DeAndre Washington

[Litesout13]

I find it interesting that he was picked 9 picks later than Dixon but there is over a full round of difference in rookie drafts. A lot of the 5th round RB's get drafted a round or more later than Dixon, but are within a handful of picks based on NFL draft pedigree.

I know the scouting community was largely high on Dixon going into the draft. Less so on Washington. Which may play a part in it.

[Phaded]

I find it interesting that he was picked 9 picks later than Dixon but there is over a full round of difference in rookie drafts. A lot of the 5th round RB's get drafted a round or more later than Dixon, but are within a handful of picks based on NFL draft pedigree.

Know-it-alls for the most part.

I see no reason why Dixon should be so much higher than Washington; aside from the pre-draft hype around here. Sometimes you have to adjust values based on the NFL Draft; take a double look at some guys whether it is (good or bad). Dixon arguably has a harder path to playing time as well.

What I want to hear from those who are talking down Washington - what makes Latavius a better option?

[GridironGuerilla]

Probably the fact that they own him.

[Litesout13]

I find it interesting that he was picked 9 picks later than Dixon but there is over a full round of difference in rookie drafts. A lot of the 5th round RB's get drafted a round or more later than Dixon, but are within a handful of picks based on NFL draft pedigree.

Know-it-alls for the most part.

I see no reason why Dixon should be so much higher than Washington; aside from the pre-draft hype around here. Sometimes you have to adjust values based on the NFL Draft; take a double look at some guys whether it is (good or bad). Dixon arguably has a harder path to playing time as well.

What I want to hear from those who are talking down Washington - what makes Latavius a better option?

I agree. But both guys went to a similar situation I think. Neither will be the guy but have a shot. Difference is Dixon is an excellent pass catching RB which could mean he will see time as the passing down RB early on. He could then develop into the starter. I dont think Washington is on that level as of now. Combo that with the fact that people are more up on Murray than Forsett/Buck Allen.

But what makes Washington so much better? People just arent a huge fan of Murray, I get it, but I feel like they are taking their dislike and trying to force the next man up into being a better player than he actually is. Washington really wasnt that great of a prospect. At least Murray has proven that he can be somewhat productive vs NFL comp. A 1,000 yard back averaging 4.0 yards per carry in his 2nd year isnt something to scoff at. He could definitely be better, but there were plenty of worse RBs last year and Washington is going to have to be pretty solid to supplant him imo. But as I have said, I dont think either guy is the "guy" come a year from now.

[Franky Four Fingers]

Washington is actually every bit as accomplished a receiving back as Dixon. And unlike Dixon doesn't have other established receiving backs like Allen and Forsett on his team.
Dixon
2013 = 14 - 85 - 1
2014 = 30 - 385 - 6
2015 = 33 - 464- 7

Washington
2013 = 34 - 269 - 0
2014 = 30 - 328 - 2
2015 = 41 - 385 - 2

Dixon scored more tds for sure, however, playing against inferior competition at Louisiana Tech he should. Combine measurable results are also very close.

Dixon
5'10 - 215
4.56 40 yd
2.73 20 yd
1.57 10 yd
18 reps
37.5 vertical
10'01 broad
4.28 20 shuttle
6.97 3 cone

Washington
5'8 - 204
4.49 40 yd
2.61 20 yd
1.55 10 yd
24 reps
34.5 vertical
9'10 broad
4.20 20 shuttle
7.03 3 cone

So once again very similar athletes drafted in nearly the same spot of the NFL draft. Baltimore however seems much more crowded to me especially with Murray only under contract for this year in Oakland.

[Orenthal Shames]

Affiliation sways views, plain and simple. Another thread post summed up the inconsistency perfectly. Many are celebrating Langford's situation after Howard landed there, but are down on Murray with Washington's arrival.

[Litesout13]

Washington is actually every bit as accomplished a receiving back as Dixon. And unlike Dixon doesn't have other established receiving backs like Allen and Forsett on his team.
Dixon
2013 = 14 - 85 - 1
2014 = 30 - 385 - 6
2015 = 33 - 464- 7

Washington
2013 = 34 - 269 - 0
2014 = 30 - 328 - 2
2015 = 41 - 385 - 2

Dixon scored more tds for sure, however, playing against inferior competition at Louisiana Tech he should. Combine measurable results are also very close.

Dixon
5'10 - 215
4.56 40 yd
2.73 20 yd
1.57 10 yd
18 reps
37.5 vertical
10'01 broad
4.28 20 shuttle
6.97 3 cone

Washington
5'8 - 204
4.49 40 yd
2.61 20 yd
1.55 10 yd
24 reps
34.5 vertical
9'10 broad
4.20 20 shuttle
7.03 3 cone

So once again very similar athletes drafted in nearly the same spot of the NFL draft. Baltimore however seems much more crowded to me especially with Murray only under contract for this year in Oakland.

I guess I was going more off the tape, not production. Texas Tech is a pass happy offense so it can inflate numbers. Based on the tape I watched, Dixon had better hands and ran better routes. Some of the better route running from the RB position.

[_yeti]

A little good news for my fellow DeAndre Washington owners:

(Rotoworld) Fifth-round pick DeAndre Washington mixed in with the Raiders' first-team offense at minicamp.

