Aaron Rodgers will have 40 TD's this year. (1 Viewer)

[eoMMan]

Assuming he stays healthy all year, I believe that Aaron Rodgers will have 40 or more total TD's (passing & rushing combined). Consider the following:

- His O-line looks good and will give him plenty of time.

- He has a good relationship with his receivers and an studly up and coming TE that he can rely on. He's very familiar with these receivers.

- Ryan Grant, although he's not the flashiest RB around, is solid and gives the Packer offense a very balanced attack.

- The Packers schedule is favorable (in the bottom half as far as SOS).

I truly believe that he is a solid 1st round pick in almost every fantasy draft out there. For those that pick late and are going WR/WR, I strongly recommend that you take Rodgers with your 1st pick.

(I will bump this when the season is over and either go or )

 

[sho nuff]

Ill caution the Oline optimism at this point. They looked good last year in preseason too and were a sieve to start the year.

I have not looked at the overall SOS numbers...but not sure how playing the NFC E and AFC E (plus Atlanta and San Fran) is making it an easy SOS...but I hate beginning of the year SOS numbers anyway as they are nearly meaningless).

Though, I agree he makes a strong case for a 1st round pick. I want a piece of that offense at some point. Im drafting 4th so Im not jumping on Rodgers that early...but want to grab Grant in the 2nd if I could. (10 team)

 

[shader]

That offense looks unstoppable.

 

[Adebisi]

Do you feel that Rodgers has a better shot at 40 TDs then Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and/or Drew Brees? Why or why not?

 

[countingcrow]

Ill caution the Oline optimism at this point. They looked good last year in preseason too and were a sieve to start the year.I have not looked at the overall SOS numbers...but not sure how playing the NFC E and AFC E (plus Atlanta and San Fran) is making it an easy SOS...but I hate beginning of the year SOS numbers anyway as they are nearly meaningless).Though, I agree he makes a strong case for a 1st round pick. I want a piece of that offense at some point. Im drafting 4th so Im not jumping on Rodgers that early...but want to grab Grant in the 2nd if I could. (10 team)

I drafted third in a twelve teamer and like a robot took MJD. After the draft concluded I thought to myself that Rodgers has the best chance of any QB out there to put up a historical year in the GB offense so I, without any hesitation, offered up MJD for Rodgers and Ochocinco. The guy accepted with glee thinking that he just fleeced me. I think I'll have the last laugh.Moral of the story - Don't dismiss taking Rodgers fourth in your draft just because you'll be looked down upon by your buddies for doing so. Go with your gut.

 

[sho nuff]

Ill caution the Oline optimism at this point. They looked good last year in preseason too and were a sieve to start the year.I have not looked at the overall SOS numbers...but not sure how playing the NFC E and AFC E (plus Atlanta and San Fran) is making it an easy SOS...but I hate beginning of the year SOS numbers anyway as they are nearly meaningless).Though, I agree he makes a strong case for a 1st round pick. I want a piece of that offense at some point. Im drafting 4th so Im not jumping on Rodgers that early...but want to grab Grant in the 2nd if I could. (10 team)

I drafted third in a twelve teamer and like a robot took MJD. After the draft concluded I thought to myself that Rodgers has the best chance of any QB out there to put up a historical year in the GB offense so I, without any hesitation, offered up MJD for Rodgers and Ochocinco. The guy accepted with glee thinking that he just fleeced me. I think I'll have the last laugh.Moral of the story - Don't dismiss taking Rodgers fourth in your draft just because you'll be looked down upon by your buddies for doing so. Go with your gut.

My gut is I want Ray Rice and that while I love Rodgers and am a Packer fan, I realize that if he duplicates last year or a bit better, there still will likely be a QB in the 2nd that I can pull that won't be as big of a dropoff from Rodgers to him, than there will be from Rice to Grant or whoever is my 2nd round RB.Now, a trade might be worked out if I draft it just right...but we will see how it all works out.

 

[JetMaxx]

I wouldn't hesitate to go Rodgers at 4 and Grant in the 2nd.

