On Jermichael Finley and Fantasy Football
by Brandon on May 17, 2010 12:01 PM CDT
in Green Bay Packers Analysis
Email
Print- A great profile by Greg Bedard at JSOnline.com of the Green Bay Packers TE Jermichael Finley. "He has not been a big screwup" but he's only 23 years old so he's been immature at times and made some impulsive decisions.
- It's never too early for 2010 Fantasy Football, right? I got an email question about the 2010 season last week, and then I read two good articles over at WalterFootball.com.
- In their Top 75 they've got QB Aaron Rodgers at No. 8 (No. 1 QB) and RB Ryan Grant at No. 15 (far from No. 1 RB). Grant seems like a 2nd round fantasy running back to me. Rodgers carried my fantasy team last year.
- In their Dynasty Rookie Rankings they've got 6th round pick, RB James Starks, in at No. 13 because they expect he'll take over in 2011 after Grant's contract expires. That's a long way to be looking ahead so I'm just throwing the suggestion out there and I don't endorse it. Though I do agree on Chargers RB Ryan Mathews in at No. 1 among rookies. He looks like a solid pick to replace the 1000 yards and 10 TDs from RB LaDainian Tomlinson in 2009.
68 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Can't go wrong with Aaron
but in most formats people take RB’s in the 1st round
I was able to get the Pack’s QB in the 4th on a few FF teams last year
He’s always open. He catches a lot of balls. He’s un-guardable, no matter how old he is
I have Rodger in a keeper league.
We keep based on where we drafted the player last year. I got him in the second. He’d be a top 5 pick in our league this year (we start 2 QBs, 3 RBs, 3 WRs, 1 TE, 1 D/ST, 1 K, 1 head coach).
I also got Ray Rice in the 5th round. He’ll be my other keeper.
When I retire, I want to have Ted Thompson's job!
I play exclusively in an IDP league
with very detailed scoring which doesn’t give quite as much weight to RBs as most other systems seem to (thus, Rodgers ended up as the highest scoring player in our league last year).
That would render most all of these rankings, and experts’ opinions in other forms, completely meaningless, if they were not so already (since I believe I am smart enough to do better without it than with it). Haha.
-
The glass is more than half-full.
I've been afraid to draft Rodgers...
I usually have BAD luck with QBs…usually getting hurt or having their worst year ever when I draft them so I’ve stayed away from my boy Aaron for his own good!! I traded for Favre last year actually…of course he would be the one the break my curse!
After I got Favre, I changed my team name to
Favre’s Waffle House
Now THAT'S a man who knows how to play ff!
Beware the wrath of the football gods.
by Curly Lambeau on May 18, 2010 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
James Starks? Replacing Ryan Grant?
That’s just ridiculous. That’s also following the assumption that James Starks makes the team. 6th round picks don’t always make final cuts…
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on May 18, 2010 12:02 PM CDT reply actions
Starks
Don’t be too surprised if Starks takes Grants starting spot in ‘11… I don’t see it this year, but if Grant has another 1000yd season, he’ll be scheduled to make something like 9M in ‘11. The Packers are NOT going to pay Ryan Grant 9M under almost any circumstances. He’s just not that good!!! Grant would have to agree to a contract extension at maybe 6M per or there is a real chance that he won’t be back…
Grant is nothing too special as a RB. He’s pretty good, but he can be replaced pretty easily too! The zbs is an easy to scheme for RB. One cut and head upfield… Thats not anything that your average RB can’t do! The zbs makes it easy to find average RB who can produce good/great numbers. Grant has done well for the Packers, but if he gets greedy and expects to make 9M in ‘11 he won’t be around!
How quickly they forget
1,200 yards is nothing to sneeze at, dude. Have you forgotten Brent Fullwood and Keith Woodside and all the rest? When Edgar Bennett finally (and barely) cracked the 1,000 yard mark in the mid-90s, he was the first Packer running back to do so since Terdell Middleton in, I believe it was, 1978. Then we were spoiled by Ahman Green for all those years….
But, enough history. The point, which you seem to have forgotten, is that RBs who can hit the hole with speed and purpose do not grow on trees. Ryan Grant may not be Barry Sanders, but he brings alot to the table. The best thing about him, in my opinion, is the way he runs hard and forces the defense to tackle him (he doesn’t do the dance and fall routine you see from so many guys). Then, he’s also got a great 2nd gear if and when he gets some blocking and clears the box.
As for his contract situation, from what I understand he’s scheduled to make $5 mil in salary next year. If he gets to 1,200 again, he’ll have $2 mil in escalators that will be due before the next season. So the Pack could either renegotiate or release him at that point.
