Anybody with the stones to rank Frank Gore at #2? (1 Viewer)

[PhantomJB]

Okay. I'm just going to challenge the group-think / status quo here as it seems everyone and their brother has Frank Gore at #5. Now I'm not crazy enough to project a higher finish than CJ, but why is it such an overwhelming consensus Gore won't perform better than MJD, Rice and Peterson? Humor me.

It seems that far too many projections are done by just hitting the "rinse-repeat" button for last year's stats, maybe knock them down a little to be conservative, and then out pops the ranking. Is it any coincidence that the consensus Top 4 RB's this year were also last year's Top 4 finishers? Heaven forbid if those players finished the previous season healthy that anyone else should be projected to finish higher the following year.

But the stars couldn't be aligned better for Gore in 2010. Last year, with the new OC, Crabtree coming in late, Alex Smith not coming in until mid-season, minor ankle injury, etc. that the 49ers didn't get things their offensive philosophy finally figured out until the latter 1/4 of the season. All signs (upgrade OL, especially) point to Gore being used in 2010 similarly to the last 4 games of 2009, in which he averaged 23 carries/game (360 carries per year) and over 100yds rushing against very similar competition to 2010.

Have you seen his schedule? Are you kidding me? Take a look at Clayton Gray's SOS article. Best in the NFL.

Peterson, on the other hand, has a BRUTAL schedule. Not just tough. Brutal. MJD's entire offense may very well implode this year and Ray Rice still is not the unquestioned goal line back in Baltimore with McGahee showing up to camp in top shape.

Barring injury (we'll get to this in a second) in that offense, with that schedule, being the unquestioned bell cow RB, Frank Gore could EASILY put up:

325 / 4.5 ypc / 1,462 rush yds / 12 rush TD's

55 rcpts / 440 recpt yds / 2 recpt TD's

And a #2 PPR ranking

Let's not forget it was only 2006 when he put up over 300 carries and nearly 2,200 total yards and doesn't appear incapable of repeating that.

The obvious rebuttal is *injury risk*. But are a broken hand and high ankle sprain (college injuries aside) really worthy of an injury-prone label? Maybe. But not like SJAX and his back issues. It's a violent sport and just a matter of time for the young guys like Rice, MJD and CJ (Peterson already has had to overcome this label) to experience the same. Is that factored into their projections?

Anyway, it just seems the guys who do best at FF are the ones who go against the grain sometimes and zig when the herd is zagging. Sometimes it's crazy, sometimes just having large stones...but maybe this could be the year to do so with Gore at #2.

 

[GunslingerEnder]

Frank Gore is the reason I don't want a top pick. Top 3 finish at RB for sure. I'll take that at the 6-8 spots any day if he is there.

Have the 8th pick in a IDP redraft and hoping to get him. Last year Rodgers and Brees were taken within the first 4 picks so it's possible. Not sure how likely but I guess I'll find out soon enough.

He's a stud and for some reason he's treated like Westbrook was. Injury risk, sure I guess. But he's not hurt now and taking a chance like this is how you win your leagues. Pure value after the top 4 imo.

 

[destro]

I like Gore a lot, probably more than a lot of people, and I have him on multiple dynasty teams, but... I don't think I would go higher than #5. MJD and Rice are just too good. I think if you want to convince me that Gore should be taken higher than #5, you'd be better off selling me on one of Rice or MJD have a down year than you are to simply tell me about how good Gore and his situation is. The bottom line is that the guys ahead of him are really good and in really good situations, and have less perceived injury risk as well. If you think one of them may fall off, and have good reasons to support that theory, then it would be more compelling.Also...

Anyway, it just seems the guys who do best at FF are the ones who go against the grain sometimes and zig when the herd is zagging.

I have never been convinced of this, but I see this kind of remark constantly. I don't get it. In redrafts, fancy play at the top of the draft isn't how you consistently win, imo. Consistent winners are the guys who just don't make big mistakes early on and draft well in the mid-to-late round picks, snagging guys who are stars before anyone knew about them. Getting zany with the #3 pick rarely works out, in my experience, and I certainly have never seen a pattern of that kind of behavior paying off.

 

[mcd]

I actually just took Gore over Peterson in a league. I have Gore a little lower in total points but really love his playoff schedule with Seattle, San Diego & St. Louis. The 49ers o-line was just brutal last season, but with the 2 rookies it could really gel by midseason & be a strength. I hear a lot of talk on the board about the 49ers using the spread offense, but I don't agree. That was caused by the terrible play of the o-line, if the line becomes a strength, this team becomes the power running team that Singletary has always wanted.

