vikingapocalypse

Nick Chubb 2018 Outlook

tonycpsu

[Automated message: This outlook thread for the 2018 season will be locked on 2019-01-31. Please finish any 2018 discussions here, and take any 2019 outlook discussions to the 2019 outlook thread . If one does not exist, feel free to create one. Thanks!]

Message added by tonycpsu

tonycpsu

[Thread for previous season automatically locked. Feel free to post a new thread for 2019.]

Message added by tonycpsu

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Brotherbock said:

 

No, it really is dabatable, because you haven't given a conclusive argument. You've given a couple of examples. I've given a counter-example. That's called debating. 

 

When you say 'situation trumps talent', are you saying always and for every player that situation is going to be a bigger determining factor in their performance than talent is? If that's your claim, then Barry Sanders is already proof that your claim is incorrect. There are plenty of other players, a league full of them, who were not able to capitalize on good situations because of their poor talent--and when the backup stepped into the same situation, he blew up. Every single year, we FF players are holding some backup RB, waiting for the lead guy to go down, because the lead guy 'sucks' and the backup will do, we think, soooo much better...in the same situation. Peterson leaves NOLA...and Kamara explodes. Would David Johnson have done better than Chris Johnson in 2015 with the Cards, in the same situation? Many people were of that opinion.

 

Now if you mean "situation is also a very important factor in performance, as well as talent", you're making perfect sense. But you have actually produced no argument to show why talent is less important than situation. Why not say they are equally as important? What's your argument, your evidence?

 

Not trying to be a jerk, I think this is an interesting discussion, that's why I'm having it. But it very much is debatable, and you haven't provided more than just a claim and a couple of examples.

 

 

You are focusing on the tree and not understanding that i am speaking of a forest. So it's not about your example vs my example of player for player. I only used a couple of players to make an illustration not as conclusive or exhaustive proof. Unfortunately people tend to focus more on the examples and exceptions than the overall premise. When you are dealing with populations and datasets you are not dealing in absolutes. So i don't know why you would stress "each and every situation". It probability for success in an event.

When I make the statement that rb situation trumps rb talent in football, it pertains to a population not a specific datapoint. So when it comes to the success rate of rb performance the situation trumps the individual talent as it pertains to the population of NFL rb's. There is a reason why NFL teams treat the rb position collectively as a commodity of plug and play in both an economic situation as well as on the field.

Every team does not have an elite Gurley-barkley -Dj level of talent but every team has rb talent that will produce yards when given touches which may be sufficient in helping their offenses because they are in good situations in terms of o-line,QB, passing ability, facing weak run defenses etc.

I say it's not debatable because the NFL has untold examples of average rb in good situations putting up production and elite talents that fail in bad situations. 

The point is not if gurley will outperform miller in a given situation but rather what the success rate for production by Miller in a given situation.  if miller gets a touch he will get yards based on the play call, the type of defense faced and the ability of the o-line. The differential in talent is what is produced by the rb after the o-line does it's job, how many tackles do they break and how many times do they force defenders to miss.

So if you want to debate the couple of examples go ahead, there are plenty of analytics available that will show just how much of a commodity the rb position and the situation is more relevant than the talent for the position

Edited by dashoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Krambone said:

Why talk about Sonny? Chubb has been featured in ONE game and looked pretty good! If not for the idiot who called a QB sneak it would obviously had a chance to look much better. I think he will catch his fair share of passes and  run like a bull. All that was missing was opportunity and that has been rectified. Why not give him a few games to make his mark and see if he can actually be good or not. The prob with Sonny is when hes in the game its to run. not block or catch balls. It is way to obvious and easy to defense just ask the Bears who smothered him..

 

He had 13 catches in college. That isn't the greatest factor (other RBs who were zeroes in college have developed into more than capable receivers) but Cleveland's offense isn't great for that production.

 

Case and point Duke Johnson: Even when he plays snaps, he isn't getting dumpoffs/screens/etc as much as he used to get. If you watched TB game, Chubb ran a decent amount of pass routes, but he was rarely looked at

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dashoe said:

 

 

I say it's not debatable because the NFL has untold examples of average rb in good situations putting up production and elite talents that fail in bad situations. 

