Guice vs 2019 rookies

[Oh Yeah Leon]

I figured a month or so ago it was
#1 Guice
#2 Jacobs
#3 Sanders
#4 Montgomery

It seems to have changed since from what I'm reading/hearing......Guice seems to have fallen to #3. What do you guys think?

[pvillebiker]

Until we hear/see Guice's return to health, I'd take all 3 of the rookies ahead of Guice, easily.

[FantasyFreak]

Give me Jacobs over Guice all day. Jacobs is younger, healthier, is a better receiver and has little to no competition to take touches away from him. The Raiders are also a better offense. I'd take Sanders over him, too. Montgomery vs Guice is a coin toss for me.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

As a prospect, Guice for me and it's not close. For this upcoming year, Jacobs probably would be the favorite to score the most points. Guice would probably be in a similar situation as Sanders and Montgomery in that they'd be competing for touches. Long-term, again Guice for me and it's not close. I understand the injury concerns, but from a talent perspective he wasn't the 1.02 in a stacked rookie class for no reason.

[M-Dub]

Guice
Sanders
Jacobs

Montgomery

[FantasyFreak]

As a prospect, Guice for me and it's not close. For this upcoming year, Jacobs probably would be the favorite to score the most points. Guice would probably be in a similar situation as Sanders and Montgomery in that they'd be competing for touches. Long-term, again Guice for me and it's not close. I understand the injury concerns, but from a talent perspective he wasn't the 1.02 in a stacked rookie class for no reason.

Nope. The reason was he was overdrafted at the 1.02. Never thought Guice was better than Chubb and still don't. I had Penny above him too, and that one is iffy at this point.

[UATahoe]

I think the injury concerns for Guice are starting to get concerning. I would roll the dice with all the rookies over him at this point. But I will admit I was never as high on Guice as most.

[ninotoreS]

Guice


Jacobs
Sanders

Montgomery (I'm a little bit concerned about his baseline athleticism)


I feel like I've made this point a million times, but, once again: the historical record on RBs selected on Day 1/2 that were age 20 when they were drafted is really good. I've misplaced the data table (I saved it somewhere), but as I recall, it was seriously like 80% of the list were Pro Bowlers.

My only worry with Guice is that he isn't a proven pass-catcher yet, and today's NFL isn't very fantasy friendly to 2-down backs. But I think there's reason for developmental optimism in that area. It seems like ancient history now, but back in 2015's U.S. Army All-American Bowl, Guice wanted to play wide-receiver to "expand his horizons and improve his skill set". He posted 153 yards receiving -- a new record for the event -- and was named MVP.

Guice was a Rivals 5-star prospect who wrecked SEC defenses -- the best in the country -- when he was only 19. I understand if some are concerned that he's more of an old-school NFL prototype RB, but, bottom line, he's a gifted and precocious talent.

And speaking of "old-school NFL prototype RBs", those of you who aren't concerned with Chubb's profile are guilty of double-standard if you have a problem with Guice's. Chubb's knee is much more likely to become an arthritic issue by his mid-20s than Guice's, and Chubb was -- and still is -- even more questionable in the pass-game.

[FantasyFreak]

@Ninotores. Is there any evidence to suggest that Jacobs turning 21 2 months prior to then NFL draft and being a first round pick hurt his chances at that pro bowl? Genuinely curious. Is there any stats that players drafted in the year in which they turn 21 and are a first or second round pick? It seems odd that a difference in birth of 4 months between Guice and Jacobs relative to their draft year would skew such a thing that much.

Guice certainly had the college production over Jacobs, but for me, the injury concerns combined with Jacobs receiving skill set and opportunity sort of evens that out for me, personally.

[lukkynumber13]

The injuries scare me. I want Jacobs easily over Guice.

Guice=Sanders>Montgomery

[ninotoreS]

@Ninotores. Is there any evidence to suggest that Jacobs turning 21 2 months prior to then NFL draft and being a first round pick hurt his chances at that pro bowl? Genuinely curious. Is there any stats that players drafted in the year in which they turn 21 and are a first or second round pick? It seems odd that a difference in birth of 4 months between Guice and Jacobs relative to their draft year would skew such a thing that much.

Guice certainly had the college production over Jacobs, but for me, the injury concerns combined with Jacobs receiving skill set and opportunity sort of evens that out for me, personally.

It's just one of those things where a line has to be drawn in the sand for the data to make its point. Does an example missing the cut-off by a few months suddenly change everything? Nah.

My takeaway is that it's a correlator with 'phenom' talent when a running-back is already impressive enough by his age 19-20 collegiate season to be rated a Day 1/2 pick by NFL teams. So this would apply to Jacobs too.

I rate Guice over Jacobs for other reasons (e.g. weight adjusted speed, collegiate production / sheer dominance, etc).