Analysis: "We're putting him in different situations to get a feel for his strengths and how we can tailor plays, tailor situations so he can really flash for us," said OC Bill Musgrave. "He's going to be good in first, second, or third down." Immediately after the draft, GM Reggie McKenzie called Washington a "complete back" with the ability to contribute in all phases. The Raiders were not pleased with Latavius Murray last year, particularly in the second half of the season. A 5-foot-8, 204-pound prospect with 4.49 speed and 124 receptions on his college resume, Washington is a candidate for a significant rookie-year role.

[maxhyde]

Know-it-alls for the most part.

I see no reason why Dixon should be so much higher than Washington; aside from the pre-draft hype around here. Sometimes you have to adjust values based on the NFL Draft; take a double look at some guys whether it is (good or bad). Dixon arguably has a harder path to playing time as well.

What I want to hear from those who are talking down Washington - what makes Latavius a better option?

I agree. But both guys went to a similar situation I think. Neither will be the guy but have a shot. Difference is Dixon is an excellent pass catching RB which could mean he will see time as the passing down RB early on. He could then develop into the starter. I dont think Washington is on that level as of now. Combo that with the fact that people are more up on Murray than Forsett/Buck Allen.

But what makes Washington so much better? People just arent a huge fan of Murray, I get it, but I feel like they are taking their dislike and trying to force the next man up into being a better player than he actually is. Washington really wasnt that great of a prospect. At least Murray has proven that he can be somewhat productive vs NFL comp. A 1,000 yard back averaging 4.0 yards per carry in his 2nd year isnt something to scoff at. He could definitely be better, but there were plenty of worse RBs last year and Washington is going to have to be pretty solid to supplant him imo. But as I have said, I dont think either guy is the "guy" come a year from now.

This is exactly how I think on the matter as well.
Dixon slipped further than us fantasy drafters felt he should so we elevate him and ignore his position to a degree. Happened with Ajayi for some last year too.
I don't think DeAndre is 'bad' but not liking Murray is essentially the reason he is getting bumped up which seems like 'one is bad so the other must be better' reasoning. Not alot of certainty or confidence in that...also Helu is probably better than both and didn't even get a sniff last year mostly inactive coaches decision to dress guys that played ST.
Question-answer time...
Q: How much do I really want invested in that sort of backfield?
A: 0

[_yeti]

I know this is jumping into a slightly different debate but wouldn't characterize rostering Washington as much of an investment. I got him in the last round of our rookie draft (13th RB taken) and I have a taxi squad I can put him on. This is about as close as you can come to free. For comparison I traded Murray midseason last year for a first that ended up 1.4. I think for that value to see a guy getting reps with the 1's is great news and a back I would love to own.

Also comes down to roster construction and goals, I am weakest at RB so I don't need him to light the world on fire, if he is able to become either temporarily start-able or provide trade fodder after big news or some action then I see it as a win for me.

[ninotoreS]

I'm warming to DeAndre Washington, at least insofar as his ranking relative to this particular draft class.

Still bothers me though that he's never able to break a squared up tackle attempt, at least not on the tape I've watched. I mean, I don't need an RB to do it on every carry, but I would like to see him do it at least once or twice a game. Some people wanna compare Washington to Rice / Freeman / Duke, but those guys run with noticeably more aggression into and against contact than Washington.

Q: How much do I really want invested in that sort of backfield?
A: 0

Well, if you're win-now, keep in mind Oakland's offensive-line is looking quite nice heading into 2016...

[maxhyde]

I do like the line and OAK ran the ball pretty well last year even with Murray who apparently is just a placeholder for every draft pick/FA. Wasn't it Gus Johnson the UDFA that was going to supplant him last year?
It is a backfield I wish I could justify investing in but confusing moves/decisions by the coaching staff concern me more than the talent level of anyone on the roster. Those don't usually change until the coach changes and Del Rio bought himself some time I think making improvements last year and what appear to be some nice additions again this year

[Phaded]

I do like the line and OAK ran the ball pretty well last year even with Murray who apparently is just a placeholder for every draft pick/FA. Wasn't it Gus Johnson the UDFA that was going to supplant him last year?
It is a backfield I wish I could justify investing in but confusing moves/decisions by the coaching staff concern me more than the talent level of anyone on the roster. Those don't usually change until the coach changes and Del Rio bought himself some time I think making improvements last year and what appear to be some nice additions again this year

I agree there is no one there worth investing much in.

I expect Washington to outscore Murray by the end of the year in PPR leagues.

However, he's a short term solution and I still wouldn't invest more than a late 2nd or early 3rd in him.

[Franky Four Fingers]

I'm warming to DeAndre Washington, at least insofar as his ranking relative to this particular draft class.

Still bothers me though that he's never able to break a squared up tackle attempt, at least not on the tape I've watched. I mean, I don't need an RB to do it on every carry, but I would like to see him do it at least once or twice a game. Some people wanna compare Washington to Rice / Freeman / Duke, but those guys run with noticeably more aggression into and against contact...

I've got to disagree with you on this one. I think Washington runs with plenty of physicality, he takes on contact very well considering his size. I would certainly consider him to be a more physical runner than Duke Johnson. Freeman doesn't seek out contract either for that matter.

[Dynastychamp111]

I traded L. Murray, Ajayi and JStew for M. Ingram and 2.5 who ended up being K. Drake about two months before the draft. I dont think L. Murray is the long term answer and glad I traded him when i did. If D. Washington eats into his carrier and K. Drake eats into Ajayi's then i feel i won the trade.