Gore also has what I consider upside if the rookies develop, while I'm a little concerned with what's going on with the Vikings. Favre situation, the fumbling, new backup, all are question marks that raise a little doubt in my mind that Peterson may slip a little.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Everybody talks about the Top 4 this year, I'd really say Top 5 and throw Gore in there. Give me any one of those 5. SF's improved offensive line should be huge for Gore.

 

[mcd]

While I think his ADP of 5 seems legitimate, I don't understand why he isn't considered in the same tier as the "top 4" (for the reasons you mentioned). On a per game basis, he was the # 4 back in my league last year (0.5 PPR). I personally see Rice, MJD, and Gore as a push and would be content with any of them when I draft in the 5 slot.

If you throw out the game he was injured on the first play, he was actually the #2 back in my league per start. The upgrades to the line should really help.

 

[Birdnals]

Was thinking about this exact thing last night and the more I think about it the more I like him, even as possibly #1. The reason being is how incredibly soft their schedule will be, play-offs included. They'll be facing 3 teams (STL, ARZ, and SEA) twice who all finished in the bottom half in rush defense as well as four games against AFC West opponents who finished last season ranked 20th, 26th, 29th, and 31st against the run. While I realize that last years rankings don't mean that they'll all be just as bad, I still like the match-ups. That coupled with Gore's undeniable talent and the fact that he's only one of a handful of true bellcows in the NFL makes seriously consider taking him AT LEAST #2. As a previous poster noted, a play-off schedule of Seattle, San Diego, and St. Louis doesn't hurt either.

 

[PhantomJB]

I like Gore a lot, probably more than a lot of people, and I have him on multiple dynasty teams, but... I don't think I would go higher than #5. MJD and Rice are just too good. I think if you want to convince me that Gore should be taken higher than #5, you'd be better off selling me on one of Rice or MJD have a down year than you are to simply tell me about how good Gore and his situation is. The bottom line is that the guys ahead of him are really good and in really good situations, and have less perceived injury risk as well. If you think one of them may fall off, and have good reasons to support that theory, then it would be more compelling.Also...

Anyway, it just seems the guys who do best at FF are the ones who go against the grain sometimes and zig when the herd is zagging.

I have never been convinced of this, but I see this kind of remark constantly. I don't get it. In redrafts, fancy play at the top of the draft isn't how you consistently win, imo. Consistent winners are the guys who just don't make big mistakes early on and draft well in the mid-to-late round picks, snagging guys who are stars before anyone knew about them. Getting zany with the #3 pick rarely works out, in my experience, and I certainly have never seen a pattern of that kind of behavior paying off.

Fair point. Using those particular words probably suggested just trying to be different for the sake of being different.In this case I'm more trying to convey strength of conviction in conclusions in the face of an overwhelming majority that suggests otherwise. At least more along those lines, anyway.

 

[Mustang Man]

Can he reach that production, sure. Is it smart to put him there with his injury history, NO

 

[Instinctive]

Can he reach that production, sure. Is it smart to put him there with his injury history, NO

His "injury history" is bull####, if you'll pardon my french. CJ has suffered the same high ankle sprain...is he an injury risk? And iirc, Gore broke his hand-is there anything that points to hand bones becoming more susceptible to repeat breaks? Insane. All RBs get hurt. Those who do not, are named Emmitt Smith.I am hoping and praying he falls to 8 in my redraft. Mocking, it's about a 35/65 proposition, so I typically end up with Brees (gap between QB tiers is larger due to scoring system...the top 3 are exponentially more valuable).But man, if Gore falls to 8 I will be overjoyed. Situation perfect. Talent impeccable. Output...can't wait.

 

[gibfunk]

I like Gore a lot, probably more than a lot of people, and I have him on multiple dynasty teams, but... I don't think I would go higher than #5. MJD and Rice are just too good. I think if you want to convince me that Gore should be taken higher than #5, you'd be better off selling me on one of Rice or MJD have a down year than you are to simply tell me about how good Gore and his situation is. The bottom line is that the guys ahead of him are really good and in really good situations, and have less perceived injury risk as well. If you think one of them may fall off, and have good reasons to support that theory, then it would be more compelling.Also...

Anyway, it just seems the guys who do best at FF are the ones who go against the grain sometimes and zig when the herd is zagging.

I have never been convinced of this, but I see this kind of remark constantly. I don't get it. In redrafts, fancy play at the top of the draft isn't how you consistently win, imo. Consistent winners are the guys who just don't make big mistakes early on and draft well in the mid-to-late round picks, snagging guys who are stars before anyone knew about them. Getting zany with the #3 pick rarely works out, in my experience, and I certainly have never seen a pattern of that kind of behavior paying off.

Fair point. Using those particular words probably suggested just trying to be different for the sake of being different.In this case I'm more trying to convey strength of conviction in conclusions in the face of an overwhelming majority that suggests otherwise. At least more along those lines, anyway.

