1st Pick, I'm taking... (1 Viewer)

[Sinn Fein]

Aaron Rodgers. Who's with me?

 

[rizzler]

*crickets.... on bath salts*

 

[pantherclub]

cam newton

or

Calvin johnson

at around the 8th - 10th pick in a 12 teamer

 

[Late225]

Ray Rice.

 

[Sweet Love]

Rice or Foster, but probably Foster. Don't get cute with the 1st overall pick.

 

[DerekR]

This is how I rank them. Foster Rice Rodgers Calvin and then Shady

 

[Jersey35]

I can understand the desire to take Rodgers, but if you're serious about it, why not trade back and take him closer to current value/adp, and add value to your team in the meantime?

 

[gibfunk]

Problem with trading back is you have to be sure the guy(s) in front of you won't take him either. I'm fairly certain Rodgers is going 1 or 2 in my league so you have to weigh your options and risk.

 

[Raider Nation]

LaRod Stephens-Howling

 

[Sienna2012]

I cant see myself passing on one of the big three running backs if I have the first overall pick. Then I would try to get Stafford in the second.

 

[dickey moe]

LaRod Stephens-Howling

The Competing Lawfirm

 

[32 Counter Pass]

I would go Shady, Foster, Rice. Not to demean Fosters upside, I have concerns about the loss of Winston and Brisiel on the Texans Oline. Factor in Tate poaching touches makes my a little more comfortable with McCoy over Foster.

 

[Chazzhawk]

Assuming standard scoring 4 points for passing tds and ppr for all players. Redraft I am going Foster all day, Dynasty I am going Mccoy because he is younger than the other 2 running backs and doesn't take the punishment they do.

 

[hotboyz]

I would go Shady, Foster, Rice. Not to demean Fosters upside, I have concerns about the loss of Winston and Brisiel on the Texans Oline. Factor in Tate poaching touches makes my a little more comfortable with McCoy over Foster.

Using your own argument wouldn't that make Rice ya number #1 he has no vulture at all! Even Mcoy has Vick

 

[Unclegut]

If you get 6 points for a passing TD I think you can definitely think about taking Rodgers at 1...but if it's 4 points I think you have to go RB - Foster or Rice at the 1 spot

 

[Stealthycat]

Tom Brady depending on format

 

[32 Counter Pass]

I would go Shady, Foster, Rice. Not to demean Fosters upside, I have concerns about the loss of Winston and Brisiel on the Texans Oline. Factor in Tate poaching touches makes my a little more comfortable with McCoy over Foster.

Using your own argument wouldn't that make Rice ya number #1 he has no vulture at all! Even Mcoy has Vick

Not necessarily. I have MCoy ahead of Rice because I think McCoy will have better receiving numbers, but we are really splitting hairs. I would be happy to start my drafts with any of the three players. I just have McCoy first.

 

[Kwai Chang Caine]

6 points for all TDs. Rodgers for me.

 

[cheatsheetwarroom]

Aaron Rodgers. Who's with me?

I wouldn't get too obsessed with one player, especially a quarterback. I can think of 5-6 QBs this year that could conceivably be the fantasy point champion in 2012 (Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Stafford, Vick, Netwon). I'd be willing to bet that one of these QBs will fall to you in round 2, so why not pick one of the top players (i.e. RB) in the entire league with the #1 overall?Although, I agree with the other poster who suggested trading back. If you trade back to the middle or end of round 1, you should be able to get Rodgers. If you don't, then you just switch to Plan B. Don't get married to one player.

 

[Saint]

Rice or Foster, but probably Foster. Don't get cute with the 1st overall pick.

Foster.

 

[Timmay]

I am torn between either Foster or McCoy, but the more i think about Tate vulturing carriers away, the more i am leaning towards McCoy.

 

[Sinn Fein]

In Rodgers worst week last year he scored 17 points in our league - if he averaged 17 points for the year, he would have been ranked 6th. That is very high floor.

If you take a look at the top RBs - Foster, McCoy, Rice - they had 6, 5, and 6 games where they scored lower than the average points per game for the 6th ranked player. A lot more feast or famine than you would expect from the RB position.

What Rodgers gives you, that the top RBs do not, is consistency week-to-week, at a very high level.

If you look at weekly rankings, Rodgers averaged 4.3 rank each week. McCoy, Rice and Foster had average ranks of: 10, 11.3, 20.2 (McCoy and Rice were the top two RBs, Foster ranked 6th)

I think Rodgers is safer, and has as much relative upside as any of the top RBs, and comes with less injury concerns, and/or time share issues.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Im with ya Sinn.