…but I can see no reason why they’d want to do that. $7 mil per year for stability and elite production at the RB position…? I’d say that that’s a fair market price. And he only makes that money if he produces! I mean… again, this is a fair deal for a very good player.
Let it be.
by Curly Lambeau on May 18, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Comparing the 80's with the 00's
Believe it or not, the game is very different now than it was in the late 80s/early 90s. Check this out:
2009: 15 over 1000 yds (pretty low compared to other recent years)
2000: 23 over 1000 yds
1990: 8 over 1000 yds
You catch that? In 2000 over 70% of the teams had a 1000 yard back!!
The rules have changed to encourage offensive production. So you really can’t compare production NOW to production then. You are right, Grants production isn’t terrible…its also not great. Getting 1000 yards these days is not a great accomplishment like it was in the 80s.
I love the idea of Starks challenging Grant. I would love to see him steal the job away. Grant is going to quickly be overpaid …not to mention that he’ll be 30 in 2012 so its time to start looking for our next star.
I don't like that idea at all.
Draft John Clay in two years if you REALLY want to replace Grant.
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on May 18, 2010 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions
how can you say that? You haven’t even seen the kid play in the pros yet. Obviously if he’s going to take the job away he’s going to have to turn out to be a pretty damn good back. Why would you even bring up a unclassman who we don’t even know IF we can draft him or if we’d want to.
The point here is I would love for someone to come into the organization that would push Grant out of his starting job. If you don’t want that…you are crazy!
You, sir, can go ahead and call me crazy.
You take Ryan Grant away from the 07, 08, and 09 teams and replace him with the next leading rusher, and the PAckers would NOT be half the team they were those years (Really scary considering how the 08 team fared…)
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on May 18, 2010 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Then & now
That’s a fair point about the production differences between the 80s & 90s versus today. But still…
A) we’re not talking about a guy who squeaks out 1,009 yards or something. This is a guy who very nearly got 1,000 over 10 games in ’07, and then got 1,250 for 2 years in a row since then (despite being banged up for all of ’08).
B) he did all that despite being completely overshadowed by the passing game, and despite having a line blocking for him that was at least what you’d call substandard at times. They weren’t THAT bad, or anything (especially in the last half of ‘07, when Campen somehow really lit a fire under them), but they certainly weren’t great. Bottom line: we’re geared for the passing game, and he still produces.
Other than the Colts when Edgerin James was in his prime, I’m having a hard time thinking of a team that had this balanced of a run/pass dual threat. Why would we want to upset that?
Now, how high would we go salary-wise? hmm… I’d say I’d be fine with anything up to… say, 9-10 mil per year. And, again, the only way he gets that much from his current deal is if he continues to produce lights-out. …in which case, pay the man!
by Curly Lambeau on May 18, 2010 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Figure
From what I can figure Grant will make about 5.75M this season, maybe a little more. In ‘11, if he gets over 1250 yds in ’10 he’ll make another 1.5 to his ‘11 salary which now includes 1.75 roster bonus and 3.5 base salary. So for ’11 that would be in the area of 7M… BUT if at the end of the 4th season (’11) he will get an additional 4M if he reaches 4100 yds and another 2M if he gets 3600 -4099 yds. He already has nearly 2500 yds so the 2M is virtually a given. And the 4100 yds is easily attainable… So he is just 1600 yds short of that… That would give him apporximately 11M in the ’11 season !!!
You can do the math yourself… Here’s the link:
http://www3.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=780272
NO way the Packers are going to let him reach the 4100 yds and have to pay him 11M in the final year at the end of the year!!!
I have nothing against Grant. Like I said he’s a good RB, and worth maybe 6M per, but there is no way you can justify paying him the 11M. So, IMO, after the ‘10 season he’ll have to re-negotiate or he’ll be released or traded!
Sounds to me like you’re adding up everything he’s earning for escalators from the beginning to the end of his contract and then counting all that as his 2011 salary. Math was never my strong suit, but is it really 11 mil for one year?
…because, if it is, that might be a little high. Of course, there too, you got receivers making that much practically guaranteed. If Grant earns that from his incentives, I don’t know if that’s really all that crazy or unfair to either side.
by Curly Lambeau on May 18, 2010 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Hang on a second...
In that scenario, we’re talking about a guy who produced over 5,000 yards rushing in 4 years. …and you don’t think that’s worth an upper-level contract?