 

 

But there are also plenty of examples of good backs who do well in bad situations, and bad backs who underwhelm in good situations. You can't simply ignore those. 

 

It sounds like you're saying now that situation plays a prominent role in production. If that's all you're saying, it's absolutely correct. But if you're still saying that situation is more important than talent, you would need to actually present those stats, not just say that they are out there.

 

The NFL does treat RBs as interchangeable...and they are quite often sorely mistaken. Spencer Ware outproduces Charcandric West in the same situation, significantly. Would Ware do worse in a worse situation? Of course. Situation plays a role. But you are trying to argue that situation plays a 'bigger' role, without defining 'bigger', or how you are even measuring. 

 

Something like this: "Every team does not have an elite Gurley-barkley -Dj level of talent but every team has rb talent that will produce yards when given touches which may be sufficient in helping their offenses because they are in good situations in terms of o-line,QB, passing ability, facing weak run defenses etc." does nothing at all to prove the point you are trying to make of situation being more important. It just makes the case for situation being important at all. Which of course it is. Teams have running backs of all talent levels who produce yards. Yes. They do.

 

But if someone says "would you rather have a good back in a bad situation than a bad back in a good situation", there should be no easy answer. It would make no sense to say 'give me the bad back in the good situation'--because you haven't defined 'bad' or 'good' or said who the back was or what the situation is. You are positing some sort of governing rule for which you have no working definitions or evidence. 

 

The denial of your claim is not 'talent always overcomes bad situations' or 'bad backs always do poorly no matter the situation'. The denial of your claim is simply 'you have given no evidence for your claim, and there are plenty of times when good backs have continued to perform well as situations declined, and bad backs who have failed to take advantage of good situations.'

 

I'm not saying talent is more important. I'm just saying you have provided zero evidence that it is less important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FinsUp24 said:

 

What makes you say the upside is greater than Michels? Both have about equal speed so it can’t be the home run capability. Can’t get many more carries than Michel was. More TD opportunities for Michel. I have Chubb and I’d be happy to get on board with that statement, but I’m just not seeing it

 

Yeah not sure where this is coming from. Talent-wise I haven't seen a huge difference between the two but Michel is in a much, much better situation. Michel also, has shown better hands in college (although both are capped by great receiving backs) so I think his receiving upside is higher than Chubb's. The only area Chubb may have him beat is number of carries but that is because his offense isn't as talented. Thus Chubb is more likely to suffer from negative game script and while Michel may possibly get less carries any given week (although his volume was very good) they are typically of higher quality and in scoring positions much more frequently than Chubb's. 

Share this post


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

 

If you want to talk about 'common themes', that's one thing. I was responding to someone who certainly sounded like he was stating an absolute rule. And so Sanders works perfectly well as a counter-example to that rule. Hardly 'complete bullocks' there, chap. 

 

If you want to say "situation often plays an important role", clearly you're right. But a blanket statement like 'situations is more important than talent' isn't very supportable. There are tons of players we think would do better in the same situation as someone else--one RB who is struggling, and we think 'if only' the backup was playing, or 'if only' it was this same player years younger, etc. Of course there are times then the situation has a bigger impact. But it's absurd to say that it always does.

 

Hahaha we're quibbling semantics now but fair point man... point is that I think that Chubb's offensive counterparts are competent enough that he doesn't have to struggle much against "stacked fronts" week in week out to let his talent shine

Share this post


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

 

But there are also plenty of examples of good backs who do well in bad situations, and bad backs who underwhelm in good situations. You can't simply ignore those. 

 

It sounds like you're saying now that situation plays a prominent role in production. If that's all you're saying, it's absolutely correct. But if you're still saying that situation is more important than talent, you would need to actually present those stats, not just say that they are out there.

 

The NFL does treat RBs as interchangeable...and they are quite often sorely mistaken. Spencer Ware outproduces Charcandric West in the same situation, significantly. Would Ware do worse in a worse situation? Of course. Situation plays a role. But you are trying to argue that situation plays a 'bigger' role, without defining 'bigger', or how you are even measuring. 