Aaron Rodgers.

 

[Ilov80s]

I had the option to get any pick I wanted, I chose 1st to draft Rodgers.

 

[meyerj31]

If I had any pick it'd be 3rd, to take whichever top back is still available.

I love Rodgers, and took him 1st in a Dynasty start-up this year, but in re-drafts I'm taking the top RBs first. Some guy last year took Rodgers 5th overall in a re-draft that I was in and ended up drafting a really solid rest of the team, but still missed the playoffs. Rodgers would literally have to maintain a ridiculous production to warrant being taken ahead of the top RBs according to VBD. The number of required RBs and the tier difference in production is just too much for me to pass up on the short term, given that even a little regression by Rodgers lumps him into the other top 5 QBs, one of which I could certainly get in round 2.

 

[meyerj31]

This thread reminds me last year how people were advocating to draft Vick #1 overall because his PPG were such a massive advantage when he was in the line-up. Vick's numbers clearly weren't sustainable and neither are Rodgers. Don't fall for the flavor of the month with the top pick, and don't get cute. Take a top RB with the first 3.

 

[Shutout]

This thread reminds me last year how people were advocating to draft Vick #1 overall because his PPG were such a massive advantage when he was in the line-up. Vick's numbers clearly weren't sustainable and neither are Rodgers. Don't fall for the flavor of the month with the top pick, and don't get cute. Take a top RB with the first 3.

Very For all we know (or think we do), you can go back almost every single year and find some new player who obliterated things and now has everyone drooling over their "upside" and "potential". While I will say I think Rodgers' ability to sustain his numbers are better than Vick's were, I still think it goes a long way to say, through the ebbs and flow of FF, its usually the stud RB who you can hitch your wagon to. Over the years, guys like Warner, Culpepper, Favre, and even Manning and Brady have had their ups and downs, but a young RB with a just a little bit of track record usually sustains. The biggest problem with going Rodgers (and I don't necessarily blame someone if they did is this:You pass on Rodgers and you still might get an Eli, Rivers, Vick, Romo, Ryan, etc. But if you pass on Foster, Rice, or Shady, there's nothing you're getting that replaces them.And then if Rodgers has anything less than a top 3 season AND outpaces #4-#32 by a large margin, then its a let down.

 

[Instinctive]

This thread reminds me last year how people were advocating to draft Vick #1 overall because his PPG were such a massive advantage when he was in the line-up. Vick's numbers clearly weren't sustainable and neither are Rodgers. Don't fall for the flavor of the month with the top pick, and don't get cute. Take a top RB with the first 3.

Very For all we know (or think we do), you can go back almost every single year and find some new player who obliterated things and now has everyone drooling over their "upside" and "potential". While I will say I think Rodgers' ability to sustain his numbers are better than Vick's were, I still think it goes a long way to say, through the ebbs and flow of FF, its usually the stud RB who you can hitch your wagon to.

Over the years, guys like Warner, Culpepper, Favre, and even Manning and Brady have had their ups and downs, but a young RB with a just a little bit of track record usually sustains. The biggest problem with going Rodgers (and I don't necessarily blame someone if they did is this:

You pass on Rodgers and you still might get an Eli, Rivers, Vick, Romo, Ryan, etc.

But if you pass on Foster, Rice, or Shady, there's nothing you're getting that replaces them.

And then if Rodgers has anything less than a top 3 season AND outpaces #4-#32 by a large margin, then its a let down.

Which he has yet to do in any season as a starter...in his career. He has always finished top 2. Pretty impressive, you might say Manning-esque...

 

[Ilov80s]

This thread reminds me last year how people were advocating to draft Vick #1 overall because his PPG were such a massive advantage when he was in the line-up. Vick's numbers clearly weren't sustainable and neither are Rodgers. Don't fall for the flavor of the month with the top pick, and don't get cute. Take a top RB with the first 3.

