Lacy #1 fantasy player

[ivo610]

Will be interesting to see if he lives up to the hype the fantasy community heaps on him

http://nflspinzone.com/2015/05/25/will-eddie-lacy-live-hype-espns-number-one-fantasy-football-back/

 

[Mondio]

I think Eddie Lacy is great, he quickly became one of my favorite players because of his attitude, toughness and skill. But I do not think he's a number one fantasy guy. Too many weapons on this team and though he is definitely our "feature" back, he'll split time with the others to reduce wear and tear during the season and keep his legs fresh.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I love Eddie Lacy as well but I think it´s ridiculous to rank him as the #1 fantasy RB.

 

[Ace]

As an avid fantasy football player, as much as I love Eddie and think he's a great player, I'm sorry I'm not taking him #1 overall.

 

[El Guapo]

I haven't really kept up with fantasy football lately. I agree with the comments above, but is there a clear #1 back anymore? AP might play. The likes of Stephen Jackson and Chris Johnson are no longer relevant. Maybe I could see picking Marshawn Lynch or DeMarco Murray - although Lynch is unhappy and Murray with a new team. Maybe the #1 ranking is right and that the state of the position is really that weak.

 

[Ace]

I haven't really kept up with fantasy football lately. I agree with the comments above, but is there a clear #1 back anymore? AP might play. The likes of Stephen Jackson and Chris Johnson are no longer relevant. Maybe I could see picking Marshawn Lynch or DeMarco Murray - although Lynch is unhappy and Murray with a new team. Maybe the #1 ranking is right and that the state of the position is really that weak.

Jamaal Charles/Lynch/Murray/Forte all guys I'd consider over Lacy. Depends what kind of a league it is too. I think Lacy is in the top 5 category, his ADP is right around 2 right now so there are a lot of other people who think he's in that #1 range also. I don't think it's insane but I personally wouldn't take him #1 overall.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I haven't really kept up with fantasy football lately. I agree with the comments above, but is there a clear #1 back anymore? AP might play. The likes of Stephen Jackson and Chris Johnson are no longer relevant. Maybe I could see picking Marshawn Lynch or DeMarco Murray - although Lynch is unhappy and Murray with a new team. Maybe the #1 ranking is right and that the state of the position is really that weak.

I haven´t heard anything this offseason suggesting Marshawn Lynch is still unhappy.

 

[HardRightEdge]

First, it appears that Lacy is not the #1 RB in this ranking; he's the #1 NFL player. More on this general fantasy issue in a subsequent post.

I don't do fantasy sports and never have, but it strikes me that some of the other leading RB candidates are switching teams and schemes as noted in that piece, Bell is under a 3 game suspension (which makes his #2 rank in that piece somewhat puzzling), Peterson is in limbo, and Lynch is approaching the age where hitting the wall is a risk.

Assuming the fantasy value is based on yards from scrimmage and TDs, Lacy should be perceived as a high value choice on the risk side of the risk/reward equation. In other words, given his youth (along with low college mileage), an offense returning all of its starters, and his being worked more into the passing game last season, his perceived productivity floor is high, or as high as one can project before the first ball is snapped.

I'm more interested in Lacy's weight coming into these OTAs. Last season he was toying with the idea of slimming down:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...-might-shed-weight-b99393894z1-283294281.html

The article says he's 230 lbs., which looks to have come from the packers.com roster listing, which at times is outdated. He was 231 lbs. at the Combine. But he looks bigger now than on his college tape...maybe 240 lbs.

My thought is if it ain't broke don't fix it. As a runner, in style and productivity, Jerome Bettis is a good comparable, while Lacy is a more productive receiver. I'll take that every day and twice on Sunday, pun intended.

Bettis is of course a HOFer on the strength of eight 1,000 seasons and a 13 year career, so I'm not saying Lacy is a future HOFer...I'm saying he's a comparable yardage gainer and TD scorer at similar points in their careers.