 

Something like this: "Every team does not have an elite Gurley-barkley -Dj level of talent but every team has rb talent that will produce yards when given touches which may be sufficient in helping their offenses because they are in good situations in terms of o-line,QB, passing ability, facing weak run defenses etc." does nothing at all to prove the point you are trying to make of situation being more important. It just makes the case for situation being important at all. Which of course it is. Teams have running backs of all talent levels who produce yards. Yes. They do.

 

But if someone says "would you rather have a good back in a bad situation than a bad back in a good situation", there should be no easy answer. It would make no sense to say 'give me the bad back in the good situation'--because you haven't defined 'bad' or 'good' or said who the back was or what the situation is. You are positing some sort of governing rule for which you have no working definitions or evidence. 

 

The denial of your claim is not 'talent always overcomes bad situations' or 'bad backs always do poorly no matter the situation'. The denial of your claim is simply 'you have given no evidence for your claim, and there are plenty of times when good backs have continued to perform well as situations declined, and bad backs who have failed to take advantage of good situations.'

 

I'm not saying talent is more important. I'm just saying you have provided zero evidence that it is less important.

 

You keep focusing agin on exceptions  and then you are going into irrelevant  point about 'bad vs good'.  The point is talent vs situation. NFL rb's by definition have talent or they wouldnt be in the NFL and some are more talented than others. The NFL has  talent depth in the rb position which is why it has become a devalued position collectively in terms of economics and replacement. It's essentially fungible as a whole where rb's are plug and play. So I'm not sure why you keep insisting on some sort of 'proof' and evidence when it's an established  FACT if you follow football. 

 

Let me simplify it for you there is a basic reason why in fantasy  you  will draft the 30 touch rb over the rb that gets 5 touches regardless of 'talent because the 30 touch rb has a better situation due to his volume.  You have a better probability of success with the 30 touch rb in your lineup than the  5 touch rb.

How do you draft?

Do you take the 5 touch over the 30 touch guy because he is a more talentrd player?

I doubt it

Again situation trumps talent in the rb position.

 

Now if you want 'evidence' then I will tell you where you can find 'evidence' .  Go to sites such as rotoviz.com, football outsiders, 4for4, numbrefire, profootballfocus, and a couple of others that provide data for your evidence. 

Edited by dashoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn’t even a case of just pure volume. This is a TALENTED player getting a lot of volume.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, griffin727 said:

This isn’t even a case of just pure volume. This is a TALENTED player getting a lot of volume.

 

This.  Talented enough that you trade away Carlos Hyde for chump change and proceed to give him 100% of his workload in the next game, and he shines.  This is situation AND talent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what you want but Chubb is in a great situation...

the defense is playing well enough to keep them in ball games...no matter who they have played this year they have kept it dang close..

offense is intent on setting up the run game early ...

offense also utilized RB heavy in red zone and even more at goal line..

Hard to see a situation where Chubb doesn’t get 15 carries minimum with a huge upside due to goal line work

 

 

Share this post


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

Say what you want but Chubb is in a great situation...

the defense is playing well enough to keep them in ball games...no matter who they have played this year they have kept it dang close..

offense is intent on setting up the run game early ...

offense also utilized RB heavy in red zone and even more at goal line..

Hard to see a situation where Chubb doesn’t get 15 carries minimum with a huge upside due to goal line work

 

 

 

 

if Haley got his head out of his azz for at least one game he could maked chubb+duke produce like kamara+Ingram but instead he keeps favoring lintermediate to long  pass plays trying to turn landry+callaway into AB+juju.

This team is built to run the ball and move chains with the short passing game. They are not built for downfield chunk plays.

Edited by dashoe

Share this post


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

 

 

if Haley got his head out of his azz for at least one game he could maked chubb+duke produce like kamara+Ingram but instead he keeps favoring lintermediate to long  pass plays trying to turn landry+callaway into AB+juju.

