, ever would a player lose eligibility at a position they started the year with, nor should they. 

 

You could argue whether Yahoo should have given Samuels TE eligibility to start the year (again, I think the reasoning is valid enough, and it is what it is...), but I really don't think you can say he should lose it at any point during the year, especially not in week 14...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TennisMenace said:

 

Are you saying because he started out with both designations it should stay that way all year even though it has become obvious he is not playing TE and is in fact a back up RB? If you are saying that, I think it is not logical nor fair.  ESPN league changes designations during the season when it becomes obvious....that makes more sense to me. And I really am not saying this just because my opponent has this advantage. 

It wouldn’t be fair to the people that spent a waiver or a roster stash on him to all of a sudden strip him of the value they paid for.  People would be out of a tight end and all of this weeks waiver guys are already scooped up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prediction for this week is 14 carries for 77 yards - 1 TD, and 6 receptions for 45 yards (18.2 Pts in standard)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rickydragon said:

It wouldn’t be fair to the people that spent a waiver or a roster stash on him to all of a sudden strip him of the value they paid for.  People would be out of a tight end and all of this weeks waiver guys are already scooped up.  

 

The designTion should have been changed a long time ago when it became evident he is not playing TE but is Conners backup.

 

im sure the few people who had him rostered did it for one purpose.....CUFF Conner. I’m sure no one has played him except when Conner got hurt. 

 

If the designation was changed let’s see after week 2 when it became clear he will probably only be used as a RB, then I doubt you would have to many upset people today. First off, probably no one owned him after the second week. And the one or two people who did own him I’m sure only picked him as a cuff. 

 

Fairness is huge with me. Playing a RB at TE is not fair, I’m sure you would agree. If you changed his designation to RB today, those who own him can still insert him as a RB.....just not a TE.  This is so clear to my thinking I don’t see how anyone could disagree except a guy who wants that UNFAIR advantage to play Samuels at TE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I got Samuels off waivers (guess nobody in my league is paying attention).

 

Now the question is, do I bench Kittle for him and go with either Michel or Justin Jackson at RB3?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RockSexton said:

So I got Samuels off waivers (guess nobody in my league is paying attention).

 

Now the question is, do I bench Kittle for him and go with either Michel or Justin Jackson at RB3?

 

 

Samuels at TE, and Michel at RB3 is what i'd do. San fran qb, Mullens,  gonna be on his back alot.

Edited by All Knowing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TennisMenace said:

 

The designTion should have been changed a long time ago when it became evident he is not playing TE but is Conners backup.

 

im sure the few people who had him rostered did it for one purpose.....CUFF Conner. I’m sure no one has played him except when Conner got hurt. 

 

If the designation was changed let’s see after week 2 when it became clear he will probably only be used as a RB, then I doubt you would have to many upset people today. First off, probably no one owned him after the second week. And the one or two people who did own him I’m sure only picked him as a cuff. 

 

Fairness is huge with me. Playing a RB at TE is not fair, I’m sure you would agree. If you changed his designation to RB today, those who own him can still insert him as a RB.....just not a TE.  This is so clear to my thinking I don’t see how anyone could disagree except a guy who wants that UNFAIR advantage to play Samuels at TE. 

 

I have no skin in this as my leagues all list Samuels as a RB.  But, if I'm chiming in on it, I totally agree.

 

It's something that should've been changed long ago when depth charts came out and it was apparent Samuels wasn't playing TE.  I'd even go so far to say it should still be changed.  I mean ,we see sites add designations for players all the time...Like C Patterson as a RB this year.  It shouldn't be an issue to delete a designation either if it's warranted and quite clear that a player isn't playing some position.

 

Samuels is clearly not a TE and it's really an unfair advantage to be playing him in that spot.

 

Honestly, I could care less about all the TE talk though as it doesn't impact me.  I'm purely interested in this thread regarding Samuels prospects as a RB.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, All Knowing said:

 

Samuels at TE, and Michel at RB3 is what i'd do. San fran qb, Mullens,  gonna be on his back alot.

 

Strangely Denver has struggled with TE's all year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I keep my waiver priority high on the list.

So that when the time comes I can have a Pittsburgh running back as my tight end.

Don't try to take this away from us :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TennisMenace said:

 

The designTion should have been changed a long time ago when it became evident he is not playing TE but is Conners backup.

 

im sure the few people who had him rostered did it for one purpose.....CUFF Conner. I’m sure no one has played him except when Conner got hurt. 

