1. I think fading studs because injuries can happen during a football game is a poor strategy. It's not exactly a hot take so I don't know what you're trying to say here.The Godwin Complex wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:20 amI’m not comparing LT to Barkley in terms of production. I’m comparing their value and production in relationship to other RBs during their time. LT was consistently the #1 scoring RB, and in his prime it was never really close besides Priest Holmes. It made sense to sell a Kings ransom for LT because he could literally carry a team. Barkley’s production does not separate him from the pack enough to warrant overpaying, ESPECIALLY now.MFundercover wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:34 pm Whoa. Misconceptions fly. I don't even know where to begin cleaning this up.
I guess I'll start by saying what Ladanian Tomlinson did is a very different landscape a decade ago is not a fair measuring stick. Unless I missed something, I haven't seen anybody using it in this thread. It's apples and oranges.
1) Nobody is saying you have to do anything. The goal is to discuss what is concrete and to each make our own decisions based on what has happened.MFundercover wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:34 pm
4) I also don't think it's fair to hold Saquons underwhelming 2019 against him but not Kamara. The only difference is that Barkley took and awkward cut and his knee tore this year. It was a football injury that can happen to anybody at any time, 1) and I'm not fading a stud because of that.
His injury history obviously hurts his value, but you have people going waaay too far with it. 2) Honestly, the stats you posted to discredit him didnt help your argument. He was #1 fully healthy, and #9 missing games and playing injured. You're going to have to do better to convince me that he isn't elite when healthy.
3) I think a fair dynasty value for him right now is Dalvin Cook, as fantasyfreak compared him to. It is "absurd" to not pay a 1st round pick for him. If you think you can buy him for less than that, you need to readjust the way you value players in fantasy football.
2) I think it’s interesting when people say I use numbers to discredit and fluff my position as if I intentionally left something out be right. My friend, my ego doesn’t rely on these forums. If you have concrete information or perspective to support why you believe Saquon is undoubtedly #1 please share with the class. Otherwise, your feelings, while valid, don’t make him being #1 true. You’re allowed to believe that...but like I said earlier, it’s a crossroad.
3) A fair dynasty deal is Dalvin Cook, huh?How many people have smacked HIM with the injury prone tag as a way to devalue him? When we talk about top backs he is also very highly unappreciated and it’s mostly because of the injury tag. So honestly, let’s not go there....discussing how each individual defines injury prone is for sure a discussion not worth having.
I agree with everything else you said that is not bolded.
EDIT: 4) It is 100% fair to hold it against Barkley and not Kamara.....because Kamara is still playing this year and is the #2 RB. McCaffrey has been unquestionably top 3 in average and total points for multiple years and he is only gone for a couple weeks and should still end up being a top 10 RB in scoring and average. This is the difference between feeling and fact. Barkley’s 14 game injury changes things. Maybe not to drastic measures like refusing to trade a 1st rounder. But pretending like it doesn’t is not rooted in facts. Like it has been alluded to, this decreases Barkley’s output by....let’s say 17% using age 30 as his window of relevance and production. would you rather have Barkley at 100% for 6 years? Or CEH or Taylor at 100% for 9? Or Jacobs at 100% for 8?
Feel how you want, but at least do some math and add it up first - that’s my main point. Nobody is twisting numbers to manipulate your feelings. Its not that serious
2. At no point did I say "Saquon is undoubtedly #1". He did in fact finish at the #1 RB and #10 (13 games) in ppr. It wasn't my opinion, that's just what happened.
4. The only problem with your point is that it has an expiration date. Saquon is 1 year older than Jacobs, not 2. Saquon is 2 years older than Taylor, not 3. Yes there is a lost year for Barkley, but teams are already set and the context matters. It really depends on how strong your team is, and whether or not you are a strong contender. Beyond 2020, the age difference is minimal, and the age gap you presented shrinks. So yes, I would take 6 years of Barkley over 7 years of Jacobs assuming full health. Taylor has only played 2 NFL games, so you could make an argument for him. But for my money, I want the guy who has already shown that he can post a #1 RB season at full health. Ultimately by fading Barkley for either of these two, you are making a short term gain and a long term deficit.
Edit: I'm just having a discussion about Saquons value. I'm not sure what I did to come off as hostile or having "manipulated feelings" because I dont agree. That comment is totally unnecessary.