 

[Jason Wood]

Assuming he stays healthy all year, I believe that Aaron Rodgers will have 40 or more total TD's (passing & rushing combined). Consider the following:- His O-line looks good and will give him plenty of time.- He has a good relationship with his receivers and an studly up and coming TE that he can rely on. He's very familiar with these receivers.- Ryan Grant, although he's not the flashiest RB around, is solid and gives the Packer offense a very balanced attack.- The Packers schedule is favorable (in the bottom half as far as SOS).I truly believe that he is a solid 1st round pick in almost every fantasy draft out there. For those that pick late and are going WR/WR, I strongly recommend that you take Rodgers with your 1st pick.(I will bump this when the season is over and either go or )

Rodgers does look like a beast and that's really no surprise given his ADP and average ranking all preseason. I can't say that I'll ever feel comfortable projecting 40+ TDs for a player, but I certainly wouldn't be at all surprised if he managed the feat in a full 16-game season. The one thing I would caution (and it's not enough to keep Rodgers from sitting atop my fantasy rankings) is the declaration that his o-line is good. They were horrendous last year, and Bulaga (and some health and luck) should make them a bit better this year, but this unit gave up a league worst 51 sacks last year.

 

[Sir Psycho]

Drafted early july..My first 5 pick:

1.11 : A Rodgers

2.02 : Fitz

3.11 : Grant

4.02: J Best

5.11: Finley

6pts - TD

1pt - 10 yrd pass

I'm really looking forward to see the GB offense this year !

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Considering he had 35 last year as a 2nd year starter, I don't think it would be that huge of a surprise.

Rodgers' propensity to run for ~5 TDs a year gives him a leg up in this regard.

 

[eoMMan]

Do you feel that Rodgers has a better shot at 40 TDs then Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and/or Drew Brees? Why or why not?

Yes. I feel that the Packers right now have a better balanced offense than Indy, NE, and NO. Brees would be the next best person with a chance at 40+ TD's but you have to think that he doesn't get many rushing TD's (the 2 last year was uncommon) and that he had 6 games where he threw 1 or zero TD's. His TD's come in bunches, it seems (had 1 game of 4, 1 game of 5, and 1 game of 6 TD's).

 

[footballsavvy]

The problem with taking Rodgers in the 1st round in re-draft is that you don't lose that much ground to anyone in your league if you take Manning, Brees, Schaubb, Brady, or Romo in the later rounds. When you start trying to predict who will have 40 TD's, thats fine and all, but its a little pre-mature to base your first round pick on it.

Maybe you could get Brees or Manning in the 3rd round instead. What have you lose? Maybe nothing. Those three are almost a coin flip (if a coin had three sides). Yet if oyu compare WRs or RBs from the 1st round versus the 3rd round it is a much more significant drop off in terms of expected value for fantasy points.

That said, I did take rodgers in the late 1st round in a startup dynasty. However, I think that is much different. I viewed it as a very safe pick that I had to live with for years to come. Late in the first it was too risky to potentially waste that pick on a player that had a much higher chance of busting than someoen like Rodgers. Also, there aren't many QBs in history to put up such gawdy stats at his young age. He could be a dynasty stud for 10 more years.

 

[Insein]

I'm in a 2QB league with the 3rd pick. There's no doubt if Rodgers is there, I'm taking him.

 

[munygon2]

How high would you pre-rank Rodgers in an auto-draft league with 10 teams? Is he better than any of the top 10 rb's?

 

[eoMMan]

The problem with taking Rodgers in the 1st round in re-draft is that you don't lose that much ground to anyone in your league if you take Manning, Brees, Schaubb, Brady, or Romo in the later rounds. When you start trying to predict who will have 40 TD's, thats fine and all, but its a little pre-mature to base your first round pick on it. Maybe you could get Brees or Manning in the 3rd round instead. What have you lose? Maybe nothing. Those three are almost a coin flip (if a coin had three sides). Yet if oyu compare WRs or RBs from the 1st round versus the 3rd round it is a much more significant drop off in terms of expected value for fantasy points.That said, I did take rodgers in the late 1st round in a startup dynasty. However, I think that is much different. I viewed it as a very safe pick that I had to live with for years to come. Late in the first it was too risky to potentially waste that pick on a player that had a much higher chance of busting than someoen like Rodgers. Also, there aren't many QBs in history to put up such gawdy stats at his young age. He could be a dynasty stud for 10 more years.

