The G Man

Chase Edmonds 2019 Outlook

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, sSektor said:

 

17.6 - Cincinatti

14.7 - Atlanta

40 - NYG

 

All below average-terrible run defenses. If he produces this week against NO I'll be sold but at least try to be a little cautious about the situation. We've seen Chris Thompson go on stretches of huge production against weak schedules too.

Agree, all depends what your specific team options are, but in light of other options, I'm just gonna play my rush. 

Share this post


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

Three rushing TD's and the 34.2/2 points each were way more than the strategy statistically and theoretically suggested coming into the game (23.7/2), so having that as an argument against it doesn't make sense. That success was not expected by anyone, not even his mom.

And well, now we are just looking at small nuances in predicting how the game and game script would unfold. In which we are not in agreement anyway. I guess I have a more statistically-driven approach and you a more perceptual approach; broader stats vs "they were eviscerated in the passing game" etc. Gamescript differences which imo wasn't going to result in a massive deviation from the mean in terms of RB fantasy points given up anyway. The strategy applied to the games vs Tampa, Buffalo and Minnesota for example would still have yielded two players with RB2 numbers in all of them, even though you felt they were winning through the air.

The "smart" in using the strategy is trading away the risk of the starter of uncertain status being forced out of the game due to re-injury and instead bet on the whole backfield and settle with, theoretically, RB2 numbers for two of your players.

And yes, I did state it depends on situation and other options. As I compared, Michel, Breida, Freeman, Howard and White all average less points than what "backfields vs NYG, divided up between two backs" do. It's risk-averse and low upside, absolutely. The upside was way higher starting DJ and one of those names obviously. But statistically, if the injury really turns out to be a problem, you end up one goose egg and one RB2. Starting the backfield; worst case is two RB2's. This is process-driven if anything.

I don't see how you can look at 7 touches last week and see "worst case RB2."  I suppose you could make the case that the touches were near the goal line, indicating a red zone specialist who would likely get you the score, but baring that against Atlanta Edmonds was good for less than 7 points on the yardage, pending your scoring settings.

I suppose you could feel as though the results of someone like a Chris Thompson, Alexander Mattison, or James White all had some modicum of success against them would give you a sense of security about playing him, I didn't get that feeling.  Those guys roles were all clearer to me than Edmonds was prior to Sunday's game (and heck, still are) and I wouldn't have been feeling RB2 numbers from any of them against the Giants, your mileage may vary.

I won't fault you if your process is to look extensively at the net result of the opposing defense as opposed to like-kind results of players in similar positions, such as we can interpret them safely or the usage of the particular player in the past.  I have my opinion and you have your's, and regarding this particular example I feel kind of silly continuing to argue it trying to take swipes at a player who did so well anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JE7HorseGod said:

I don't see how you can look at 7 touches last week and see "worst case RB2."  I suppose you could make the case that the touches were near the goal line, indicating a red zone specialist who would likely get you the score, but baring that against Atlanta Edmonds was good for less than 7 points on the yardage, pending your scoring settings.

I suppose you could feel as though the results of someone like a Chris Thompson, Alexander Mattison, or James White all had some modicum of success against them would give you a sense of security about playing him, I didn't get that feeling.  Those guys roles were all clearer to me than Edmonds was prior to Sunday's game (and heck, still are) and I wouldn't have been feeling RB2 numbers from any of them against the Giants, your mileage may vary.

I won't fault you if your process is to look extensively at the net result of the opposing defense as opposed to like-kind results of players in similar positions, such as we can interpret them safely or the usage of the particular player in the past.  I have my opinion and you have your's, and regarding this particular example I feel kind of silly continuing to argue it trying to take swipes at a player who did so well anyway.

