Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The irony is if I'm a team like the Browns I'd sign both he and Brown while skipping on the rest of the bigger names like DMC, Tate or Brown. I'd start Brown though. He'd be on IR after 2 carries then it's Toby's gig. My 3rd would be a late rd pick or a min contract guy like Bernard Scott. That would be a nice way to "Moneyball" the league for around $3-5M.
Since he's been with the Vikings, he has only started five games with Peterson inactive:
I don't see the point of mentioning that he's 27 like it's some kind of huge knock against him. Whoever signs him will be thinking far more about how he can help their team in the next 2-3 seasons than what he's going to look like in 2017. He's not young, but he's not so old that he's expected to hit a wall any time soon. Over the next three seasons he'll be 27, 28, and 29. Not that old for a guy with low NFL mileage.
Or whoever said that wants a couple of them and is trying to drive the price down.
It matters Gerhart is 27 because it almost guarantees that he is going to be Law-firmed even if he has a good year as a starter. Basically, toby will get us through a year or two and then we will get a guy we really like to be our true lead back. That does have value, but is he any better off than the Browns (Andre and Donald) or Starks or the other two or three guys hovering around that tier? None of them are significantly more "talented" than the other and each has some versus of questions/warts.
For FF, idk I suppose you have a point.
I agree with the first statement. There may not be many star RBs in this draft but many capable backs. I could imagine seeing Gehart signing somewhere only to be usurped by a younger and hungrier back.
I'd amend this to be his opportunity. I have always been so impressed by Gerhart and think he'll do well anywhere, as long as he starts.
Looks like a 'starter' to you? that's some subjective thing that matters to you, but has no bearing on the rest of us trying to analyze whether or not Gerhart or Starks will get a true opportunity to be more than a back-up or committee RB. What I do know is the through the same length career and largely in a similar role, they produced closer than not the same numbers. One of these guys I have seen have picked off the waiver wire and the other go for a mid 2nd round pick under the same scoring system. One has been posted about over and over as a value; the other has been not mentioned all.
Yes totally, but the offseason seems like it will bring a starter's role for Gerhart. I guess we'll see
The difference between Starks and gerhardt is Starks had ample opportunity to start and for one reason or another, never could nail it down. That's why Starks isn't mentioned at all. While I'm sure the league has it's questions whether Toby can be a franchise back, at least the possibility still exists.
I don't think they're that similar. Starks was a late round pick in the first place. He had his shot in GB, but could never rise to the top of a mediocre RB group. Gerhart has never even been given that opportunity. Being stuck behind a HoF RB from day one = no opportunity. Failing to emerge as a starter after several chances = squandered opportunity. There's a big difference.
I'm a lot more concerned with value-per-cost than raw value. Which is to say I'm primarily concerned with whether a player is worth more/less than his cost. There are two big variables that go into that:
I find it interesting you use Michael Turner, another back stuck behind a HoF RB, as a reason to say this doesn't happen very often. I'm by no means saying Gerhart is going to be a starter, but I don't think being drafted by a team that highly relies on their running game and has the best RB in the game as their starter are good reasons to vote against him.
biju said:
I find this point uninteresting overall, but since this is "new" ground in this thread, I will go on and answer. Turner had been considered for at least a couple of years the best back-up in the league who could start for more teams than not. Teams and FF players were literally waiting for him to become a free agent. He was the clear best FA back in his class and was paid accordingly so. Gerhart has been an okay back-up and in an underwhelming free agent class has been listed between RB5 and RB13 depending on the list being read. That HOF 'fact" is pretty much the only thing that is common between the two situations.biju said:
Likely best case scenario for Gerhart is a Lamont Jordan type future - we waited for a while, he signed with Oakland, and gave his owners one 1,000 yard season. Good 2005 but otherwise a waste of roster space and hype.
It's funny but when you look at what Gerhart has done and what Turner had done in his four years at SD, it is comparable. Turner had a higher ypc but close enough to be in the same ball park, similar number of carries and yards. Gerhart has significantly more receptions and receiving yards. So, it begs the questions: WHY did Turner generate so much interest? Because I agree that there was a different buzz. Personally, I don't think you can discount the influence that the media has on this kind of thing. Turner had a few good nights on Monday night football and was pimped as a result. Does Gerhart's race play a role in his generating less buzz? Does Minnesota as a smaller market than California? I don't know. But I don't think you can wave your hands and say that they are not similar in production to this point.
It's an interesting comparison. 5.51 and 4.7 aren't really that close in ypc, though the receiving numbers do a lot to make up for that.
I've always thought Toby is a solid backup talent with versatile skillset that can handle the load if needed.
I'm not really seeing him connected to anyone. Then again, he's obviously not a tier 1 free agent.
Gerhart is a better receiver than Turner. It stands to reason that a team that is looking for a RB capable in the receiving game will want him more than others, and from that group (and in any of these discussions) it makes sense to look at who has more cap space than others.
This is very possible. Chester Taylor, Trung Canidate, and LaMont Jordan happen... but sometimes you get Michael Turner or Ahman Green. Gerhart looks like a guy who might get a shot, and in college and the pros he's looked good enough to be a low-end NFL starter. If you can get him cheap, go for it. Trade five 2nd round picks for Taylor, Canidate, Jordan, Green, and Turner, and you're very happy.
Absolutely correct. Teams won't trip over themselves to sign any free agent RB. If this one won't sign at a good price, the next one will. If none will, one can be had easily in the draft in round 3 or later. It is a buyer's market and none will generate the enthusiasm past free agents did.
Who said he is a scrub?
This doesn't make sense. He doesn't have a lot of value right now. If you don't think he's any good, wait until he signs somewhere with promise and then move him.
