Sanders or Monty

[vbbish]

Hey guys,

I have changed my mind on these 2 about 50 times over. Im competitive this year and dont necessarily need them to be productive right away.

Sounding like Jacobs first and Harry 2nd. Cheers!

[thomasscheeks]

Sanders very easily. I'm not at all a Monty fan

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

Similar talents drafted by two good offenses, but Montgomery has more opportunity for touches. I'd take Montgomery.

Alternatively, if you see no big gap between the two, try and sell the 1.03 + 3rd for 1.04 + 2nd or something along those lines.

[Gator Sens]

Montgomery based on opportunity

[BucFanJKE]

Long term I prefer Sanders to Monty pretty easily. I really don't see what everyone else does in Montgomery.

If you needed production this year I think Monty should be a better producer year 1.

[surgebird2]

I like them both a lot. I think Montgomery is easily the better choice this year, but I think Sanders has more long term upside due to his athleticism. Based on your ability to wait, I'd probably take Sanders. But I would not be surprised if Montgomery is a mid-high RB2 or better in startups this time next year due to his opportunity to produce right away, making him more valuable than Sanders at that point.

[ChefHerbie]

I prefer Monty. Sanders has the higher ceiling but also lower floor IMO. Pederson is a RBBC guy, and I'll take Nagy and his utilization of Hunt, and hope Monty gets as many touches.

[BigBawseRoss]

montgomery was highly thought of all thru his college career and then took a 6 month value nosedive for reasons unknown to me, and then was taken to be the lead back of a team that sent away last seasons 1k rusher (1080 total yards and 9 TD aint a bad season folks) for a 6th round pick.

i know sanders was behind barkley but hes a 1 year starter at the college level and is going to a team that has had no idea what to do at rb since the coach traded away their beloved star rb. they have sent a 4th and a 6th for ajayi and howard in the past year and also have smallwood, clement, sproles in the fold. seems like its way easier to say montgomery will earn a high percentage of rb touches that can only go to he, cohen, and mike davis as opposed to sanders in a 5 man backfield with very reliable vets mixed in.

[thomasscheeks]

I prefer Monty. Sanders has the higher ceiling but also lower floor IMO. Pederson is a RBBC guy, and I'll take Nagy and his utilization of Hunt, and hope Monty gets as many touches.

Pederson has never had a legit three down back, it's hard to call him a RBBC guy just yet. We have to wait and see how he uses Sanders (once Howard is gone)

Chicago has a very talented back by the name of Tarik Cohen. Is Nagy just going to ignore his talent and give all the touches to Montgomery? That's a textbook RBBC situation if I've ever seen one.

It's perfectly fine to prefer Monty to Sanders, but I think it's important to have solid reasoning for it when giving advice

[ChefHerbie]

I prefer Monty. Sanders has the higher ceiling but also lower floor IMO. Pederson is a RBBC guy, and I'll take Nagy and his utilization of Hunt, and hope Monty gets as many touches.

Pederson has never had a legit three down back, it's hard to call him a RBBC guy just yet. We have to wait and see how he uses Sanders (once Howard is gone)

Chicago has a very talented back by the name of Tarik Cohen. Is Nagy just going to ignore his talent and give all the touches to Montgomery? That's a textbook RBBC situation if I've ever seen one.

It's perfectly fine to prefer Monty to Sanders, but I think it's important to have solid reasoning for it when giving advice

Really?

My reasoning is solid, but great try. Pederson has alluded multiple times that he prefers an RBBC approach. He said multiple times he prefers to use certain backs, for certain plays, in certain situations. It's also not just about "being a three down back". The fantasy issue that Pederson presents, is the way he splits the overall carries, not just the passing down workload. Every year that he has been the Eagles HC, they've had three backs with 68+ carries. When you're spreading that many carries around, on top of passing down work, it's concerning.

As far as your Chicago comments.... Howard finished with the 9th most touches in the NFL at RB last year. Cohen averaged six carries per game last year, really an RBBC situation huh? Cohen is also 5-6 180, you really think Chicago wants him carrying the ball 100 times? Nagy has also said on multiple occasions they intend for Montgomery to be a three down back, with the idea to utilize both he and Cohen on the field to create mismatches. The #3RB on the Bears last year got 11 carries. In his two years as the OC in KC, the #3 rusher had under 24 and 17 carries.

It's perfectly fine to call someone out on their opinion, but I think it's important to know what you're talking about when you do.

[moishetreats]

Dynasty teams fail when they prioritize opportunity over talent: opportunities change; talent doesn't.

Hunt in KC, Ajayi in Phi, L. Murray in Min, -- all were being drafted highly because of opportunity. Now, as a one-year gap-filler, great! Maybe even a couple of seasons. But, in dynasty, always take talent. Always. Opportunities change far too often and unpredictably.

If you're of the belief that Sanders and Montgomery are similar in terms of talent, then obviously opportunity is a central factor in deciding between the two. If, however, you're of the belief that there is a talent gap (and I am one of those), then take the better player -- he'll create his own opportunity. Remember how everyone was fading Chubb last season because he was blocked and wouldn't have an opportunity to get the ball??

