Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
2009 Rookie Review by FantasyGuru.com (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Garts
- Start date
The Real Yoda
Footballguy
"The 2009 NFL draft class may not be littered with future studs, but it’s a pretty deep group"
That's where I stopped reading
That's where I stopped reading
Mr. Peterson
Footballguy
Why? I kind of agree."The 2009 NFL draft class may not be littered with future studs, but it’s a pretty deep group"That's where I stopped reading
Burning Sensation
Footballguy
Why, ADD kick in?Serioulsy though, what part do you not agree with? Do you think this class is full of studs, or that its not deep?"The 2009 NFL draft class may not be littered with future studs, but it’s a pretty deep group"That's where I stopped reading
Warpig
Footballguy
I agree with the guy. Not a lot of studs...but when you dig deeper...it is a fairly "deep" draft class. Deep at mediocre talent."The 2009 NFL draft class may not be littered with future studs, but it’s a pretty deep group"That's where I stopped reading
Lott's Fingertip
Footballguy
Going five deep at each skill position isn't particularly useful. The draft is deep? Let's talk about some WRs that weren't drafted in the first round.
Garts
Footballguy
Maybe not, but I thought the write-ups were decent regardless.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lott's Fingertip
Footballguy
No argument, if I had a draft coming up I would have read it. It's just that there is SOOOOO much information on the top guys, that one more opinion is just a drop in the bucket, unless it is from a great source. It's information on the lower ranked guys that can be most useful, IMO.
FUBAR
Footballguy
Especially when he even says how deep this class is, then does nothing to back up his point.
Matt Waldman
Footballguy
Hansen is respected writer in this industry. I'll have to check this out. BTW-I'll be doing a month-long series with a deep focus on each position. The first one will be available for reading in a couple of weeks.
The Real Yoda
Footballguy
Yea, this. I agree not a lot of studs, and it's deep at mediocre talent. But I consider deep to mean full of above average talent. And it doesn't seem very deep IMHO. All i've been seeing/hearing/reading about is how this year isn't deep compared to others.And he says it's deep and then only describes the top 5 at each position everyone knows anyway.I agree with the guy. Not a lot of studs...but when you dig deeper...it is a fairly "deep" draft class. Deep at mediocre talent."The 2009 NFL draft class may not be littered with future studs, but it’s a pretty deep group"
That's where I stopped reading
Last edited by a moderator:
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
tough crowd.
dirty_martini
Footballguy
I haven't read the article yet but there seems to be a lack of respect for or perhaps just lack of awareness of the author here which prompted my post. John Hansen is not some newbie pushing a new website. Hansen has been and still is one of the best and most consistent fantasy writers around. He is one of the best fantasy drafters you will find. He owned the Fanex league for a number of years. I've been a subscriber to his Fantasyguru newsletter going back to the mid 90's. Once again it will be FBG and the Guru for me this year too. Just saying ...
J-Rock
Footballguy
I think the intent of this list is more for redraft than dynasty. I don't have a first round pick in my dynasty rookie draft this year and I expect almost all of these guys (except maybe the TE's after Pettigrew and QB's after Sanchez) to be gone before I pick near the top of the second. Having said that, there are some guys on this list who should never be taken in a redraft this year and a few that should be that are not on this list. Seems a little arbitrary to go 5 deep at each offensive position.IMO this list is useless.Lott said:
