Charlie Garner is the player in question.

TenTimes is FOR Garner being a valuable fantasy RB this season
GREENWAVE is AGAINST Garner being a valuable fantasy RB this season

Do your best to convince us your side is the right one.

"He who has begun has half done. Dare to be wise; begin!"
--Horace

This is going to be interesting, honestly right now I don't even know what team Garner is on but I'll dig up what I can and we'll see how it goes.

Here's a hint, Ten: He switched pirate ships.

Alright where do I begin? Well how about I begin where you were going to, Garner's age. He's 33 years old and it'd be easy to say he's past his prime and his age is the reason he struggled last season. Nonsense. Last year Garner ran for 4.6 yards per carry, good enough for 4th best in the AFC and good enough to maintain his career average (also 4.6). He also averaged 8.0 yards a reception, about a yard below his career average and 2 yards below what he did in 2002, but still decent nonetheless.

And it's not like the 4.6 ypc average was the product of a good OLine or the fact that Garner ranked 20th in attempts among AFC RBs, he earned that 4.6 ypc behind a poor offensive line which had Gannon out for the season in game 7.

Gruden knows of Garner's potential. Garner had one of his better years receiving wise when Gruden coached him in Oakland. Assuming Garner keeps up his juicy 4.6 ypc average and chips in with 8.5 yards per reception I can see him getting the 200 carries Pittman did in 2002 before T Jones came along and with Gruden trying to open up the offense, an additional 60-70 catches putting him in the 920/550 range, very respectable numbers for a guy who can probably be drafted as your 3rd RB.

Am I allowed in here?

Goodbye Keyshon hello Garner

Gruden knows what he has in Garner and Garner knows what he has in Gruden. 60- 70 catches seems reachable with 1500 all purpose yards probable. Garner has another two good years in him.

Okay,
Charlie Garner

1) Garner is an anomaly at running back. He has only had 2 years where he has rushed for over a 1,000 yards. That is not very dependable and those years were 1999 and 2000. Which is now 4 years ago.

2) His age is a liability. He has 11 years in the pros and running backs usually have the shortest shelf life. So his numbers should decrease based on that...plus he is more at risk for injury. Last year he played in 14 games--- showing signs of detioration.

3) He does not find the endzone a lot-- only twice in his 11 year career has he scored more than 10 times in a season. Not something you want for a starter in your league. If this is a starter you would need then huge rushing numbers-- which he does not give as well.

4) Some say "well he can catch the ball for you" if he can't get a lot of yards rushing-- well last yr he had 3 games he had more than 50 yards catching.. Other back can get you that. also in this same season he did not have a 100 yard rushing game.

5)Rankings: At an average of 8 websites the ranking of Garner is 21-- so basically in a 10 team league if you start 2 runners-- you would want 2 in the top 20-- Garner does not make it. his rankings respectively are (26, 24,26,22,27,18,21,21) The websites include espn, sporting news, ask commish, yada yada yada

Thanks Ten!!

One more thing about the rankings-- I would rather take the chance with someone around 30 as my 3rd or 4th RB who has the chance to become a top 10 back...having garner there is having a guy you know could get you 60 yards a game and TD every 3 games-- not what i want on my team...id rather have the potential Say someone like Julius Jones who on this conglomeration of rankings lists that I have is ranked at 27 -- he has the potential to climb-- i dont think garner has the potential to climb up. Some one liek buckhalter who is ranked at 35 has the potential to climb...yada yada...thats my point

All good points Greenwave

Here would be my rebuttal

Last years statistics were not indicitive of what he can do. New coach-new system-no porter-no gannon-and he only started 9 games and only played in 14.
He is a very solid #2 back and that makes him valuable. He is in the top ten recieving backs over the last 5 years and is probably top 5 (counting catches and yardage) TD's are important in my league but yards are a good bonus. Garner always scores points even when he doesn't score TD's as he gets points for his recieving yards-rushing yards and his catches. So even when he doesn't score a TD he has decent numbers.

In an off year like last he had 48 grabs for 388 yards which probably put him close to top ten in both categories.

I think his potential is still there and I would have no problem starting him as my #2 next year

You make the point about how he gets other points when he doesn't score TDs by having recieving yards and such. However, the point I was trying to make in my previous post is that his recieving yards are NOT THAT great. He only had 3 games of over 50 yards recieving...does THAT make up for all the TDs he does not score...i don't think so

I think I would MAJOR problems if Garner was my number two back...only twice over a 1,000 yards and he is 34 years old on his third different team and he is showing signs of wearing down.