And I just don't see the rational, informed argument supporting all this sudden hand-wringing over Guice's health. A non-MRSA staph infection that was promptly treated doesn't worry me; it's a routine issue with surgeries of this type, and only has rammifcations for long-term recovery when proper treatment of the infection is delayed. Beyond that, Guice's tear was grade 1. It's just not that big a deal. I'd be a lot more worried about a triple-ligament grade 3 tear with dislocation and additional cartilage damage on a guy's record (Chubb), or even a guy that's had two grade 2 sprains and additional torn cartilage all on the same knee since he's entered the league (Melvin Gordon).

[Bot101]

As one who was one of the highest on Guice I can definitely say that I am concerned. I took him 1.02 and traded him away for a playoff push. As a prospect he was incredible. And I also believe his pass catching was and currently is grossly underestimated. The Redskins have made comments last year and this year that they have been surprised how good he is catching passes and as a route runner.

Having said that, the situation around Guice is more concerning than Guice himself. The team now has a rookie QB, a weak WR core, they resigned AP, drafted a talented RB in the 4th and they still have Thompson. Plus if they dont start hot Gruden could be in the hot seat. And when an offensive minded HC gets fired usually the team hires a defensive minded HC. Not always but that seems to be the trend.

As a pure talent in a vacuum, I'd absolutely take him over anyone in this class. But factoring in his struggles to rehab and team situation, I'd probably only pay the 1.05 at most. But like most Guice owners, the one in my league values him as a top player and will only trade him for other top players. Which is a tad asinine since he hasnt done anything yet.

[FantasyFreak]

@Ninotores. Is there any evidence to suggest that Jacobs turning 21 2 months prior to then NFL draft and being a first round pick hurt his chances at that pro bowl? Genuinely curious. Is there any stats that players drafted in the year in which they turn 21 and are a first or second round pick? It seems odd that a difference in birth of 4 months between Guice and Jacobs relative to their draft year would skew such a thing that much.

Guice certainly had the college production over Jacobs, but for me, the injury concerns combined with Jacobs receiving skill set and opportunity sort of evens that out for me, personally.

It's just one of those things where a line has to be drawn in the sand for the data to make its point. Does an example missing the cut-off by a few months suddenly change everything? Nah.

My takeaway is that it's a correlator with 'phenom' talent when a running-back is already impressive enough by his age 19-20 collegiate season to be rated a Day 1/2 pick by NFL teams. So this would apply to Jacobs too.

I rate Guice over Jacobs for other reasons (e.g. weight adjusted speed, collegiate production / sheer dominance, etc).

And I just don't see the rational, informed argument supporting all this sudden hand-wringing over Guice's health. A non-MRSA staph infection that was promptly treated doesn't worry me; it's a routine issue with surgeries of this type, and only has rammifcations for long-term recovery when proper treatment of the infection is delayed. Beyond that, Guice's tear was grade 1. It's just not that big a deal. I'd be a lot more worried about a triple-ligament grade 3 tear with dislocation and additional cartilage damage on a guy's record (Chubb), or even a guy that's had two grade 2 sprains and additional torn cartilage all on the same knee since he's entered the league (Melvin Gordon).

Cool. Thanks.

As for the injury concerns, I have concerns for Chubb after his first contract, and obviously there is more long term concern over someone who suffered an injury like that long term than someone who hasn't, but for now his situation in an elite offense combined with his talent make it an easy choice to take Chubb over Guice, as the running back landscape changes so rapidly and trying to project too far down the road is futile, for me. The thing that concerns me about Guice is that he had trouble with the same knee in college the year before, so it seems that he has had a few straight years of problems on that knee.

I hope all these players can play a long time, I genuinely love the position and don't like missing out on watching talented players play it.

[gameaholica]

Guice > rookie rbs 2019 class

Not concerned about the injury. I traded for him in 2018.

Gave: Dalvin Cook and Dissly

Received: Guice and Jordan Reed

Week 13 2018

[honcho55]

And I just don't see the rational, informed argument supporting all this sudden hand-wringing over Guice's health. A non-MRSA staph infection that was promptly treated doesn't worry me; it's a routine issue with surgeries of this type, and only has rammifcations for long-term recovery when proper treatment of the infection is delayed. Beyond that, Guice's tear was grade 1. It's just not that big a deal. I'd be a lot more worried about a triple-ligament grade 3 tear with dislocation and additional cartilage damage on a guy's record (Chubb), or even a guy that's had two grade 2 sprains and additional torn cartilage all on the same knee since he's entered the league (Melvin Gordon).

As I understand ligament injury grades, grade 1=sprain, light damage, no surgery. Grade 2= loosened ligament, more damage. “Slight tear”. Grade 3= full rupture. All the info I can find, guice fully tore the ACL and likely had MCL damage as well. I can’t find whether there was additional cartilage damage, but it’s a concern regardless. Just wondering if you could clarify this statement here, you seem knowledgeable here and I’m maybe missing something.