There are different ways to rack up rushing yards/rushing average/TDs. Some of the smaller speed backs rack up a lot of no gain and loss runs, but pad the numbers with a handful of long gainers. Others, like Lacy, muscle their numbers with yards after contact. I'll take the latter (again twice on Sunday) over a few more long gainers over the course of the season. Lacy dropping weight so that he can outrun a safety a couple times per year is a questionable proposition.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with fantasy football leagues where the method of scoring results in RBs being the highest ranked players, followed by WRs, with QBs down the list? How about a league where a single RB or WR can outscore the best defense + special teams in a given week, as appears to be the case with ESPN's methodology? Isn't this scoring template the rule rather then the exception?

This strikes me as a level of abstraction so divorced from winning and losing as to have little relationship to reality.

Coincidentally, I just read a piece by Ben McGrath in the 4/15/15 issue of the New Yorker on the history of fantasy sports as it has evolved from one restaurant table to high-stakes daily fantasy gambling.

The NFL initially resisted and sought to constrain fantasy participation because of it's connection to gambling and infringement on the brand. But as it grew despite the league's efforts, it came to be perceived as way to heighten fan interest. Leading partners, such as ESPN, are now among those on the bandwagon. It's pretty obvious: fantasy = more eyeballs on more games = more advertising revenue = more NFL revenue.

I'd like to share a quote from the New Yorker article coming from Daniel Okrent, credited as the progenitor of fantasy sports. He was the founder of the "Rotisserie Baseball League" in 1980, named for the restaurant where it was formed (La Rotisserie Francaise, now defunct, in Manhattan).

Okrent said:

"In the first year or two you're playing, you are much more engaged with baseball than you've been since you were seven years old. And then, by your fourth or fifth year, the actual game has lost meaning for you. You're engaged with the numbers that the game spins out and engaged with millions of others in the same way. It has no relationship not just to the fan attachment that you may have had to a particular team but to the physical thing that is taking place on the field. It's the representation of it in a number that's important. I'm thinking of our original group. A couple of them don't give a sh*t about baseball anymore. When people say, 'How do you feel, having invented this?' I say, 'I feel the way that J. Robert Oppenheimer felt having invented the atomic bomb.' I really do. I mean, pretty terrible!"

 

[Ace]

Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with fantasy football leagues where the method of scoring results in RBs being the highest ranked players, followed by WRs, with QBs down the list? How about a league where a single RB or WR can outscore the best defense + special teams in a given week, as appears to be the case with ESPN's methodology? Isn't this scoring template the rule rather then the exception?

This strikes me as a level of abstraction so divorced from winning and losing as to have little relationship to reality.

There are about 1,000 different ways to run a fantasy league when it comes to scoring but yes traditionally RB's are and will be the highest ranked player.
It's also a value thing when it comes to why RB's are alway the highest ranked players. There are very few RB's who can score you 20 per week, in most scoring settings, in fantasy so to get one of them is a must if possible because the drop off is huge from those types of guys to the rest.
There are ALOT more productive WR's in the NFL than there are RB's so it isn't essential to get one early if you don't want to. QB's are the same way, sure there are the studs like Rodgers/Manning/Luck who will more than likely be the top pt scorers in fantasy when it's all said and done but the drop off from the #1 QB taken to the 12th isn't nearly as significant as the drop off from the #1 RB to the 24th (assuming it's a 12 team league).
I've drafted both ways. Waited on RB and taken them early, either way can work but if you don't take RB early you had better get lucky later or you're screwed whereas you can patchwork together your QB's & WR's based on matchups and things to get by.

Sorry formatting of the last post was atrotious

 

[sschind]

I think HRE hit it pretty close when he brought up the risk/reward thing. Lacy is young, seems pretty durable and is the clear cut #1 guy on a very high powered offense that is not afraid to include the RB in the passing game. All this leads to a highly ranked player. Lynch is getting up there, Murray is on a new team, Peterson is unhappy (although that may push him harder)

My top 5 in rough order would be

1) Charles- he is just steady and he does it all. I would have no problem taking him #1 overall

2) Bell- He would be #1 without a doubt without his suspension and #2 might be a little high because of it. If I had the #2 pick I'd have to think long and hard. I don't know if he has appealed yet but if for any reason his suspension is reduced he would move up to #1. 3 games I might move him back to #5. The thing is if you can go 1-2 and and get him back you have a great chance of making up that ground and you will have him when you make the playoffs. You just have to be a bit smarter with your backup RBs. In our format where we only have to start 1 RB (can do 3 WRs) its not as important to have 2 studs.