I disagree. I don't think it's a coin flip this year between Rodgers, Brees and Manning. Also, I don't see Brees or Manning lasting to the 3rd round in most leagues this year. Let me ask you this, do you really think Rodgers will have LESS than 30 TD's? If 30 TD's is his floor and his ceiling is 40 TD's or more, you're doing very well by taking him in the 1st round.

 

[eoMMan]

How high would you pre-rank Rodgers in an auto-draft league with 10 teams? Is he better than any of the top 10 rb's?

If I'm picking top 2, I'd take CJ or AP. After those 2, I'd have to take a look at the scoring system. I'd take Rodgers at #3 if the scoring system was suitable for him.

 

[JFT Ben]

Ill caution the Oline optimism at this point. They looked good last year in preseason too and were a sieve to start the year.

I'll agree that last year it was sieve-like at times, but something like 31 of the 50 sacks were in the first 7 games with Tauscher (RT) out and Clifton in and out. Take out most team's starting tackles and there will be issues. They were replaced with guys like Allen Barbre or shifted Colledge out to LT Reasons the Packers O-line will be better1) Same starting 5 as last year (I'm assuming Colledge beats out Bulaga) = consistency2) Better depth (main backups, assuming they won't trade one of these guys: Bulaga - LT, LG, Spitz - LG, C, RG, Lang - RG, RT). Each of these backups are pretty solid and have started at some point last year (except Bulaga who is pushing for a starting job). Compared to the backups last year (when Spitz was hurt) it's a big improvement.3) Rodgers has more experience and likely won't hold on to the ball as long as he did (at times) last year, making them look betterThe main weakness is that these guys, esp. the tackles are better at pass protection than run blocking. The exception may be Sitton (RG) who is probably equally good at both.

 

[sho nuff]

Ill caution the Oline optimism at this point. They looked good last year in preseason too and were a sieve to start the year.

I'll agree that last year it was sieve-like at times, but something like 31 of the 50 sacks were in the first 7 games with Tauscher (RT) out and Clifton in and out. Take out most team's starting tackles and there will be issues. They were replaced with guys like Allen Barbre or shifted Colledge out to LT Reasons the Packers O-line will be better1) Same starting 5 as last year (I'm assuming Colledge beats out Bulaga) = consistency2) Better depth (main backups, assuming they won't trade one of these guys: Bulaga - LT, LG, Spitz - LG, C, RG, Lang - RG, RT). Each of these backups are pretty solid and have started at some point last year (except Bulaga who is pushing for a starting job). Compared to the backups last year (when Spitz was hurt) it's a big improvement.3) Rodgers has more experience and likely won't hold on to the ball as long as he did (at times) last year, making them look betterThe main weakness is that these guys, esp. the tackles are better at pass protection than run blocking. The exception may be Sitton (RG) who is probably equally good at both.

I agree they should be better with those two together from the start.I just know how good they looked last year...and then poof...they were awful.Plus, I don't want to get too confident myself as a fan

 

[[icon]]

How high would you pre-rank Rodgers in an auto-draft league with 10 teams? Is he better than any of the top 10 rb's?

With 10yds passsing and 12ot TDs. Sure. With 50yds passing a 4pt touchdowns and PPR... maybe/maybenot. (scoring has a pretty big impact on this)

 

[eoMMan]

How high would you pre-rank Rodgers in an auto-draft league with 10 teams? Is he better than any of the top 10 rb's?