Very For all we know (or think we do), you can go back almost every single year and find some new player who obliterated things and now has everyone drooling over their "upside" and "potential". While I will say I think Rodgers' ability to sustain his numbers are better than Vick's were, I still think it goes a long way to say, through the ebbs and flow of FF, its usually the stud RB who you can hitch your wagon to. Over the years, guys like Warner, Culpepper, Favre, and even Manning and Brady have had their ups and downs, but a young RB with a just a little bit of track record usually sustains. The biggest problem with going Rodgers (and I don't necessarily blame someone if they did is this:You pass on Rodgers and you still might get an Eli, Rivers, Vick, Romo, Ryan, etc. But if you pass on Foster, Rice, or Shady, there's nothing you're getting that replaces them.And then if Rodgers has anything less than a top 3 season AND outpaces #4-#32 by a large margin, then its a let down.

This post is so wrong, Rodgers has been the most consistent player in FF for the last 4 years finishing as the 1st or 2nd overall QB each year. In addition, RBs have not been more consistent than QBs.

 

[wadegarrett]

Aaron Rodgers. Who's with me?

But that's only b/c I have MJD and McFadden as keepers.

 

[habsfan]

I'm going to say Rice since I have the 2nd pick. I'd take any one of Foster/Rice/McCoy though. Who am I kidding?

 

[Sinn Fein]

This thread reminds me last year how people were advocating to draft Vick #1 overall because his PPG were such a massive advantage when he was in the line-up. Vick's numbers clearly weren't sustainable and neither are Rodgers. Don't fall for the flavor of the month with the top pick, and don't get cute. Take a top RB with the first 3.

We'll see. GB has done nothing to improve their running game, and will continue to rely on the passing game to set up the run. I think that helps Rodgers maintain his level of performance. I have already shown that the top 3 RBs have tremendous fluctuations week-to-week. They simply are not as steady as you might imagine. It s a lot easier to find a RB to come out of nowhere to be a starter, than finding a QB. I don't think Vick is relevant here, because his value was tied to his running, which makes him more susceptible to injury. Rodgers could get injured, but it is less likely than a QB like Vick who is taking more hits, and making more cuts in the open field.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

This thread reminds me last year how people were advocating to draft Vick #1 overall because his PPG were such a massive advantage when he was in the line-up. Vick's numbers clearly weren't sustainable and neither are Rodgers. Don't fall for the flavor of the month with the top pick, and don't get cute. Take a top RB with the first 3.

We'll see. GB has done nothing to improve their running game, and will continue to rely on the passing game to set up the run. I think that helps Rodgers maintain his level of performance. I have already shown that the top 3 RBs have tremendous fluctuations week-to-week. They simply are not as steady as you might imagine. It s a lot easier to find a RB to come out of nowhere to be a starter, than finding a QB. I don't think Vick is relevant here, because his value was tied to his running, which makes him more susceptible to injury. Rodgers could get injured, but it is less likely than a QB like Vick who is taking more hits, and making more cuts in the open field.

Recently the QBs numbers have taken a step back after a big jump like last year. But the game just keeps going more and more passing. I am leery of Cam Newton, because it would be crazy to think he will have that many rushing TDs again. But Brady/Rogers/Brees I feel like they are going to push 5K again if not go over - I feel less so about Stafford - but still see him as a 4K - 4.5K plus guy easy.

 

[ImTheScientist]

cam newtonat around the 8th - 10th pick in a 12 teamer

 

[chickensoup]

I just Don't see taking Rodgers there in redraft. Dynasty yes.

You talk of weekly consistency, what kind of consistent RB production are you going to get from a RB you can get at 24th overall or later?

 

[meyerj31]

This thread reminds me last year how people were advocating to draft Vick #1 overall because his PPG were such a massive advantage when he was in the line-up. Vick's numbers clearly weren't sustainable and neither are Rodgers. Don't fall for the flavor of the month with the top pick, and don't get cute. Take a top RB with the first 3.

We'll see. GB has done nothing to improve their running game, and will continue to rely on the passing game to set up the run. I think that helps Rodgers maintain his level of performance. I have already shown that the top 3 RBs have tremendous fluctuations week-to-week. They simply are not as steady as you might imagine. It s a lot easier to find a RB to come out of nowhere to be a starter, than finding a QB. I don't think Vick is relevant here, because his value was tied to his running, which makes him more susceptible to injury. Rodgers could get injured, but it is less likely than a QB like Vick who is taking more hits, and making more cuts in the open field.