3) McCoy- I'm a little worried about the change of teams but he will still be a top producer of fantasy points. Plus I got burned with him once so I am leery.

4) Forte- I've had Forte in a keeper league since he was a rookie. I nabbed him in front of a huge Bears fan who passed on him the round prior because he never thought I would take a Bear (our drafting in that league is not your typical snake draft) . He has gotten me lots of points even though he can be very frustrating at times. If you have Forte I would suggest not looking at his stat line until the game is over. It will kill you. Midway through the 4th quarter he has 23 yards rushing and 14 yards receiving then he busts off 60 yards rushing and catches a 50 yard pass for a TD. His age does concern me a bit and so does John Fox's offense. He may be less productive than in the past, I might move him down. Plus since I have him in the keeper I may not want him in another league.

5 )Lacy- He is young, relatively durable and is the go to guy on a high powered offense that is not afraid to use the RB in the passing game. If push comes to shove I'd probably take Lacy over Forte.

Others who could possibly be a top 5 pick. Guys who for no particular reason I don't like as well as the guys above but I certainly wouldn't complain if I got stuck with one.

Peterson. May still be the best back in the league even with the year off. I don't think I would take a viking over a Packer (I know its fantasy and team loyalty is not supposed to come into play but with some teams I just can't help it) but if Lacy is gone I wouldn't complain about having Peterson

Lynch - age issues but still a producer and if I'm Carroll he gets the ball every single time I get to the opponents 1 yard line.

Murray- Change of team and competition for carries might keep him from putting up last years numbers.


Bottom line is I don't really want a top 5 pick. This year I would be perfectly happy with #7 or 8 Let someone else make the tough call and I'll be perfectly happy with who is left and I'll get my 2nd starter that much sooner in the second be it a RB or a WR (probably WR)

 

[Ace]

Murray- Change of team and competition for carries might keep him from putting up last years numbers.

Murray had 392 carries last year, and lets say he goes down to 275 this year which is very possible. Based on last years averages he still puts up 1,293 Yds (which would have ranked him 5th among RB's in 2014) and 9 TD's (would have ranked him T-2nd among RB's in '14). Now, where he is going to take a huge hit is catches. No way he gets close to the 57 he had last year, I'd be surprised if he hits 20. He was tied for 7th in YPC last year and and none of the 6 ahead of him were within 100 carries of him.

He won't put up last years #'s, which were stupid good btw, but he is still a top 5 RB IMO.

 

[HardRightEdge]

A few words about Murray and the history of guys' follow-up seasons after a high-touch-count seasons...it's not very pretty.

Guys with 370 carries:

http://www.footballdocs.com/running_back_carries.html

Guys with 400 touches:

http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fa...fseason-extra-the-year-after-400-plus-touches

 

[AmishMafia]

This strikes me as a level of abstraction so divorced from winning and losing as to have little relationship to reality.

Yep. Thats why they call it fantasy.

If you don't paticipate you won't understand. Its more about evaluating individuals and understanding defensive matchups and systems. A broad understanding of every team certainly helps. It has little to do with how the players team does.

 

[HardRightEdge]

3) McCoy- I'm a little worried about the change of teams but he will still be a top producer of fantasy points. Plus I got burned with him once so I am leery.

I won't speak to Bizarro World of fantasy football scoring and draft strategy, but I would like to share a few thoughts on Shady McCoy from a football perspective. I think there are some reasons to believe he'll have a pretty decent year.