 

Ah, it's clear to me now you didn't understand what I originally meant. I meant what NYG was giving up to backfields coming into week 7, which was 23.7 half-PPR points per game, if you divide that out over two players (23.7/2 = 11.85 per player). 11.85 is RB2 numbers. I didn't mean gamble on (this I agree was a big gamble) Edmonds actually reaching 11.85, but betting on DJ+Edmonds reaching 23.7. See the difference?

It had nothing to do with Edmonds role vs DJ. It's just a strategy of playing a whole backfield vs a poor opponent, if the starter's status is uncertain. Playing both, not just one of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ah, it's clear to me now you didn't understand what I originally meant. I meant what NYG was giving up to backfields coming into week 7, which was 23.7 half-PPR points per game, if you divide that out over two players (23.7/2 = 11.85 per player). 11.85 is RB2 numbers. I didn't mean gamble on (this I agree was a big gamble) Edmonds actually reaching 11.85, but betting on DJ+Edmonds reaching 23.7. See the difference?

It had nothing to do with Edmonds role vs DJ. It's just a strategy of playing a whole backfield vs a poor opponent, if the starter's status is uncertain. Playing both, not just one of them.

I'd agree with that methodology if -

1.) RBs who were not starters against the Giants had previous success against them when the starter was healthy.

OR

2.) I had any definitive information that Johnson would be limited, aside from him having an injury practice week against Atlanta, being a GTD against Atlanta, playing well against Atlanta, having an injury practice week against NYG, being a GTD decision against NYG, being active against NYG, coach tells us he was an emergency back after the game was over.

If you had played the "Vikings backfield" against the Giants, in most standard sized leagues, given most options, you would have been better off playing Dalvin Cook and another RB, as opposed to Cook and Mattison.  Ditto with the "Patriots backfield" and White with Sony, the Cowboys with Pollard and Elliot, the Bucs with Barber and Jones...really the only instance against them I can see this being your best course of action against NYG aside from the game in question was the Bills, and we had been given zero indication that the Cardinals playbook resembled their's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 9:57 PM, matthew berry said:

guys.. i just watched some highlights... and he looks smooth... and effortless.. like kamara. 

 

 

 

I dunno what's been going on in this thread, but I like chase =P and glad I started him last week.  Who knows what will happen fantasy wise moving forward.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Chase Edmonds is this years Phillip Lindsay. Book it.

 

More like Alvin Kamara 2.0. 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JE7HorseGod said:

I'd agree with that methodology if -

1.) RBs who were not starters against the Giants had previous success against them when the starter was healthy.

OR

2.) I had any definitive information that Johnson would be limited, aside from him having an injury practice week against Atlanta, being a GTD against Atlanta, playing well against Atlanta, having an injury practice week against NYG, being a GTD decision against NYG, being active against NYG, coach tells us he was an emergency back after the game was over.

If you had played the "Vikings backfield" against the Giants, in most standard sized leagues, given most options, you would have been better off playing Dalvin Cook and another RB, as opposed to Cook and Mattison.  Ditto with the "Patriots backfield" and White with Sony, the Cowboys with Pollard and Elliot, the Bucs with Barber and Jones...really the only instance against them I can see this being your best course of action against NYG aside from the game in question was the Bills, and we had been given zero indication that the Cardinals playbook resembled their's.

Man, you are still missing the whole essence of the strategy. We are still talking about two separate things. Hopefully most other readers get it, but I will give it one final try explaining.

Obviously Cook and someone else than Mattison would have been a better choice, in hindsight. That's not what I'm arguing about. Imagine if Cook were to go down early, the idea would then be Mattison picking up the slack and get you the points that Giants average to opposing backfields. It doesn't matter if Cook gets 23.7 and Mattison 0, Cook gets 11.85 and Mattison 11.85 or Cook goes down right away, gets 0 and Mattison 23.7. Or anything in between those three scenarios. In any case you'd get 23.7 from two players, going by what NYG give up to backfields. 23.7 from two players combined, means 23.7/2 = 11.85 average per player. 11.85 is RB2 numbers. Doesn't have to be both getting RB2 numbers, but their two scores add up to two RB2 numbers. That's the whole idea.