With 10yds passsing and 12ot TDs. Sure. With 50yds passing a 4pt touchdowns and PPR... maybe/maybenot. (scoring has a pretty big impact on this)

True, scoring does matter. In my league last year, Rodgers was the top fantasy QB. He had 435 fantasy points and was followed by Brees (401) and then Manning (382). Brees even had one more TD (35 total) than Rodgers but Rodgers still had more fantasy points due to his rushing yards and 4 fewer interceptions. In comparison to the other positions, the top RB's and top WR's were relatively close to their positions (assuming you won't have the chance to draft CJ or AP). Regardless, I think that if it's a performance league where QB's can score a lot of points and you have someone like Rodgers projected for at least 40 TD's and the other good QB's at around 35 TD's, it makes sense to jump on Rodgers early.

 

[Stealthycat]

in a 2QB start league I'm second guessing my #1 RB Chris Johnson pick and wishing I'd have went Rodgers

 

[FrostBite]

Drafted early july..My first 5 pick:1.11 : A Rodgers2.02 : Fitz3.11 : Grant4.02: J Best5.11: Finley6pts - TD1pt - 10 yrd passI'm really looking forward to see the GB offense this year !

You're a Vikings fan? Despicable!

 

[DoubleG]

Drafted early july..My first 5 pick:

1.11 : A Rodgers

2.02 : Fitz

3.11 : Grant

4.02: J Best

5.11: Finley

6pts - TD

1pt - 10 yrd pass

I'm really looking forward to see the GB offense this year !

And from a Viking fan no less. Man, that had to hurt to type. Just reading it in the sound of my own voice in my head was excruciating and made me throw up in my mouth a little. As a Finley owner and Bears fan I am conflicted at times...the counseling has helped

 

[=Smackdown=]

I have my start 2 QB -12 team league draft tonight.

I have the #4 pick and if Rice is taken at #3 I will seriously consider taking Rogers over MJD or Gore at #4.

18 of the Top 30 scorers in this particular league were QB's in 2009

Chris Johnson led the league with 378 pts

Aaron Rogers was next with 367 pts

The next closest was Drew Brees at 322 pts

MJD had 292 last year and Rice had 267

That is a significant difference in pts for the year. And I belive I just talked myself into taking Rogers at 4 tonight regardless if Rice is still on the board

 

[Jeff Haseley]

Even if he throws for 35 TDs, it blows up my Projections Dominator as the uber-premier QB to have

 

[Sir Psycho]

Drafted early july..My first 5 pick:

1.11 : A Rodgers

2.02 : Fitz

3.11 : Grant

4.02: J Best

5.11: Finley

6pts - TD

1pt - 10 yrd pass

I'm really looking forward to see the GB offense this year !

And from a Viking fan no less. Man, that had to hurt to type. Just reading it in the sound of my own voice in my head was excruciating and made me throw up in my mouth a little. As a Finley owner and Bears fan I am conflicted at times...the counseling has helped

LOL Just change it to GB. Had the Viks logo since I had AP on my team 3 years ago...

 

[sho nuff]

I have my start 2 QB -12 team league draft tonight.I have the #4 pick and if Rice is taken at #3 I will seriously consider taking Rogers over MJD or Gore at #4.18 of the Top 30 scorers in this particular league were QB's in 2009Chris Johnson led the league with 378 ptsAaron Rogers was next with 367 ptsThe next closest was Drew Brees at 322 ptsMJD had 292 last year and Rice had 267That is a significant difference in pts for the year. And I belive I just talked myself into taking Rogers at 4 tonight regardless if Rice is still on the board

In a start 2 QB league, Id probably go Rodgers.The only thing keeping me from taking him at 4 in my start 1 QB league is that its a 10 teamer and I know I will be able to grab Brady in the 2nd if I want him.

 

[munygon2]

In my yahoo league, Rodgers projected season total is way more than Chris Johnson, even though CJ is still shown as the number one pre-draft pick.

For scoring, it's 15yds per point (passing) and 7yds per point (rushing).

 

[Pipes]

Drafted early july..My first 5 pick:1.11 : A Rodgers2.02 : Fitz3.11 : Grant4.02: J Best5.11: Finley6pts - TD1pt - 10 yrd passI'm really looking forward to see the GB offense this year !

I would love to have this team.