Green Bay doesn't pass to set up the run; they pass to set up the pass. A fan recently asked Rodgers "Can you run the football? Can they do that next season?" Rodgers: "Uh, do we need to?" ... referring to the fact that they went 15-1 with a crappy running game, and only lost in the playoffs because they played a team who could rush four and drop seven into the passing lanes. They certainly did not lose because they didn't have a running game.I'll agree that Rodgers is slightly more likely to remain a top fantasy QB solely because his play style will lead to less injury - but let's not forget that Vick finished QB6 in many leagues last year when he clearly had a subpar year. Vick can have an average year passing with ~500 yards rushing and only a handful of rushing TDs and score near a slightly regressed Rodgers. Let's not pretend Rodgers' baseline is anywhere near 45-6 =/Sure, the top 3 RBs have fluctuation. But their expected scoring and/or ceiling is so much higher than the lower tier that you expect to start that I can't see passing on any of them. Most leagues start 2 RBs minimum, sometimes as much as 4 given flex positions. The difference in scoring between the QB1 and QB12 last year in a fairly standard league was roughly 8 PPG. The difference between the 1st and 24th RB is 12 PPG, and the difference between 1st/36th is 16 PPG.The fact remains that the top RBs are expected to score so much more than the worst RBs that a team starts that I wouldn't possibly consider a QB in the first round in a re-draft this year - there are too many RBs available that could potentially finish in the top 5. The math doesn't make sense even if you literally knew Rodgers was going to throw for 45-6 again.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Its a 12-team league. I expect to draft RB-RB at the 2-3 turn. Based on mocks, I could end up with Rodgers plus two of: Forte, Peterson, Richardson, Charles. If I get Peterson, I can handcuff with Gerhart later in the draft.

That will give me an advantage over most teams at QB and RB2. In my mind WR is easier to find sleepers (but also easiest to miss on) than QB or RB. (we start 3 WR/TE - so TE is not a specific position), So at the 4-5 turn, I'll draft best available RB-WR, and then WR until the final rounds when I'll pick up a K and D.

Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Newton, and Stafford are all going before the 24th pick, so if I skip QB at 1, I probably punt the position, and pick up one late in the draft.

I'd rather have Rodgers, Forte and Peterson than Rice, Forte and Cutler

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Its a 12-team league. I expect to draft RB-RB at the 2-3 turn. Based on mocks, I could end up with Rodgers plus two of: Forte, Peterson, Richardson, Charles. If I get Peterson, I can handcuff with Gerhart later in the draft.That will give me an advantage over most teams at QB and RB2. In my mind WR is easier to find sleepers (but also easiest to miss on) than QB or RB. (we start 3 WR/TE - so TE is not a specific position), So at the 4-5 turn, I'll draft best available RB-WR, and then WR until the final rounds when I'll pick up a K and D.Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Newton, and Stafford are all going before the 24th pick, so if I skip QB at 1, I probably punt the position, and pick up one late in the draft.I'd rather have Rodgers, Forte and Peterson than Rice, Forte and Cutler

Forte is sliding to the 2-3 turn? geez im snagged Rodgers at 1 all day.I have a feeling the ADP thing will be a lot clearer at the end of august when we draft.

 

[cheese]

I am not sure if I'll do it or not based on my perceived dropoff from the top 3 RBs to the next tier, but I don't think it's a bad pick. He's a virtual lock to crush at his position and he won a ton of leagues last year.

 

[meyerj31]

I am not sure if I'll do it or not based on my perceived dropoff from the top 3 RBs to the next tier, but I don't think it's a bad pick. He's a virtual lock to crush at his position and he won a ton of leagues last year.

Show me one league where Rodgers was taken at #1 overall and the guy won his league.Rodgers won a ton of leagues last year because he was taken below his value. Just like the guys who took Gronk won their leagues, because they got a phenomenal performance from a 14th(?) round pick, in addition to all the guys they drafted in the 1st-4th rounds.The problem with this argument is that Rodgers literally has to blow away all the other QBs again this year on a PPG basis to be considered with the number 1 pick. And even with his crazy year, he wasn't that far ahead of either Brady or Brees, both of which can be found in the second round.

 

[cheese]

I am not sure if I'll do it or not based on my perceived dropoff from the top 3 RBs to the next tier, but I don't think it's a bad pick. He's a virtual lock to crush at his position and he won a ton of leagues last year.

Show me one league where Rodgers was taken at #1 overall and the guy won his league.Rodgers won a ton of leagues last year because he was taken below his value. Just like the guys who took Gronk won their leagues, because they got a phenomenal performance from a 14th(?) round pick, in addition to all the guys they drafted in the 1st-4th rounds.The problem with this argument is that Rodgers literally has to blow away all the other QBs again this year on a PPG basis to be considered with the number 1 pick. And even with his crazy year, he wasn't that far ahead of either Brady or Brees, both of which can be found in the second round.