1. Rex Ryan says he's going to "ground and pound".

2. Looking at the Bills off season moves, there's little reason to doubt Ryan's claim. The weaknesses in the Bills O-Line were at OG. To shore that up, the Bills signed Incognito who, before being made famous as a gay basher, was a pretty fair road grader. That he might have also be regarded by some as one of the dirtier players in the league is neither here nor there in thinking about what McCoy might yield. The Bills also drafted G John Miller in the 3rd. round at #81, and he scouted out more as a power blocker than a pass protector.

3. The backups are Fred Jackson, Boobie Dixon and Bryce Brown. While it's hard to dislike Jackson, he'll be the oldest RB in the league for the second year running and he's injury prone; you'd think he'll be on a limited snap count. Dixon shows some flashes but he's not going steal any snaps. Brown, in my opinion, is a bubble player. The fact he's primarily a 3rd down back strikes me as redundant since both McCoy and Jackson have both been both pretty fair in the passing game for quite a few years. Also see the note below regarding Greg Roman. They also signed Charles Clay to a fairly hefty FA contract; he happens to be a pretty fair blocker and fits more the H-back profile than the hybrid TE/WR types who have gained popularity. He could be used in-line or out of the backfield.

4. The Bills are paying him a lot of money and gave up a good young player in trade. That, and the sorry state of the QB position, indicates they'll want to use him a lot.

Add it all up, and 300 carries or more is a safe bet as this offense's bell cow. He's got 6 years of NFL mileage on him, but he's only 26 because he only played 2 seasons of college ball. He should have at least one decent year left in the tank.

On the negative side, I'd question whether McCoy will get back to his high receiving numbers of some past seasons. The Bills new OC, Greg Roman, is not fond of using RBs in the passing game if his record as OC in SF is any indication.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If you don't paticipate you won't understand. Its more about evaluating individuals and understanding defensive matchups and systems. A broad understanding of every team certainly helps. It has little to do with how the players team does.

I believe I understand quite well, thank you.

 

[sschind]

Murray had 392 carries last year, and lets say he goes down to 275 this year which is very possible. Based on last years averages he still puts up 1,293 Yds (which would have ranked him 5th among RB's in 2014) and 9 TD's (would have ranked him T-2nd among RB's in '14). Now, where he is going to take a huge hit is catches. No way he gets close to the 57 he had last year, I'd be surprised if he hits 20. He was tied for 7th in YPC last year and and none of the 6 ahead of him were within 100 carries of him.

He won't put up last years #'s, which were stupid good btw, but he is still a top 5 RB IMO.

I won't argue. He is that close IMO. Like I said, if I get stuck with him I will be fine, especially now that he is not a cowboy. I listed 8 guys that I think all have a realistic chance of leading the league in rushing or close to it.

I won't speak to Bizarro World of fantasy football scoring and draft strategy, but I would like to share a few thoughts on Shady McCoy from a football perspective. I think there are some reasons to believe he'll have a pretty decent year.

1. Rex Ryan says he's going to "ground and pound".

2. Looking at the Bills off season moves, there's little reason to doubt Ryan's claim. The weaknesses in the Bills O-Line were at OG. To shore that up, the Bills signed Incognito who, before being made famous as a gay basher, was a pretty fair road grader. That he might have also be regarded by some as one of the dirtier players in the league is neither here nor there in thinking about what McCoy might yield. The Bills also drafted G John Miller in the 3rd. round at #81, and he scouted out more as a power blocker than a pass protector.

3. The backups are Fred Jackson, Boobie Dixon and Bryce Brown. While it's hard to dislike Jackson, he'll be the oldest RB in the league for the second year running and he's injury prone; you'd think he'll be on a limited snap count. Dixon shows some flashes but he's not going steal any snaps. Brown, in my opinion, is a bubble player. The fact he's primarily a 3rd down back strikes me as redundant since both McCoy and Jackson have both been both pretty fair in the passing game for quite a few years. Also see the note below regarding Greg Roman. They also signed Charles Clay to a fairly hefty FA contract; he happens to be a pretty fair blocker and fits more the H-back profile than the hybrid TE/WR types who have gained popularity. He could be used in-line or out of the backfield.