 

If the designation was changed let’s see after week 2 when it became clear he will probably only be used as a RB, then I doubt you would have to many upset people today. First off, probably no one owned him after the second week. And the one or two people who did own him I’m sure only picked him as a cuff. 

 

Fairness is huge with me. Playing a RB at TE is not fair, I’m sure you would agree. If you changed his designation to RB today, those who own him can still insert him as a RB.....just not a TE.  This is so clear to my thinking I don’t see how anyone could disagree except a guy who wants that UNFAIR advantage to play Samuels at TE. 

Let me guess, someone else got Samuels in your league?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TennisMenace said:

 

The designTion should have been changed a long time ago when it became evident he is not playing TE but is Conners backup.

 

im sure the few people who had him rostered did it for one purpose.....CUFF Conner. I’m sure no one has played him except when Conner got hurt. 

 

If the designation was changed let’s see after week 2 when it became clear he will probably only be used as a RB, then I doubt you would have to many upset people today. First off, probably no one owned him after the second week. And the one or two people who did own him I’m sure only picked him as a cuff. 

 

Fairness is huge with me. Playing a RB at TE is not fair, I’m sure you would agree. If you changed his designation to RB today, those who own him can still insert him as a RB.....just not a TE.  This is so clear to my thinking I don’t see how anyone could disagree except a guy who wants that UNFAIR advantage to play Samuels at TE. 

 

Just show me another example of when a player lost eligibility for any reason. I bet you can't, because that's akin to changing a roster or scoring setting mid-season. Once the season is underway you have to let things stay as is and let them play out. Every so often that will create a "loophole" if you will. 

 

Jaylen Samuels is a player whose experience and skillset doesn't fit neatly into any one position. This isn't like designating Saquon Barkley or Todd Gurley as a TE just to watch the world implode. There's a very obvious reason he had the eligibility to begin with, and only now that a series of events (Bell not reporting, Conner getting hurt) have led to him having a role does anyone care that his eligibility is unique. 

 

You can call it unfair all you want but anyone who has Samuels on their roster in a Yahoo league is playing by the rules and owns him either because they had the foresight to handcuff Conner or they had the FAAB saved for a huge playoff run pickup like this. You can't retroactively punish those people and throw their roster into chaos now that they've passed up on other waiver claims and/or blown all of their FAAB. That would be even more unfair than having the third string RB with TE eligibility elevated to a committee role. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RockSexton said:

 

Strangely Denver has struggled with TE's all year.

 

not at bad as oakland struggles against rbs, pitt will open up holes big enough to fit trucks through this weekend, their oline is ELITE......if you look at denver def points closely, most of the points they gave up was against kelce twice, and the one big play to dissley week 1 that went for a td, they are actually stronger against te then it looks, its only those 3 big weeks.....

Edited by All Knowing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TennisMenace said:

 

The designTion should have been changed a long time ago when it became evident he is not playing TE but is Conners backup.

 

I play in a league on NFL.com. When it became clear that Bell was not showing up for week 1 I picked my Samuels who had a TE designation at the time. Within a few days NFL.com changed Samuels designation from TE to RB.

 

Different platforms apply different rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TennisMenace said:

 

 

im sure the few people who had him rostered did it for one purpose.....CUFF Conner. I’m sure no one has played him except when Conner got hurt. 

 

I don't own Conner and I rostered Samuels twice (dropped him during a rough bye week, and picked him back up again later) precisely because I saw him as a lottery bonanza if his TE eligibility ever came into play. I even considered starting him one week when my TE was on bye because my waiver wire TE options were bad enough that the possibility of Samuels getting a TD on his 3 to 4 touches behind Conner was about the same as some of what passes for TD or bust TE's once you get down into the ugly TE2 territory. Fantasy football is as much about draft/position scarcity and abundance/risk-reward stock market strategy as it is about what really happens on the field. Where he is a TE in fantasy, everyone has an opportunity to draft, add him, with that in mind. 

Edited by TuesdaymorningQB
spelling error
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of bickering back and forth whether it’s right or wrong, the fact of the matter is it will not change as stated in their policy. So instead of reading post after post about the players designation, the discussion should be more about the game itself and the match up. At this point it should not be changed as it’s been that way all year. No reason to backtrack now just because people are playing against an opponent that has him or failed to handcuff him. It is what it is. People are automatically assuming he is going to put up 20+ points when a full game without Conner has yet to be played. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, TennisMenace said:

And I really am not saying this just because my opponent has this advantage

Yes you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.