NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?! - Off Season

[Jaguar]

The Chiefs locked up for Jamaal Charles for what looks to be about 6 million per year.

Make no mistake about it, this is one of the best deals any franchise has made with any vet in a long time. Here's the post I made at footballoutsiders.com about him:

Charles is straight-up the most valuable running back in the league. He has outperformed Chris Johnson over the last year and a half.

Let's get an all-time leaderboard of RBs since Jim Brown by yards per attempt in their first three seasons. Minimum 400 attempts.

5.95 Jamaal Charles
5.39 Paul Lowe
5.13 Gale Sayers
5.08 Larry Johnson
5.08 DeAngelo Williams
5.07 Jim Brown
5.07 Delvin Williams
5.04 Chris Johnson
5.02 Napoleon Kaufman
4.97 Abner Haynes
4.95 Lawrence McCutcheon
4.93 Barry Sanders

The absolute worst of this list is probably Delvin Williams or Larry Johnson, who still went on to become first-team all-pros once apiece after their third years. And Jamaal Charles isn't just on this list - he leads it, and it's not even close.

This doesn't even factor in the fact that Charles is an excellent receiver, too.

I claim that the only RB comparable to Charles in value is Chris Johnson. So the question for you is, do you take a 25-year-old with 867 career carries at a 5.04 ypc clip, or a 24-year-old with 439 carries at 5.95 yards per carry? I'd take the latter, given that a large workload does seems to put "mileage" on a player and reduce his effectiveness.

[Al B. Sure!]

That's why I picked him on my fantasy team that mattered most (ie- for money)

Arian Foster was a shot in the dark, though, Jaguar. I don't care what you say

[Al B. Sure!]

What's interesting about Jamaal Charles is that he was such an after-thought; a 3rd round pick who barely even played his rookie year even with Larry Johnson struggling (Tyler Thigpen, even, outrushed Charles and Kolby Smith who had made noise in his rookie year was in the mix). It's strange that it took til late in his sophmore season for the Chiefs to see what they have in him, and still weren't sold, hence why they brought in Thomas Jones.

Considering that he's a smaller guy, getting less than 20 carries a game may be fantastic for Charles' long-term prospects, though I doubt Kansas City, or any team for that matter, would maintain such a low workload with such a talent. There is a tendency to run guys into the ground. It would be cool to see if he can be playing at a high level into his 30's a la Tiki Barber, by keeping his carries low.

[-Jrabbit]

I think the Chiefs were totally sold, so they brought in TJones specifically to share the load, to handle short yardage (since Jones is a very effective TD vulture) and to extend Charles' effectiveness over the long haul. You make the case for this very well in your second paragraph.

[Al B. Sure!]

I think the Chiefs were totally sold, so they brought in TJones specifically to share the load, to handle short yardage (since Jones is a very effective TD vulture) and to extend Charles' effectiveness over the long haul. You make the case for this very well in your second paragraph.

I guess the destroyer of runningbacks, Herman Edwards, isn't coaching there anymore so they might be more sensible in how they use Charles, but I just wonder if the temptation to give him 350 carries/season won't be too great.

Tiki Barber never crossed 300 carries in a season til he was 27 and he didn't do it again til he was 29. Tiki was consistently getting 70 catches a year, though. But Tiki also wasn't as quite as effective as Charles.

As is, Jamaal Charles stands at 182 carries on the year and an incredible 6.2 yards per carry average.

[Al B. Sure!]

RB's with the highest YPC (at least 100 carries):

Jamaal Charles 6.2 on 182 carries
Brandon Jacobs 5.8 on 100 carries
Chris Ivory 5.2 on 123 carries
Arian Foster 5.0 on 246 carries
Lesean McCoy 4.9 on 168 carries

Jamaal Charles is really an outlier, looking at that.

In fact, his 1137 yards rushing is tied with Chris Johnson at 3rd though CJ has 258 carries. The 1000-yard rusher with the least number of carries after Charles is Ahmad Bradshaw with 219.

It's not even close how incredibly effective Charles is.

[Al B. Sure!]

Looking at the standings, I have some observations...

The NFC West has a very good chance of producing an 8-8 playoff team with the Seahawks and Rams leading the division at 6-6. The Seahawks will play the 49ers, Falcons, Buccaneers, and Rams; the Rams will play the Saints, Chiefs, 49ers, and obviously, Seahawks. Unless an upset happens, you're seriously looking at the Seahawks and Rams being tied at 7-8 going into the deciding Week 17 game. If the 49ers play at their talent level, you may even see one or both of these teams at 6-9 heading into Week 17.