4. The Bills are paying him a lot of money and gave up a good young player in trade. That, and the sorry state of the QB position, indicates they'll want to use him a lot.

Add it all up, and 300 carries or more is a safe bet as this offense's bell cow. He's got 6 years of NFL mileage on him, but he's only 26 because he only played 2 seasons of college ball. He should have at least one decent year left in the tank.

On the negative side, I'd question whether McCoy will get back to his high receiving numbers of some past seasons. The Bills new OC, Greg Roman, is not fond of using RBs in the passing game if his record as OC in SF is any indication.

I agree with all that that is why I had him at #3. If someone wants to make an argument for him being #1 I'd listen. I'm just not a fan of player changing teams which is why I'm a bit down on Murray as well.

 

[PikeBadger]

Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with fantasy football leagues where the method of scoring results in RBs being the highest ranked players, followed by WRs, with QBs down the list? How about a league where a single RB or WR can outscore the best defense + special teams in a given week, as appears to be the case with ESPN's methodology? Isn't this scoring template the rule rather then the exception?

This strikes me as a level of abstraction so divorced from winning and losing as to have little relationship to reality.

Coincidentally, I just read a piece by Ben McGrath in the 4/15/15 issue of the New Yorker on the history of fantasy sports as it has evolved from one restaurant table to high-stakes daily fantasy gambling.

The NFL initially resisted and sought to constrain fantasy participation because of it's connection to gambling and infringement on the brand. But as it grew despite the league's efforts, it came to be perceived as way to heighten fan interest. Leading partners, such as ESPN, are now among those on the bandwagon. It's pretty obvious: fantasy = more eyeballs on more games = more advertising revenue = more NFL revenue.

I'd like to share a quote from the New Yorker article coming from Daniel Okrent, credited as the progenitor of fantasy sports. He was the founder of the "Rotisserie Baseball League" in 1980, named for the restaurant where it was formed (La Rotisserie Francaise, now defunct, in Manhattan).

Okrent said:

"In the first year or two you're playing, you are much more engaged with baseball than you've been since you were seven years old. And then, by your fourth or fifth year, the actual game has lost meaning for you. You're engaged with the numbers that the game spins out and engaged with millions of others in the same way. It has no relationship not just to the fan attachment that you may have had to a particular team but to the physical thing that is taking place on the field. It's the representation of it in a number that's important. I'm thinking of our original group. A couple of them don't give a sh*t about baseball anymore. When people say, 'How do you feel, having invented this?' I say, 'I feel the way that J. Robert Oppenheimer felt having invented the atomic bomb.' I really do. I mean, pretty terrible!"

I played Rotisserie baseball for many years and loved it especially as for me it evolved into keeper leagues with a farm squad and the salary cap as well. I maintained my interest level in both baseball and the Milwaukee Brewers throughout until our league broke up after 2002 season.
I played fantasy football for two years and really found it lacking compared to baseball so I quit playing. I hated it that wins and losses didn't count for anything.

 

[ivo610]

I think this is an interesting article on the subject of Lacy http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...-among-nfl-leaders-in-missed-tackles-for-2014

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think this is an interesting article on the subject of Lacy http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...-among-nfl-leaders-in-missed-tackles-for-2014

Well, if there's any case where the stats meet the eye test, this would be it.

My observation in preseason of 2013 was that he was the real deal, bubble butt photos notwithstanding. After week 4, I upgraded him to "north-south load of goodness." Of course, I haven't seen anything to change that opinion.

 

[ivo610]

Well, if there's any case where the stats meet the eye test, this would be it.

My observation in preseason of 2013 was that he was the real deal, bubble butt photos notwithstanding. After week 4, I upgraded him to "north-south load of goodness." Of course, I haven't seen anything to change that opinion.

His rookie year I was with a forum member at the bengals game and some packer fans in our group were very critical of Lacy, saying he was going to be a bust. Not really sure how anyone could think that at any time.