wendellrott

Jaylen Samuels 2018 Outlook

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Brotherbock said:

 

Man, it's horrible. And if you win a league, they never leave you alone. Next August, outside your house...

 

tenor.gif?itemid=4390358

source.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, drunkb said:

 

Fantrax has changed defensive players to add DL/LB eligibility during the season (IDP league). It isn't much different except it is an offensive player. Now if they would just make Cohen an RB/WR, I would solid.

 

I have no issue with adding eligibility, in most of those instances I’m sure those defensive players were actually playing multiple positions. Zero issue with that at all.

 

But in this particular scenario, they’re suddenly granting TE eligibility to a player who has not, and will not play as a TE this season. And they’re choosing to do so right as that player becomes a starting running back in one of the top offenses in the league.

 

It’s just very odd, and I don’t see the logic behind it at all. I’d imagine a lot of Fantrax players who may not have claimed Samuels on Wednesday (because he wasn’t TE eligible back then...) are gonna be pretty pissed off when they find out they’re facing Gurley/CMC/Lindsay/Jaylen in the playoffs.

 

I mean don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled that I now get to benefit from his TE eligibiity, but it really is just outlandish to make the switch at this point in the season. 

 

Edited by JDE

Share this post


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

 

It’s just very odd, and I don’t see the logic behind it at all. I’m sure a lot of Fantrax players who may not have claimed Samuels on Wednesday (because he wasn’t TE eligible back then...) are gonna be pretty pissed off when they find out they’re facing Gurley/CMC/Lindsay/Jaylen in the playoffs.

 

 

This is big. I'm set at RB, but could use a TE. Samuels is only RB in that league, so I pass and grab...I dunno who's even good at TE. Randy McMichael? Anyway, I've spent my waiver claim, and then they say ahhh, what the heck, TE? Dirty pool there.

 

That comes back to the 'don't change the rules' argument. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Brotherbock said:

 

WAIT! I just found this pic online! Stop the presses!

 

jaylen-samuels-draft-card-2.png?w=1024&h

Hilarious.  Its still a RBBC 

Share this post


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

 

I have no issue with adding eligibility, in most of those instances I’m sure those defensive players were actually playing multiple positions. Zero issue with that at all.

 

But in this particular scenario, they’re suddenly granting TE eligibility to a player who has not, and will not play as a TE this season. And they’re choosing to do so right as that player becomes a starting running back in one of the top offenses in the league.

 

It’s just very odd, and I don’t see the logic behind it at all. I’m sure a lot of Fantrax players who may not have claimed Samuels on Wednesday (because he wasn’t TE eligible back then...) are gonna be pretty pissed off when they find out they’re facing Gurley/CMC/Lindsay/Jaylen in the playoffs.

 

I mean don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled that I now get to benefit from his TE eligibiity, but it really is just outlandish to make the switch at this point in the season. 

 

I am not disagreeing. I did not expect it, but that doesn't mean that I am not starting him either. This isn't about feelings. I am playing within the rules that I signed up for. I am in a few of ESPN leagues where he isn't eligible at TE and I own him. So be it. The fantrax league that I am in is still running for like 20 years league with well defined rules in about 3 pages of text. This isn't one, so GO Jaylen!!!

 

Edit: Maybe they realized that he should have had that designation all along?

Edited by drunkb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Brotherbock said:

 

So I didn't follow him or the Steelers during training camps. How clear, or did they say anything at all, were the Steelers about how they were going to use him? I mean, if Tomlin said "We will only use him as an RB, never ever ever as a TE", there's some small reason to take the TE away :) But was it ever that clear? Honest question.

Combine TE. But everyone, including him, designated RB. He was drafted as RB. The fact that every other site lists him correctly is mighty telling. Yahoo just effed up on this one. It would have been easy though for them to put his drafted position then if news came out in camp about TE usage they could add that. But obviously had they done it correctly he’d be just a RB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His elgibility is what it is. The real issue is what will his work load be? 

Edited by Ace_King
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I'll take the under on this. 12/42, 3/18

He's topped 18 receiving yards twice in the last month as the clear backup. Seems pretty likely he will clear that mark this week. 30 should be his floor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jetdog16 said:

He's topped 18 receiving yards twice in the last month as the clear backup. Seems pretty likely he will clear that mark this week. 30 should be his floor.

I'll split the difference and give him 26 receiving yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jetdog16 said:

He's topped 18 receiving yards twice in the last month as the clear backup. Seems pretty likely he will clear that mark this week. 30 should be his floor.

That’s 6.5+ points from TE..I’ll take it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, FooserX said:

Pretty sure no one here did "work" to predict Samuels could jump in as TE. At best, they cuffed Conner, and when they realized he could play TE, they are all "score!!!"

 

 

You don't read the player list at the start of every season for these? You should really start.

 

I've owned Samuels since Bell didn't sign, weeks before he was on my league mates' radar. Before then, I didn't think Samuels would see the light of day. You didn't try to anticipate this? You should real start.

 

The platform sets eligibility: I've never seen a commish try to bend the rules to suit himself, and I certainly wouldn't stand for it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TT215 said:

So it’s safe to assume it’s an easy start at the TE position over Burton?

 

I'm benching Gronk for him in one league. I think if you own him, you play him at TE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at week 15 when Kelce has the Chargers...given his history of underperforming against LAC, do you sit him for Jaylen Samuels if he performs well this week?

 

I have Kelce and Ertz that I usually play at TE and W/T, but being able to play 4 RBs in the lineup sounds hard to pass up. What are your guys' thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be two threads for this guy. One as a RB and one as a TE cause there's way too much TE talk that doesn't apply to a lot of people on this message board. In fact, I don't even know why the TE talk is going on for this long. If you have him as your TE, start him. You're getting a RB at the thin TE position.

 

The tougher question is whether or not to start him as your RB.

Edited by Steve226
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Steve226 said:

There should be two threads for this guy. One as a RB and one as a TE cause there's way too much TE talk that doesn't apply to a lot of people on this message board. In fact, I don't even know why the TE talk is going on for this long. If you have him as your TE, start him. You're getting a RB at the thin TE position.

 

The tougher question is whether or not to start him as your RB.

I agree with your view of “if you can use him as your TE, you do.”  But if we can’t get the mods to clean up some of the threads where it’s really needed (I.e.- 3 pages of “luck vs skill for fantasy football success” in the Conner thread), getting separate threads for Samuels will never happen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still thinking in to start him over Marlon Mack,specially with Mack facing Houston and Samuels the Raiders,but oh lord..I don't know if I can  trust a guy that never started a single game in this point of the season,is just like gambling,roll the dice and figure out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Smoketheclay said:

I have Kelce in one league - so I will be starting Kelce at TE.  But is Samuels projection over the likes of Michel/McCoy/Josh Gordon

As a flex play, yes.

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.