Seahawks' average remaining opponents win %: .562; Rams': .562; yeah, an 8-8 playoff team is probably going to happen.

The Cleveland Browns are 5-7 with games at Buffalo and Cincinnati next before hosting the Ravens and Steelers. The Browns really could end up 8-8. I wouldn't put beating Pittsburgh in Week 17 past them.

Tampa Bay is already being counted out as a possible playoff contender but if Green Bay or the Giants falter, they might have a good shot at a wildcat spot, what with Washington, Detroit, Seattle, and New Orleans left on the schedule. New Orleans has a bit stingier of a schedule going up against the Rams, Ravens, and Falcons, before the potentially critical Week 17 matchup against Tampa.

Tampa's average remaining opponents win %: .458; Saints' .645

If the wildcard spots don't come from the NFC East and North, the Week 17 Bucs/Saints matchup might be huge.

[Al B. Sure!]

Really, a wildcard spot coming from the NFC South may be more likely than not since the Giants, Packers, and Bears all have an uphill battle the next 4 weeks.

The Bears play against the Patriots, Vikings, Jets, and Packers (average win %: .667)
The Packers play against the Lions, Patriots, Giants, and Bears (average win %: .604)
The Giants play against the Vikings, Eagles, Packers, and Redskins (average win %: .542)

As you can see, there are some seriously playoff-determining matchups in there with the Packers playing both the Giants and the Bears the final two weeks.

I mean if things go as you would expect, the Bears will lose to the Pats and Jets and beat the Vikings while the Giants would beat the Vikes (although the Giants have yet to beat the Vikings with Eli Manning at QB) and Redskins and lose to the Eagles. Meanwhile, the Packers would beat the Lions and lose to New England. That would make the final two Packers' games pretty big.

If the Packers run the table the last two weeks, assuming everything else I said pans out, the 11-5 Packers will take the division and the 10-6 Giants and Bears will have to contend with whatever tie-breakers will be relevant out of whoever emerges from the NFC South behind Atlanta. Fortunately for the Giants, they have already beat Chicago.

Yeah, Raheem Morris should definitely like his team's chances. The Buccaneers are still a bit of a long-shot but their schedule and the schedules of the other wildcard hunting teams really works in Tampa's favor. There is no reason not to expect Tampa to be 10-5 heading into their Week 17 date in New Orleans.

[Al B. Sure!]

Another thing to consider with Tampa is that the talk about them died down when they dropped from 7-3 to 7-5. Guess who they played? Atlanta and Baltimore, games in which they lost by a combined 11 points. Since the Saints still have both those teams on the schedule, don't sleep on the Bucs.

If St. Louis can upset New Orleans this week, the Saints might be in trouble.

[-Jrabbit]

I'm forced to be a huge Giants fan at this point. Need them to beat Philly and take the division, since the Bears would win a wild card tiebreaker with the Iggles.

Of course, the Bears could make it all moot by winning 2 of these last 4, but it's a pretty tough stretch of games.

Oh and FWIW, I don't think the Saints will falter. It will be them and Atlanta from the South. Word.

[SlowwHand]

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Atlanta in the Super Bowl.

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm forced to be a huge Giants fan at this point. Need them to beat Philly and take the division, since the Bears would win a wild card tiebreaker with the Iggles.

Of course, the Bears could make it all moot by winning 2 of these last 4, but it's a pretty tough stretch of games.

Oh and FWIW, I don't think the Saints will falter. It will be them and Atlanta from the South. Word.

So which team is the odd man out of the other wildcard spot, then? Chicago, Green Bay, or NY Giants (or the Eagles?)?

I think from a purely team perspective, regardless of schedule, the Giants, Packers, and Eagles are all more talented than the Saints.

[Al B. Sure!]

Giants-Vikings postponed til Monday night

[-Jrabbit]

So which team is the odd man out of the other wildcard spot, then? Chicago, Green Bay, or NY Giants (or the Eagles?)?

I think from a purely team perspective, regardless of schedule, the Giants, Packers, and Eagles are all more talented than the Saints.

Looks to me like there will be a logjam at 10-6, and someone with that record will stay home.

[Al B. Sure!]

Looks to me like there will be a logjam at 10-6, and someone with that record will stay home.

And it will be all the more bothersome because the NFC West will most likely produce an 8-8 and maybe even 7-9 division leader.