As a believer in Sanders' talent faaar more than Montgomery's, this isn't even a question for me.

---------

As a thought-experiment, consider this: Say that Sanders had been drafted into the incredible opportunity that Chicago is said to present and Montgomery into the supposed RBBC abyss of Philadelphia. Sanders would be in a coin-toss with Jacobs for the #1 spot, and Montgomery would be falling to the end of the first round. Still want Montgomery over Sanders because of "opportunity"...?

[ChefHerbie]

Dynasty teams fail when they prioritize opportunity over talent: opportunities change; talent doesn't.

Hunt in KC, Ajayi in Phi, L. Murray in Min, -- all were being drafted highly because of opportunity. Now, as a one-year gap-filler, great! Maybe even a couple of seasons. But, in dynasty, always take talent. Always. Opportunities change far too often and unpredictably.

If you're of the belief that Sanders and Montgomery are similar in terms of talent, then obviously opportunity is a central factor in deciding between the two. If, however, you're of the belief that there is a talent gap (and I am one of those), then take the better player -- he'll create his own opportunity. Remember how everyone was fading Chubb last season because he was blocked and wouldn't have an opportunity to get the ball??

As a believer in Sanders' talent faaar more than Montgomery's, this isn't even a question for me.

---------

As a thought-experiment, consider this: Say that Sanders had been drafted into the incredible opportunity that Chicago is said to present and Montgomery into the supposed RBBC abyss of Philadelphia. Sanders would be in a coin-toss with Jacobs for the #1 spot, and Montgomery would be falling to the end of the first round. Still want Montgomery over Sanders because of "opportunity"...?

Dynasty teams fail when they prioritize either thing over the other and don't balance them.

[moishetreats]

Dynasty teams fail when they prioritize opportunity over talent: opportunities change; talent doesn't.

Hunt in KC, Ajayi in Phi, L. Murray in Min, -- all were being drafted highly because of opportunity. Now, as a one-year gap-filler, great! Maybe even a couple of seasons. But, in dynasty, always take talent. Always. Opportunities change far too often and unpredictably.

If you're of the belief that Sanders and Montgomery are similar in terms of talent, then obviously opportunity is a central factor in deciding between the two. If, however, you're of the belief that there is a talent gap (and I am one of those), then take the better player -- he'll create his own opportunity. Remember how everyone was fading Chubb last season because he was blocked and wouldn't have an opportunity to get the ball??

As a believer in Sanders' talent faaar more than Montgomery's, this isn't even a question for me.

---------

As a thought-experiment, consider this: Say that Sanders had been drafted into the incredible opportunity that Chicago is said to present and Montgomery into the supposed RBBC abyss of Philadelphia. Sanders would be in a coin-toss with Jacobs for the #1 spot, and Montgomery would be falling to the end of the first round. Still want Montgomery over Sanders because of "opportunity"...?

Dynasty teams fail when they prioritize either thing over the other and don't balance them.

Fair enough: I lazily fell into hyperbole in my first post. So, let me re-state my maxim:

When two players are considered in the same tier or at the same spot and where one is considered a better talent and the other is elevated by opportunity, then assuredly* take the better talent (*unless there is an overwhelmingly powerful reason to deviate from this maxim).

In this case, I consider Sanders as clearly a better talent and Montgomery as someone elevated by opportunity (as indicated in my thought experiment above). So, it's Sanders for me easily based on that.

[BigBawseRoss]

I prefer Monty. Sanders has the higher ceiling but also lower floor IMO. Pederson is a RBBC guy, and I'll take Nagy and his utilization of Hunt, and hope Monty gets as many touches.

Pederson has never had a legit three down back, it's hard to call him a RBBC guy just yet. We have to wait and see how he uses Sanders (once Howard is gone)

Chicago has a very talented back by the name of Tarik Cohen. Is Nagy just going to ignore his talent and give all the touches to Montgomery? That's a textbook RBBC situation if I've ever seen one.

It's perfectly fine to prefer Monty to Sanders, but I think it's important to have solid reasoning for it when giving advice

Really?

My reasoning is solid, but great try. Pederson has alluded multiple times that he prefers an RBBC approach. He said multiple times he prefers to use certain backs, for certain plays, in certain situations. It's also not just about "being a three down back". The fantasy issue that Pederson presents, is the way he splits the overall carries, not just the passing down workload. Every year that he has been the Eagles HC, they've had three backs with 68+ carries. When you're spreading that many carries around, on top of passing down work, it's concerning.

As far as your Chicago comments.... Howard finished with the 9th most touches in the NFL at RB last year. Cohen averaged six carries per game last year, really an RBBC situation huh? Cohen is also 5-6 180, you really think Chicago wants him carrying the ball 100 times? Nagy has also said on multiple occasions they intend for Montgomery to be a three down back, with the idea to utilize both he and Cohen on the field to create mismatches. The #3RB on the Bears last year got 11 carries. In his two years as the OC in KC, the #3 rusher had under 24 and 17 carries.

It's perfectly fine to call someone out on their opinion, but I think it's important to know what you're talking about when you do.

i love this lol

[jordanzs]

LOL

And I would flip a coin