I’d be interested in knowing just who you think IS worth paying.
by Curly Lambeau on May 18, 2010 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions
paying
If he is getting 1200 yds every year, I am willing to pay 6M maybe a little more, but not much!!! THe zbs makes it easy for RB!!! Don’t you realize that?? All he has to do is find a seem and then head upfield!!! It doesn’t take a premier talent to do that! Your average run of the mill RB can do it… Thats proven already, since Grant is no more than a good average RB. He is easily replacable!!! I can easily see STarks putting up that production… Maybe more…
He is on pace for about 4900-5000 yds in the 4 year contract. Telling you, he won’t be a Packer in ’11 unless he renegotiates…
Do you have his jersey? Is that why you want him soo bad??? LOL
lets take his numbers in context (supporting your point)
Last year, Ryan Grant was paid $4.2 million, which is about right for where he fits into the scheme of paydays. Thomas Jones $1M, Mendenhall $4.8M, LT made $6.7M, Gore made $4.3M, SJax made $5.5M, CJohnson $4.2M,
There were a few anomolies MJD made $13.1M, AP $760K, but I wouldn’t count them.
To really get a feel if we are getting our money’s worth, check this out:
- Grant earned $14,900 per carry (NFL avg $11,500)
- Grant earned $3,350 per rush yard ($2,734)
- Grant earned $381,000 per TD ($364,000)
- Grant earned $2,896 per total yard ($2,216)
So taking that all into context, Grant is an above average back and right now he’s getting paid like one. He’s not asked to take over games and he doesn’t. I wouldn’t expect us to ride him to a championship. But eventually I’d like to see us still improve the position. Plus, he’s already like 28 so you HAVE to start to look to the future. In the coming seasons, he’s going to be overpaid for what he does and TT is GOING to be looking for someone to steal the job from him. I think Stark has a chance but we won’t know until we see how he does against pro talent. I think we’ll see some competition brought in next year if they don’t feel Stark is the kind of guy that can do it.
Thanks for providing that information Trev! I think it’s pretty clear that we need to replace Grant here soon. I mean, without even thinking about money I still think he needs to go. He’s way too inconsistent. He really is nothing more then average. All he has to do in our scheme is make one cut and get up field but poor vision and acceleration make even that difficult for him.
by packallday555 on May 19, 2010 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions
That was me!
Lynch > Grant. Legal troubles and all.
by packallday555 on May 18, 2010 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions
I hope we don’t pay Grant that much. He is just a solid/average Rb. Sure, his numbers are good but compare him to some of the other top guys..We also have to keep in mind that our great passing game makes things much easier for him. I think in 2007 he was a very good player but I haven’t seen that the past 2 years.
by packallday555 on May 18, 2010 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions
I totally agree!
I think he’s a decent back…nothing more. We could do worse but we could do way better too! There are a lot of positions I would say that about on our team. He’s totally NOT worth $9M…he’ll have to renegotiate or it will be onto another team where he still won’t get that kind of dough (he’ll still be a just above average back who is 29).
I think he's worth the money, but that's just me.
If you want to get rid of him on Madden, don’t let me stop you…
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on May 18, 2010 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions
haha I already did!
But seriously you’d want him as one of the top paid backs in the league to get you #10 running back numbers?
What's he supposed to do, rush for 3,000 yards, 45 TDs AND win the MVP award?
This isn’t intramurals, this is the NFL! (slightly adapted from Mike Gundy’s tirade)
Those numbers are ridiculous; 3,000 yards means Grant would have to rush for 187.5 yards a game.
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on May 18, 2010 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions
huh?
What numbers are you talking about…what are those numbers…dude you are confusing.
Look, LT at the peak of his deal, was making $6-7 million. The Chargers asked him to renegotiate and even after he DID, they still cut him loose a year later.
Again, Grant isn’t a great receiver, he a 2 down back who doesn’t have a ton of explosiveness or break away speed. He’s a decent back who capitalized on a GREAT first season by getting a monster contract. The problem is that they build the contract so that he’ll either HAVE to turn into one of the top backs in the league, restructure, or get cut. There is NO way the Packers pay him that money unless they have NOTHING else in the tank behind him and I am sure TT remembers about all those escalators so there will be RBs drafted every year.
same could be said
about hawk. no way the packers will pay him 10 million for 2011. he’s just not that good and is nothing special as well. hawk would definetly have to take a pay cut if he wishes to come back.
Hawk and Grant
So besides those two who else do you expect the Packers too lose?! I think Jenkins will be leaving for a chance at playing 43 DE again. I doubt he is too thrilled w/ playing the MUCH less stat killing 34 DE.
BTW- I don’t expect that the loss of Grant or Hawk to hurt the team much. Chillar will step in for Hawk and if Starks looks good then Grant shouldn’t hurt much. Losing Jenkins might tho… Except that Neal and Wilson were drafted for just this purpose!
