Clyde Edwards-Helaire is your new 1.01

[hoos89]

Literally 16 of those 29 carries were his rookie season, guy

E: See it was since 2014, my bad. Point still stands though: if he's really the best goal line guy then why is he getting so little goal line work? Could it be that the high percentage is because they only hand it off to him in specific situations that are very favorable for scoring? He's got fewer inside the 5 carries than almost anyone on that list, and I'd guess he's at or near the bottom on inside the 5 carries per total carries.

[FantasyFreak]

Literally 16 of those 29 carries were his rookie season, guy

I roster CEH, but I expect Bell to get GL work. I don't really care. Bell will be there for a handful of games, and CEH has an entire rookie deal. CEH has been a backend RB1 with poor OL play, and being a raw rookie with no offseason. He has a very safe floor, and hasn't scratched his ceiling yet. That just probably won't be this year, but he's still going to be a productive back in a top end offense.

[Krypto_King]

D Will returns next year, yeah? They can sign or draft other players next year. I'd take this as a bad sign for CEH regardless of what we think of the specific player they signed today.

[usps33]

We knew Bell was going to destroy someone’s fantasy value, just wished it wasn’t CEH’s.

[FantasyFreak]

D Will returns next year, yeah? They can sign or draft other players next year. I'd take this as a bad sign for CEH regardless of what we think of the specific player they signed today.

Why? I don't understand why people can't see that a team adding an upgrade in talent to a position they are thin at is an indictment on CEH.

[FantasyFreak]

We knew Bell was going to destroy someone’s fantasy value, just wished it wasn’t CEH’s.

It's not destroyed, get off the ledge......

[usps33]

We knew Bell was going to destroy someone’s fantasy value, just wished it wasn’t CEH’s.

It's not destroyed, get off the ledge......

Lol, just for this year, but for dynasty I would by CEH all day long still.

[FantasyFreak]

We knew Bell was going to destroy someone’s fantasy value, just wished it wasn’t CEH’s.

It's not destroyed, get off the ledge......

Lol, just for this year, but for dynasty I would by CEH all day long still.

Not even. He's still going to be startable IMO. He's not just going to be on the bench all game because of this.

[alewilliam789]

I love how the CEH truthers are vivaciously going to each thread CEH is being talked about in to tell us that Bell’s signing means nothing.

Who are you trying to convince me or yourself lol?

I popped into the Gaskin thread and they are in there professing about CEH

[bjd5211]

I love how the CEH truthers are vivaciously going to each thread CEH is being talked about in to tell us that Bell’s signing means nothing.

Who are you trying to convince me or yourself lol?

I popped into the Gaskin thread and they are in there professing about CEH

And all the haters pop in to say "told ya so", just like just about every player that ever gets discussed at length.

[FantasyFreak]

I love how the CEH truthers are vivaciously going to each thread CEH is being talked about in to tell us that Bell’s signing means nothing.

Who are you trying to convince me or yourself lol?

I popped into the Gaskin thread and they are in there professing about CEH

Reference? Who is doin that, exactly? Who said it means nothing? It obviously means something in the short term, and I don't think anybody is arguing that, but CEH's value and production hasn't suddenly imploded because the Chiefs signed a veteran upgrade for their RB room. Bell is surely going to take some touches out of that backfield, but I don't think CEH "truthers" as you call them, (plural: as in multiple people) are saying it means "nothing". Can you back this statement up with actual facts?

In the Gaskin thread, there were a few (2) comments about CEH being fine, one in which I aknowledged Bell would get touches, in response to someone making a comment about CEH. Nobody was "professing" anything. Try again.

[OhCruelestRanter]

I love how the CEH truthers are vivaciously going to each thread CEH is being talked about in to tell us that Bell’s signing means nothing.

Who are you trying to convince me or yourself lol?

I popped into the Gaskin thread and they are in there professing about CEH

And all the haters pop in to say "told ya so", just like just about every player that ever gets discussed at length.

Calling people who disagree with you “haters” is pathognomonic of a rejection of critical thinking.

[bjd5211]

I love how the CEH truthers are vivaciously going to each thread CEH is being talked about in to tell us that Bell’s signing means nothing.

Who are you trying to convince me or yourself lol?

I popped into the Gaskin thread and they are in there professing about CEH

And all the haters pop in to say "told ya so", just like just about every player that ever gets discussed at length.

Calling people who disagree with you “haters” is pathognomonic of a rejection of critical thinking.

"Haters" and "Truthers" are equal and opposite terms. People use "truther" to sarcastically describe fans of players they don't like or don't value as highly, especially in the context it was used here. Same as "hater" is used for people who are much lower on a player.

Not everything is supposed to be taken literally.

[alewilliam789]

I love how the CEH truthers are vivaciously going to each thread CEH is being talked about in to tell us that Bell’s signing means nothing.

Who are you trying to convince me or yourself lol?

I popped into the Gaskin thread and they are in there professing about CEH

Reference? Who is doin that, exactly? Who said it means nothing? It obviously means something in the short term, and I don't think anybody is arguing that, but CEH's value and production hasn't suddenly imploded because the Chiefs signed a veteran upgrade for their RB room. Bell is surely going to take some touches out of that backfield, but I don't think CEH "truthers" as you call them, (plural: as in multiple people) are saying it means "nothing". Can you back this statement up with actual facts?

In the Gaskin thread, there were a few (2) comments about CEH being fine, one in which I aknowledged Bell would get touches, in response to someone making a comment about CEH. Nobody was "professing" anything. Try again.

Lol I’ve obviously struck a chord. I’ll leave the CEH topic alone.

I actually don’t disagree with a lot of your takes FF. I just thought it was funny that I was seeing comments about CEH being fine in the Myles Gaskin thread.

[FantasyFreak]

I love how the CEH truthers are vivaciously going to each thread CEH is being talked about in to tell us that Bell’s signing means nothing.

Who are you trying to convince me or yourself lol?

I popped into the Gaskin thread and they are in there professing about CEH

Reference? Who is doin that, exactly? Who said it means nothing? It obviously means something in the short term, and I don't think anybody is arguing that, but CEH's value and production hasn't suddenly imploded because the Chiefs signed a veteran upgrade for their RB room. Bell is surely going to take some touches out of that backfield, but I don't think CEH "truthers" as you call them, (plural: as in multiple people) are saying it means "nothing". Can you back this statement up with actual facts?

In the Gaskin thread, there were a few (2) comments about CEH being fine, one in which I aknowledged Bell would get touches, in response to someone making a comment about CEH. Nobody was "professing" anything. Try again.

Lol I’ve obviously struck a chord. I’ll leave the CEH topic alone.

I actually don’t disagree with a lot of your takes FF. I just thought it was funny that I was seeing comments about CEH being fine in the Myles Gaskin thread.

It's just you're making stuff up, that's all. Skewing the reality. I don't really care, you can talk about CEH as much as you want. All the talk on this board won't make 1 shred of difference to the eventual outcome on the field.