If you were redrafting 2011 right now, who would you pick #1 overall? (ETA: I assume Rodgers, Brees, or Calvin) It's true that most of his owners did not pay #1 overall for him which helps. It's not true that they wouldn't have been in a great position even if they had.To your point though, if you can convince me Drew Brees will be there at the end of round 2 (where the #1 pick drafts next), I'll gladly pass on Rodgers and take him. Not a chance in my leagues though.

 

[Ilov80s]

I just Don't see taking Rodgers there in redraft. Dynasty yes.You talk of weekly consistency, what kind of consistent RB production are you going to get from a RB you can get at 24th overall or later?

Not much, but that is why I plan on taking a lot of them. Also, there is always trades and waivers. Worst case scenario, I trade Rodgers for RBs after getting a few weeks to see who is playing well and who is struggling.

 

[chickensoup]

You know who was just as consistant as ARod last year? Rice. Zero stinker games. and at the position that is the most volatile from top to bottom.

 

[Ilov80s]

I am not sure if I'll do it or not based on my perceived dropoff from the top 3 RBs to the next tier, but I don't think it's a bad pick. He's a virtual lock to crush at his position and he won a ton of leagues last year.

Show me one league where Rodgers was taken at #1 overall and the guy won his league.Rodgers won a ton of leagues last year because he was taken below his value. Just like the guys who took Gronk won their leagues, because they got a phenomenal performance from a 14th(?) round pick, in addition to all the guys they drafted in the 1st-4th rounds.The problem with this argument is that Rodgers literally has to blow away all the other QBs again this year on a PPG basis to be considered with the number 1 pick. And even with his crazy year, he wasn't that far ahead of either Brady or Brees, both of which can be found in the second round.

If you were redrafting 2011 right now, who would you pick #1 overall? (ETA: I assume Rodgers, Brees, or Calvin) It's true that most of his owners did not pay #1 overall for him which helps. It's not true that they wouldn't have been in a great position even if they had.To your point though, if you can convince me Drew Brees will be there at the end of round 2 (where the #1 pick drafts next), I'll gladly pass on Rodgers and take him. Not a chance in my leagues though.

Yeah, I've talked to my leaguemates and most hate the RBs outside of Rice, Foster, and McCoy. It sounds like Brady, Brees, Stafford and Newton will go in the first 15 picks.

 

[Sinn Fein]

You know who was just as consistant as ARod last year? Rice. Zero stinker games. and at the position that is the most volatile from top to bottom.

Week 7: ranked 42nd among RBs (28 yards rushing, 35 rec, lost fumble)Week 12: ranked 27thWeek 15: ranked 25thIn weeks 1-16 (not counting bye weeks), he ranked in the top-5, 5 times, and outside the top-10 6 times. Rodgers ranked in the top-5 9 times, and the lowest ranking was 14th (only time outside the top-10).Each of the top-3 RBs and Rodgers, and if you want to extend to Brees all come with some risks. I just think Rodgers has the lowest floor for the season, and week-to-week, and thus is more likely to return #1 value than any of the other choices. Any of them could be the best player next year, but I want more predictably from the top pick. Its a QB driven league right now, and I think Rodgers is the best QB, and plays in a system that highlights the QB, and has no viable running game to take away from the passing game. GB had 51 passing TDs compared to 12 rushing TDs (and Rodgers accounted for 3 of those).

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I am not sure if I'll do it or not based on my perceived dropoff from the top 3 RBs to the next tier, but I don't think it's a bad pick. He's a virtual lock to crush at his position and he won a ton of leagues last year.

Show me one league where Rodgers was taken at #1 overall and the guy won his league.Rodgers won a ton of leagues last year because he was taken below his value. Just like the guys who took Gronk won their leagues, because they got a phenomenal performance from a 14th(?) round pick, in addition to all the guys they drafted in the 1st-4th rounds.The problem with this argument is that Rodgers literally has to blow away all the other QBs again this year on a PPG basis to be considered with the number 1 pick. And even with his crazy year, he wasn't that far ahead of either Brady or Brees, both of which can be found in the second round.