This team is built to run the ball and move chains with the short passing game. They are not built for downfield chunk plays.

Chubb+Duke are not anywhere close to Kamara+Ingram in talent

Share this post


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

Chubb+Duke are not anywhere close to Kamara+Ingram in talent

 

That's irrelevant in terms of fantasy productio. You don't need for either to be close in talent  to kamara or ingram in order to use them to produce. 

James Conner isn't a better talent than zeke-cmc-DJ but he is outproducing them.  Ingram + kamara are in an ideal situation for their talent and haley can create situations where chubb+ duke complement each other and churn out production vs wasting plays on the unproductive wr group

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

That's irrelevant in terms of fantasy productio. You don't need for either to be close in talent  to kamara or ingram in order to use them to produce. 

James Conner isn't a better talent than zeke-cmc-DJ but he is outproducing them.  Ingram + kamara are in an ideal situation for their talent and haley can create situations where chubb+ duke complement each other and churn out production vs wasting plays on the unproductive wr group

See what your saying.  But its the same offense that saw bell get 80 plus receptions last year.  Think this has more to do with Baker.  Older QB's understand you don't have to always go for the chunk plays and it can be better to check it down letting the RB do the rest.  Saving their body from the big hit.  Baker will learn over time.

Share this post


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

 

That's irrelevant in terms of fantasy productio. You don't need for either to be close in talent  to kamara or ingram in order to use them to produce. 

James Conner isn't a better talent than zeke-cmc-DJ but he is outproducing them.  Ingram + kamara are in an ideal situation for their talent and haley can create situations where chubb+ duke complement each other and churn out production vs wasting plays on the unproductive wr group

 

Situation is everything.

 

Look at L. Blount's huge TD year with NE. That guy sucks but was a stud.

 

Ordinary to average RB talent + great situation = RB1-RB2.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kyoun1e said:

 

Situation is everything.

 

Look at L. Blount's huge TD year with NE. That guy sucks but was a stud.

 

Ordinary to average RB talent + great situation = RB1-RB2.

Unless youre LaDanian Tomlinson early years or Saquon Barkley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im constantly getting proposals for this guy and its nothing but low ball offers. Im not accepting anything unless im getting at least a rb2 in the deal. Id rather have him on my bench with my stable of rbs then to watch him blow up on someone elses roster. Rb wasteland and people are getting desperate, i’ll keep holding til someone starts making retarded offers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CABLE87 said:

Im constantly getting proposals for this guy and its nothing but low ball offers. Im not accepting anything unless im getting at least a rb2 in the deal. Id rather have him on my bench with my stable of rbs then to watch him blow up on someone elses roster. Rb wasteland and people are getting desperate, i’ll keep holding til someone starts making retarded offers.

Yeah same here, I think people realize his talent, accompanied with what they saw last week and are trying to pry him away cheap from owners who don’t realize what they have. This is a guy most of us scooped off waivers who is going to be producing big time numbers. I’m holding on and enjoying the ride unless someone offers something crazy in return, which I don’t expect to happen at this point after just 1 game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, austin316 said:

Unless youre LaDanian Tomlinson early years or Saquon Barkley

 

I would say barkley has an excellent situation given that the coaches run a significant part of the offense through him

 

88% snaps

83% of rb carries+targets

14 carries game avg for a team that has 19 carries avg game

9 targets game avg  team avgs 38 passes game

 3 redzone touces game avg

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, dashoe said:

 

I would say barkley has an excellent situation given that the coaches run a significant part of the offense through him

 

88% snaps

83% of rb carries+targets

14 carries game avg for a team that has 19 carries avg game

9 targets game avg  team avgs 38 passes game

 3 redzone touces game avg

 

 

 

 

 

Barkley by far has one of the best situations, dude has the dump off king rn in football and no one covers barkley on flat routes. Every game looks the same for him in Garbage time, dude gets at least 10 pts just from dump offs at the end of games....