I think TT is anticipating losing one of our DEs…he wouldn’t have made the move he did on Neal and Wilson if he didn’t. Clearly this was a position he felt we could get better performance from. Its also the one position that we had to do the most work to force people into. a 3-4 DE and a 4-3 DE are SO different.
Yeah
and for the record, I don’t think this will be a wise move for Jenkins. He’s an OK 4-3 DE, but a Top 5 3-4 DE. He may not get the glory he wants, but he’s getting plenty of recognition from his fans in Green Bay.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Yeah, hopefully he’ll stay. He’s one of the few 3-4 DE’s that can provide a pass rush as well as plugging the gaps.
by packallday555 on May 19, 2010 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, I’m sure he’ll either have to take a pay cut or get cut. I personally think we’ll just cut him. I think between Chillar and Bishop we’d be just fine.
by packallday555 on May 19, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Count me in with Curly
While Grant may not be a dynamic RB to base a whole offense around he is solid to above average. Really the way we sling the ball that’s all we need. Add on top of that the power he has as well as the second gear the picture is looking better. Finally he’s holds on the ball and rarely fumbles. All in all, he’s a good back for what we run.
Could Starks eventually replace him? Sure, but remember we also don’t know how Starks will pan out with the shoulder injury either. Let’s let them put the pads on this summer and see what happens.
Oh I agree. I don’t want us to just give Starks the job. I’d just love to see him challenge and steal it away after the next year or two.
some of you are too optimistic on Starks
He was a 6th round pick and missed all of last year with an injury I doubt he is a future starter for us.
Starks
Why don’t you think he is future starter? Grant was an undrafted FA… Surely if Grant can do it then a 6th rd pick can!!! Plus Grant isn’t a good blocker or reciever… Starks we already know is a good reciever, and it won’t be hard to equal Grants blocking ability. All he has to show is that he can be a decent RB. He hasn’t done it in the Pros yet, but he put up good numbers as a RB at Buffalo!
Because its very rare for a sixth rounder to become a starter
Especially one who is coming of an injury
And to be honest those stats at Buffalo
werent all that impressive considering the teams he was playing
I wanna make it clear
I wouldnt mind the guy becoming a starter one day but im just not optomistic as some of you guys are because of the reasons I have stated.
6th rd
Well he also wouldn’t have been a 6th rd pick if it weren’t for the injury!!! Probably more like a 2nd or 3rd rd pick… I think he will be healthy and push Grant this year and take over for him next!
How popular that phrase has become since watching "Anchorman".....
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Really thats where it came from?
I’ve just used it because I see it as a good way to end a discussion that probably isnt going anywhere.
You have to look at more than just the total number of yards.
He improved his ypc each year by about a half yard. He is explosive with numerous 50+ yd TDs each year. He can put his head down and drive it in for a TD…had 16 rushing TDs his junior year. He’s also a pretty decent receiver getting over 300 yards and 7+ yds per catch his last two years. Those are NICE numbers.
Lets not pretend Buffalo was some great team around him. They were an average team and he was their star RB.
Grant is UNDRAFTED. How rare is THAT? Why would you count a guy out before he even puts pads on?
Anyway, I don’t think we are counting on Starks taking the job but the fact that he was hurt for his senior year is WHY he was a 6th rounder. He would have been a helluva lot higher if not for that preseason injury.
If Starks would have had a crappy senior year he could have dropped as far as he did
An example is Chris Brown of Oklahoma. Before the year he was considered a second rounder and went up going undrafted and is not on a roster. Who knows Starks could have had a poor year and gone undrafted
I agree
Justin Harrell missed his senior season, but was still projected as a late 1st Round Prospect. Saying Starks dropped from a 3rd to 6th Round is a pretty big drop, especially if it is just from injuries. Something else must be up. I’m happy with picking him, but I am not expecting him to be a starter. He should be servicable though, if he stays healthy.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Actually for a Rb, it’s really not. There have been a lot of Rb’s picked recently in the later rounds that went on to be successful in the league. I think their success or failure is more or less about the team who drafts them. I mean obviously they have to have some skill too but if you can put them in a good offense, or one with a great OL, it makes it much easier for them to be successful.
by packallday555 on May 19, 2010 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions
If you look at teams starting RB's currently
there is only a couple that werent drafted in the first 2 rounds so thats why I said that
zbs
Like I said, the zbs doesn’t require a RB w/ special talents… A one cut and head upfield scheme just doesn’t take any real talent! Almost any RB, who has some vision and decisiveness can excel in it! Who cares when you get a RB, as long as you have one thats productive in the scheme you use…
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