 

[eoMMan]

Even if he throws for 35 TDs, it blows up my Projections Dominator as the uber-premier QB to have

Even if Chuck Norris was the QB of an NFL team, Rodgers would still be the uber-premier #1 QB to have.

 

[DoubleG]

Even if he throws for 35 TDs, it blows up my Projections Dominator as the uber-premier QB to have

Even if Chuck Norris was the QB of an NFL team, Rodgers would still be the uber-premier #1 QB to have.

Norris would also play defense in the game where the two teams met head to head. He would then proceed to sack Rodgers 12 times, breaking a single rib with each sack, leaving Rodgers in agonizing pain, and without a single onbroken rib by game's end. Season over. Norris wins.

 

[Phurfur]

Assuming he stays healthy all year, I believe that Aaron Rodgers will have 40 or more total TD's (passing & rushing combined). Consider the following:

- His O-line looks good and will give him plenty of time.

- He has a good relationship with his receivers and an studly up and coming TE that he can rely on. He's very familiar with these receivers.

- Ryan Grant, although he's not the flashiest RB around, is solid and gives the Packer offense a very balanced attack.

- The Packers schedule is favorable (in the bottom half as far as SOS).

I truly believe that he is a solid 1st round pick in almost every fantasy draft out there. For those that pick late and are going WR/WR, I strongly recommend that you take Rodgers with your 1st pick.

(I will bump this when the season is over and either go or )

Rodgers does look like a beast and that's really no surprise given his ADP and average ranking all preseason. I can't say that I'll ever feel comfortable projecting 40+ TDs for a player, but I certainly wouldn't be at all surprised if he managed the feat in a full 16-game season. The one thing I would caution (and it's not enough to keep Rodgers from sitting atop my fantasy rankings) is the declaration that his o-line is good. They were horrendous last year, and Bulaga (and some health and luck) should make them a bit better this year, but this unit gave up a league worst 51 sacks last year.

But he had 5 sacks in his last 4 games and 2 in his last three. Check his sacks for the year, the majority came in the first half of the season.

 

[jude]

Assuming he stays healthy all year, I believe that Aaron Rodgers will have 40 or more total TD's (passing & rushing combined). Consider the following:- His O-line looks good and will give him plenty of time.- He has a good relationship with his receivers and an studly up and coming TE that he can rely on. He's very familiar with these receivers.- Ryan Grant, although he's not the flashiest RB around, is solid and gives the Packer offense a very balanced attack.- The Packers schedule is favorable (in the bottom half as far as SOS).I truly believe that he is a solid 1st round pick in almost every fantasy draft out there. For those that pick late and are going WR/WR, I strongly recommend that you take Rodgers with your 1st pick.(I will bump this when the season is over and either go or )

under

 

[texasheat]

The problem with taking Rodgers in the 1st round in re-draft is that you don't lose that much ground to anyone in your league if you take Manning, Brees, Schaubb, Brady, or Romo in the later rounds. When you start trying to predict who will have 40 TD's, thats fine and all, but its a little pre-mature to base your first round pick on it. Maybe you could get Brees or Manning in the 3rd round instead. What have you lose? Maybe nothing. Those three are almost a coin flip (if a coin had three sides). Yet if oyu compare WRs or RBs from the 1st round versus the 3rd round it is a much more significant drop off in terms of expected value for fantasy points.That said, I did take rodgers in the late 1st round in a startup dynasty. However, I think that is much different. I viewed it as a very safe pick that I had to live with for years to come. Late in the first it was too risky to potentially waste that pick on a player that had a much higher chance of busting than someoen like Rodgers. Also, there aren't many QBs in history to put up such gawdy stats at his young age. He could be a dynasty stud for 10 more years.

This guys gets it

 

[Bob Magaw]

there was a stat flashed during the colts game...

last year was a historic season...

rodgers was the second player (with steve young) ever to have 4,000 yards & 30 TDs passing, 300 yards & 5 TDs rushing...

i have also thought about putting a team together that had rodgers, grant & finley...