Edited by CABLE87
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CABLE87 said:

Im constantly getting proposals for this guy and its nothing but low ball offers. Im not accepting anything unless im getting at least a rb2 in the deal. Id rather have him on my bench with my stable of rbs then to watch him blow up on someone elses roster. Rb wasteland and people are getting desperate, i’ll keep holding til someone starts making retarded offers.

What WRs would you accept for Chubb?

Share this post


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

What WRs would you accept for Chubb?

 

Thielen of course. 

 

Nah im kidding, im not sure, im getting qb rb packages and i got Emmanuel Sanders, i would have taken it but he rethought his decision lmao maybe in the WR2 range i suppose. Not really sure and im honestly content with my team cause i dont really need WRs.  Mayb Djax or Will Fuller if he didnt get hurt. Somewhere around that range i guess not really sure how to rank his value. I mean Tampa Bay hasnt been that bad against the run. Id like to give him 2 more games to see where his value stands.

Edited by CABLE87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, HTXMade said:

What WRs would you accept for Chubb?

 

One guy in my league was offering me Diggs for him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing his, had Hyde NOT been in Cleveland when Chubb was drafted and all indications were he would be the starting RB, he would have at least been a late second round pick. Royce crept into the third and was nowhere near the prospect Chubb was. Nick was an elite college player. At one point, he was being touted as a better runner than Gurley. I didn't subscribe to that notion because I was super high on Gurley at the time, but the kid can ball. Look, I get it if people want to take a wait and see approach with him. Not everyone jumps into the pool. Some people hesitate and ease in slowly. If your record is flimsy this approach makes even more sense. Personally, I'm all in. I know his talent, I know the team will continue to feed him, and I know he will only get BETTER as he gains more experience and confidence that he can play at this level. Early on, last Sunday,  he seemed tentative but started to really eat as the game progressed. There were several ankle tackles that looked like he could take to the house. It was fun watching him run because he picked up yards in bunches. Cleveland knows that in order to win they will have to control the clock and run the ball. Enter Chubb, the fast bruiser who has more wiggle than people give him credit for. Im not wasting any production watching him from the sideline. He is a fixture in my lineup from here on out. A solid outing against the "stout" Pittsburgh defense and high powered offense (which by the way tied last time they met) and people will see the light. 

Share this post


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

Funny thing his, had Hyde NOT been in Cleveland when Chubb was drafted and all indications were he would be the starting RB, he would have at least been a late second round pick. Royce crept into the third and was nowhere near the prospect Chubb was. Nick was an elite college player. At one point, he was being touted as a better runner than Gurley. I didn't subscribe to that notion because I was super high on Gurley at the time, but the kid can ball. Look, I get it if people want to take a wait and see approach with him. Not everyone jumps into the pool. Some people hesitate and ease in slowly. If your record is flimsy this approach makes even more sense. Personally, I'm all in. I know his talent, I know the team will continue to feed him, and I know he will only get BETTER as he gains more experience and confidence that he can play at this level. Early on, last Sunday,  he seemed tentative but started to really eat as the game progressed. There were several ankle tackles that looked like he could take to the house. It was fun watching him run because he picked up yards in bunches. Cleveland knows that in order to win they will have to control the clock and run the ball. Enter Chubb, the fast bruiser who has more wiggle than people give him credit for. Im not wasting any production watching him from the sideline. He is a fixture in my lineup from here on out. A solid outing against the "stout" Pittsburgh defense and high powered offense (which by the way tied last time they met) and people will see the light. 

 

I get it, yeah they tied last time but Pitt is on top of the division, coming off a bye and are at home. Chubb could easily have a bad game with a bad game script. He looks great but this is going to be a tough one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CABLE87 said:

 

I get it, yeah they tied last time but Pitt is on top of the division, coming off a bye and are at home. Chubb could easily have a bad game with a bad game script. He looks great but this is going to be a tough one.

When it comes to divisional games, I always throw records out the window. Not to mention Hue has been a coach in this division for quite some time. He knows Pitts. With the talent they have on the roster (both sides of the ball), I really can't see this one getting out of hand. If it does, I would be surprised. Took the same approach in the KC/Denver game as well. Calling it now, Denver upset! I still think Steelers win here though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.