If you were redrafting 2011 right now, who would you pick #1 overall? (ETA: I assume Rodgers, Brees, or Calvin) It's true that most of his owners did not pay #1 overall for him which helps. It's not true that they wouldn't have been in a great position even if they had.To your point though, if you can convince me Drew Brees will be there at the end of round 2 (where the #1 pick drafts next), I'll gladly pass on Rodgers and take him. Not a chance in my leagues though.

Yeah, I've talked to my leaguemates and most hate the RBs outside of Rice, Foster, and McCoy. It sounds like Brady, Brees, Stafford and Newton will go in the first 15 picks.

your leaguemates are right. RB is a disaster of a position. heaven forbid any of the "top 3 guarantee stud RBs" get hurt or underperform

 

[Dez]

I just took Rodgers at #7 in a dynasty league on Saturday and felt so bad about it I traded him away later that night I just can't stomach a QB in round 1 even this good.

I think I regret it now though. Getting him at #7 in a dynasty league was pretty good catch.

 

[chickensoup]

You know who was just as consistant as ARod last year? Rice. Zero stinker games. and at the position that is the most volatile from top to bottom.

Week 7: ranked 42nd among RBs (28 yards rushing, 35 rec, lost fumble)Week 12: ranked 27thWeek 15: ranked 25thIn weeks 1-16 (not counting bye weeks), he ranked in the top-5, 5 times, and outside the top-10 6 times. Rodgers ranked in the top-5 9 times, and the lowest ranking was 14th (only time outside the top-10).Each of the top-3 RBs and Rodgers, and if you want to extend to Brees all come with some risks. I just think Rodgers has the lowest floor for the season, and week-to-week, and thus is more likely to return #1 value than any of the other choices. Any of them could be the best player next year, but I want more predictably from the top pick. Its a QB driven league right now, and I think Rodgers is the best QB, and plays in a system that highlights the QB, and has no viable running game to take away from the passing game. GB had 51 passing TDs compared to 12 rushing TDs (and Rodgers accounted for 3 of those).

Week 7 non PPR: 5.3 PPR 10.3 (forgot the fumble)Week 12 non PPR 8.1 PPR 16.1Week 15 non PPR 11.2 PPR 20.2I Forget sometimes that not everyone plays PPR, but 2 games below 10 points in standard when almost any RB you get at the 2.12/3.01 turn would be lucky to average 10 in standard is pretty dang consistent.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Its a 12-team league. I expect to draft RB-RB at the 2-3 turn. Based on mocks, I could end up with Rodgers plus two of: Forte, Peterson, Richardson, Charles. If I get Peterson, I can handcuff with Gerhart later in the draft.That will give me an advantage over most teams at QB and RB2. In my mind WR is easier to find sleepers (but also easiest to miss on) than QB or RB. (we start 3 WR/TE - so TE is not a specific position), So at the 4-5 turn, I'll draft best available RB-WR, and then WR until the final rounds when I'll pick up a K and D.Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Newton, and Stafford are all going before the 24th pick, so if I skip QB at 1, I probably punt the position, and pick up one late in the draft.I'd rather have Rodgers, Forte and Peterson than Rice, Forte and Cutler

You don't have to take cutler at the 25th pick. So your comparison makes Zero sense.

 

[shadyridr]

This thread reminds me last year how people were advocating to draft Vick #1 overall because his PPG were such a massive advantage when he was in the line-up. Vick's numbers clearly weren't sustainable and neither are Rodgers. Don't fall for the flavor of the month with the top pick, and don't get cute. Take a top RB with the first 3.

Very For all we know (or think we do), you can go back almost every single year and find some new player who obliterated things and now has everyone drooling over their "upside" and "potential". While I will say I think Rodgers' ability to sustain his numbers are better than Vick's were, I still think it goes a long way to say, through the ebbs and flow of FF, its usually the stud RB who you can hitch your wagon to. Over the years, guys like Warner, Culpepper, Favre, and even Manning and Brady have had their ups and downs, but a young RB with a just a little bit of track record usually sustains. The biggest problem with going Rodgers (and I don't necessarily blame someone if they did is this:You pass on Rodgers and you still might get an Eli, Rivers, Vick, Romo, Ryan, etc. But if you pass on Foster, Rice, or Shady, there's nothing you're getting that replaces them.And then if Rodgers has anything less than a top 3 season AND outpaces #4-#32 by a large margin, then its a let down.

The difference in pts between Rodgers and those QBs you mention > the difference in Foster/Rice/Shady and any 2nd tier RB