 

[Warrior]

The problem with taking Rodgers in the 1st round in re-draft is that you don't lose that much ground to anyone in your league if you take Manning, Brees, Schaubb, Brady, or Romo in the later rounds. When you start trying to predict who will have 40 TD's, thats fine and all, but its a little pre-mature to base your first round pick on it.

Maybe you could get Brees or Manning in the 3rd round instead. What have you lose? Maybe nothing. Those three are almost a coin flip (if a coin had three sides). Yet if oyu compare WRs or RBs from the 1st round versus the 3rd round it is a much more significant drop off in terms of expected value for fantasy points.

That said, I did take rodgers in the late 1st round in a startup dynasty. However, I think that is much different. I viewed it as a very safe pick that I had to live with for years to come. Late in the first it was too risky to potentially waste that pick on a player that had a much higher chance of busting than someoen like Rodgers. Also, there aren't many QBs in history to put up such gawdy stats at his young age. He could be a dynasty stud for 10 more years.

No..this will never happen. Not a chance.If Aaron Rodgers is taken in the 1st, Drew Brees will certainly follow within a couple picks. Zero chance he will fall another round and a half-ish. 99% of the time he'll be taken within the next 5-6 picks.

 

[CataclysmicThunder]

I drafted Rodgers at #5 overall in two different Dynasty leagues last month (took him over MJD in one, and over Ray Rice in the other) last month without an iota of regret. His fantasy career is going to be long, consistent, and legendary, of that I'm convinced.

 

[Dancing Bear]

Do you feel that Rodgers has a better shot at 40 TDs then Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and/or Drew Brees? Why or why not?

40 is extremely difficult to obtain ... it's only happened 5 times in NFL history.That being said,I think that Rodgers has a better shot at 40 than either Brady or P. Manning, Brees this year. Green Bay can put 5 receiver sets out there! Additionally with Kuhn and Finley in the Red Zone ... I see much fewer TD's on the ground.Brady doesn't have the same weapons that he has had in the past. I don't think Welker comes back as his bad old self. Moss is now 3 years older than when they put up 50; he also seems to disappear on occasion. Where's the 3rd receiver? 4th receiver? Edelmann? Hernandez?Manning may now have a WR2 in Garcon, but they don't have a running game, they might not have protection. They looked out-of-sync last night a great deal under P. Manning.Brees has the 2nd best shot because he has nearly as many legitimate receivers are Rodgers. He won't achieve it because the Saints will score 20+ TD's on the ground.

 

[VaTerp]

The problem with taking Rodgers in the 1st round in re-draft is that you don't lose that much ground to anyone in your league if you take Manning, Brees, Schaubb, Brady, or Romo in the later rounds. When you start trying to predict who will have 40 TD's, thats fine and all, but its a little pre-mature to base your first round pick on it.Maybe you could get Brees or Manning in the 3rd round instead. What have you lose? Maybe nothing. Those three are almost a coin flip (if a coin had three sides). Yet if oyu compare WRs or RBs from the 1st round versus the 3rd round it is a much more significant drop off in terms of expected value for fantasy points.

I know that this is the prevailing thought of most veteran FF players but I think it's a little of a short sighted view. It all depends on your league and the tiers in your rankings. In my leagues there is no way Brees will be available even on the way back in the 2nd for the person that passed on Rogers mid to late first. Manning more likely depending on who is drafting where but he will definitely not be there in the 3rd.So in essence you are talking about the difference between the RBs you can get in the 1st vs the 2nd (if you remove the WR option from the equation). And many people have a rather large 2nd RB tier and feel that there is little difference between the RBs available in the late first to those available in the 2nd or even 3rd round.And this view also fails to take into account the high "bust" rate for RBs. Every year RBs there is a good percentage of highly drafted RBs who disappoint. And every year there are RBs picked in the mid rounds who perform well above ADP. Of course the trick is finding the right guys but you have to do that regardless. In many respects drafting Rogers in the 1st is a "safer" pick then some of the RBs that people are hoping will perform at a high level.IMO it's not a coin flip between Rogers/Brees/Manning and that makes Rogers a 1st round pick without question on my board. I fully expect him to meet or exceed the passing numbers of the other 2 but he also offers the potential of an additional 300 rushing yds (the equivalent of another 750 passing yards) and 4-5 rushing TDs. This truly separates him as the clear cut #1 in my view. As mentioned above Rogers did something statistically that only Steve Young has done in the history of the NFL when looking at passing and rushing numbers as a QB. And there is good reason to think he improves on his numbers from last season. I pick 1st in my main league this year so Rogers won't be on my team but if I am drafting 7/8 or later in other leagues Rogers will be a strong consideration.