- If you start Cook and and an average RB2 (say Michel, Howard, Freeman or White) from another team, worst case scenario is Cook goes down early and you get close to 0 points and RB2 numbers from Michel/Howard/Freeman/White. 0 + RB2 = ONE RB2 worst case scenario.

- If you start Cook and Mattison, worst case scenario Cook goes down early, but since Mattison steps in and the idea is Giants give up 23.7 points that game. 0 points from Cook, 23.7 points from Mattison. 23.7 = TWO RB2 worst case scenario.

This is a smart strategy in some situations going into a game if the starter's (Cook, David Johnson or whoever) status is uncertain. It's about minimizing risk by raising your floor, at the expense of lowering your ceiling. If you don't get it by now, I'll just have to wish you a good day.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

His 2018 highlights look a lot better than anything he's shown so far this season so I guess there's hope. CAUTION hit the mute button if you don't like Kodak Black

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Go ahead and sit this one out, DJ. That we can all start Chase Edmonds and enjoy the 5 points he gets us when New Orleans shuts him down. :X

Share this post


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

 

Isn't that dude old?

This is good... imply's DJ could miss time and dude is old an no threat to Chase.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, oresteszero said:

 

Isn't that dude old?

 

Old is better than having 2 active RBs one gameday lol

Share this post


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

This is good... imply's DJ could miss time and dude is old an no threat to Chase.

 

Ah he's 30. I remember when he was at Dallas. He was decent.. nothing really stood out to me

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pdizzle710 said:

 

More like Alvin Kamara 2.0. 🤣

Has anyone thrown out the Ingram/Kamara backfield comp yet? If not, let me be the first to do so!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say I almost lost my dinner when I quickly saw a news blurb that said "johnson" was heading to IR....I'm like, David Johnson...Woo hoo...

Then saw it was Kerryon....darn it!

Edited by tts42572
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2019 at 11:33 AM, dmody91 said:

Do we have a rb1 on our hands???

 

Starting to look like it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Go ahead and sit this one out, DJ. That we can all start Chase Edmonds and enjoy the 5 points he gets us when New Orleans shuts him down. :X

Well, my options are Edmonds or Kerryon.  So I guess I'll take the five points.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

Ah he's 30. I remember when he was at Dallas. He was decent.. nothing really stood out to me

He was a revelation back in 2012-2014, perfect one cut back for Shanahan's scheme.

That guy is long gone obviously but the last time he took the field he balled out against the Rams last December.

Interested to see the terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JE7HorseGod said:

 

Starting DJ was smart?

 

Yes, because just like the week before, you didn't know if he'd be a decoy or get 30 points. The smart play was to start the entire ARI backfield vs a bad defense (because any smart DJ owner should have drafted or picked up Edmonds weeks ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mods deleted my post but I feel like this warrants repeating without the AC content. He is by far the best RB pickup of the season so far. There is no better situation besides maybe Minnesota (Mattisom), Dallas (Pollard) or SF (last man standing). If you are 6-1 or 7-0 I can see you passing this up due to the uncertainty with DJ. If you are 4-3 or worse, I don’t see how you can pass this guy up. You’ll be waiting for something that might never happen again this season.

edit: after some deliberation, I am convinced that if you are 7-0, you have the luxury of picking him up and just benching him until the situation becomes more clear with DJ. In short, if he is still available, he should be the number 1 pickup of the year so far.

Edited by WaiverLooter
  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, WaiverLooter said:

he should be the number 1 pickup of the year so far.

 

Darren Waller and the Pats D say hello.

Share this post


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

 

Darren Waller and the Pats D say hello.


Pats D was drafted in my 10 man league (adp was #6 to at worst #11 d off the board). And I did specify RB pickup earlier in my post but was too rushed in posting my edit.

Edited by WaiverLooter
  • Like 1

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.