 

[eoMMan]

Do you feel that Rodgers has a better shot at 40 TDs then Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and/or Drew Brees? Why or why not?

40 is extremely difficult to obtain ... it's only happened 5 times in NFL history.

Regarding this, keep in mind that the passing game in today's NFL game produces bigger stats and is a lot more complex and developed than it was years ago. I think 40 TD's in todays gams isn't as big of a deal as it was, say, 15 to 20 years ago.

 

[Dexter Manley]

The problem with taking Rodgers in the 1st round in re-draft is that you don't lose that much ground to anyone in your league if you take Manning, Brees, Schaubb, Brady, or Romo in the later rounds. When you start trying to predict who will have 40 TD's, thats fine and all, but its a little pre-mature to base your first round pick on it.Maybe you could get Brees or Manning in the 3rd round instead. What have you lose? Maybe nothing. Those three are almost a coin flip (if a coin had three sides). Yet if oyu compare WRs or RBs from the 1st round versus the 3rd round it is a much more significant drop off in terms of expected value for fantasy points.

I know that this is the prevailing thought of most veteran FF players but I think it's a little of a short sighted view. It all depends on your league and the tiers in your rankings. In my leagues there is no way Brees will be available even on the way back in the 2nd for the person that passed on Rogers mid to late first. Manning more likely depending on who is drafting where but he will definitely not be there in the 3rd.So in essence you are talking about the difference between the RBs you can get in the 1st vs the 2nd (if you remove the WR option from the equation). And many people have a rather large 2nd RB tier and feel that there is little difference between the RBs available in the late first to those available in the 2nd or even 3rd round.And this view also fails to take into account the high "bust" rate for RBs. Every year RBs there is a good percentage of highly drafted RBs who disappoint. And every year there are RBs picked in the mid rounds who perform well above ADP. Of course the trick is finding the right guys but you have to do that regardless. In many respects drafting Rogers in the 1st is a "safer" pick then some of the RBs that people are hoping will perform at a high level.IMO it's not a coin flip between Rogers/Brees/Manning and that makes Rogers a 1st round pick without question on my board. I fully expect him to meet or exceed the passing numbers of the other 2 but he also offers the potential of an additional 300 rushing yds (the equivalent of another 750 passing yards) and 4-5 rushing TDs. This truly separates him as the clear cut #1 in my view. As mentioned above Rogers did something statistically that only Steve Young has done in the history of the NFL when looking at passing and rushing numbers as a QB. And there is good reason to think he improves on his numbers from last season. I pick 1st in my main league this year so Rogers won't be on my team but if I am drafting 7/8 or later in other leagues Rogers will be a strong consideration.

I think the size of the league matters too. In your typical 10-12 team league, I understand passing on Rodgers and grabbing a QB later. In 16-14 team leagues, however, the difference between what Rodgers scores vs. most of the bottom half of qb's taken is going to be significantly larger than at any other position.I have a 16 team league draft coming up (QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, K, D/ST). RB's usually go off the board the first 7 to 10 picks in this league. If I'm not the 1 or 2 pick I plan on taking Rodgers if he's available no matter where I'm drafting. Basically, I'll be sacrificing a stud RB or WR in round 1 for the clear cut #1 QB. I figure I can draft enough good WR's and RB's (and even TE's) the next 8-10 rounds to make this strategy work.

 

[The Jerk]

The only negatives I can see with drafting Rodgers early (pick 6 or so):1. possible bad weather games in Weeks 15 and 16, but it's not like he hasn't seen that before2. locking yourself out of the possible QB values that may present themselves later in the draft3. obtaining two high end WRs is a strong early round strategy this season, in my opinion#1 is not an issue for me, personally, but #2 is why I'm vacillating back and forth over what I would do with a mid-first round pick. #3 isn't a pure negative, more of a consideration, I suppose, but it could be a negative if you miss out on all the top WRs.Others have mentioned league scoring and league size will play a big role in determining the advisable strategy, and this is of course good advice. In 6 point passing TD leagues, Rodgers value relative to the top RBs and top WRs increases. The same happens as league size increases.I suppose that I am trending in the direction of taking Rodgers due to the safety of the pick and when considering -- in my opinion -- the ability to address RB later in the draft better than any season in my 20 years of FF. Multiple RBs with excellent chances to finish among the top 10-12 RBs can be drafted in the majority of leagues in the third and fourth rounds, and even later round picks can be serviceable starters. It can be a dangerous strategy to tell yourself that having a low RB1 and low RB2 is sufficient -- I call this way of thinking a "mediocrity trap" -- because what you want on your team is guys no worse than the median at their respective positions. Still... the same logic can be applied to the QB position, where having a low QB1 in the past few seasons has been just as difficult to overcome -- at least in some leagues -- as having low RBs has been in the more distant past. Even though more QBs than ever are capable of putting up 25+ TDs, I see QB stratification being greater than possibly ever before. In another thread on QB strategy in 6 point passing TD leagues, I posted:

Consider that from 1999-2003, exactly 28 QBs threw for 25 or more TDs in a season (5.6 QBs per season).From 2007-2009 -- in just three seasons, 29 QBs threw for 25 or more TDs, including 12 in 2009 alone (9.7 QBs per season).Also from 1999-2003, exactly 9 QBs threw for 30+ TDs (1.8 QBs per season).From 2007-2009, 11 QBs threw for 30+ TDs (3.7 QBs per season).As I see it, having a pedestrian QB ten years ago meant conceding a slight advantage to roughly half the league and facing a larger deficit against only two opponents, on average. But now, having a pedestrian QB means conceding a slight advantage to nearly every opponent and a larger deficit to half of the league. I think that's a very important distinction. It might be said that having a top QB has gone from a luxury to a necessity.

Bottom line: a more gradual decline among RBs in the 10-25 range and the added production of QBs has convinced me to address QB earlier in the past couple of seasons. If that's the case, taking Rodgers in the first round must be considered a strong option. A stud RB is always a good option too, as are getting two top WRs. It's actually quite liberating to see any of three positions in play in the mid-to-late first round.

 

[Dancing Bear]

Regarding this, keep in mind that the passing game in today's NFL game produces bigger stats and is a lot more complex and developed than it was years ago. I think 40 TD's in todays gams isn't as big of a deal as it was, say, 15 to 20 years ago.

Sorry to disagree with you eoMMan ...This has been done ...2 times in the 1980's1 time in the 1990's2 times in the 2000'sThere is no statistical data to support your thesis at all with regards to these aberrations in absolutely stellar performances. In fact you need to be very careful when representing what you perceive to be trends.There is in fact the trend you mention regarding yardage by a QB. There is a very steady rise in numbers of QB's who obtain 4,000 yards each season. This 5-year span 2006-2010 will likely result in twice as many QB's than an other 5-year period in NFL history, and 4 times any 5-year period prior to 1991.This trend does not exist with respect to the "peak" yardages obtained.This sort of straight-forward trend does not exist for TD's by a QB either. In fact just as many QB's between 1961-1965 had 30+ TD's in a season as compared with those in 1991-1995. We may have a 20% increase in QB's who toss 30+ TD's in the 5-year period of 2006-2010 compared with the previous 5-year period [2001-2005], but not with respect to the 1991-1995 5-year period.This sort of stellar performance is extremely hard to predict or replicate.

 

[pep1285]

Would taking Rodgers at #5 in a 10 team league be too high? *6 points for all Touchdowns*

 

[eoMMan]

With the loss of Grant, Finley, and now the possibility of not playing this week......I now temper my expectations.