Ask the guy in my redraft who took MJD over ADP at #1 last year what he thinks about this. (#2 pick won it all BTW)

 

[mcd]

I like Gore a lot, probably more than a lot of people, and I have him on multiple dynasty teams, but... I don't think I would go higher than #5. MJD and Rice are just too good. I think if you want to convince me that Gore should be taken higher than #5, you'd be better off selling me on one of Rice or MJD have a down year than you are to simply tell me about how good Gore and his situation is. The bottom line is that the guys ahead of him are really good and in really good situations, and have less perceived injury risk as well. If you think one of them may fall off, and have good reasons to support that theory, then it would be more compelling.Also...

Anyway, it just seems the guys who do best at FF are the ones who go against the grain sometimes and zig when the herd is zagging.

I have never been convinced of this, but I see this kind of remark constantly. I don't get it. In redrafts, fancy play at the top of the draft isn't how you consistently win, imo. Consistent winners are the guys who just don't make big mistakes early on and draft well in the mid-to-late round picks, snagging guys who are stars before anyone knew about them. Getting zany with the #3 pick rarely works out, in my experience, and I certainly have never seen a pattern of that kind of behavior paying off.

Fair point. Using those particular words probably suggested just trying to be different for the sake of being different.In this case I'm more trying to convey strength of conviction in conclusions in the face of an overwhelming majority that suggests otherwise. At least more along those lines, anyway.

Ask the guy in my redraft who took MJD over ADP at #1 last year what he thinks about this. (#2 pick won it all BTW)

There was a total of 7 points separating Drew & Peterson in my league, although Peterson had the much higher scores during week 15-17. Are you saying take the guy with the easy playoff schedule, or that Petersons 7 extra points were the difference in who won the Championship?

 

[Instinctive]

I like Gore a lot, probably more than a lot of people, and I have him on multiple dynasty teams, but... I don't think I would go higher than #5. MJD and Rice are just too good. I think if you want to convince me that Gore should be taken higher than #5, you'd be better off selling me on one of Rice or MJD have a down year than you are to simply tell me about how good Gore and his situation is. The bottom line is that the guys ahead of him are really good and in really good situations, and have less perceived injury risk as well. If you think one of them may fall off, and have good reasons to support that theory, then it would be more compelling.Also...

Anyway, it just seems the guys who do best at FF are the ones who go against the grain sometimes and zig when the herd is zagging.

I have never been convinced of this, but I see this kind of remark constantly. I don't get it. In redrafts, fancy play at the top of the draft isn't how you consistently win, imo. Consistent winners are the guys who just don't make big mistakes early on and draft well in the mid-to-late round picks, snagging guys who are stars before anyone knew about them. Getting zany with the #3 pick rarely works out, in my experience, and I certainly have never seen a pattern of that kind of behavior paying off.

Fair point. Using those particular words probably suggested just trying to be different for the sake of being different.In this case I'm more trying to convey strength of conviction in conclusions in the face of an overwhelming majority that suggests otherwise. At least more along those lines, anyway.

Ask the guy in my redraft who took MJD over ADP at #1 last year what he thinks about this. (#2 pick won it all BTW)

Poor example. MJD was stellar. That pick probably had almost zero impact on who won and/or why

 

[FreeBaGeL]

His "injury history" is bull####, if you'll pardon my french. CJ has suffered the same high ankle sprain...is he an injury risk? And iirc, Gore broke his hand-is there anything that points to hand bones becoming more susceptible to repeat breaks? Insane. All RBs get hurt. Those who do not, are named Emmitt Smith.I am hoping and praying he falls to 8 in my redraft. Mocking, it's about a 35/65 proposition, so I typically end up with Brees (gap between QB tiers is larger due to scoring system...the top 3 are exponentially more valuable).But man, if Gore falls to 8 I will be overjoyed. Situation perfect. Talent impeccable. Output...can't wait.

While I do agree that Gore not more of an injury risk, to say his injury history is the same as any running back's is silly. When you listed his injuries you completely ignored the two torn ACLs, which are far and away the two biggest.

Poor example. MJD was stellar. That pick probably had almost zero impact on who won and/or why

To be fair, Peterson destroyed MJD in the FF playoffs. Not that that is predictable, but to say it didn't have any effect on who won it all when Peterson nearly doubled up MJD in the playoffs isn't exactly accurate.

 

[Instinctive]

His "injury history" is bull####, if you'll pardon my french. CJ has suffered the same high ankle sprain...is he an injury risk? And iirc, Gore broke his hand-is there anything that points to hand bones becoming more susceptible to repeat breaks? Insane. All RBs get hurt. Those who do not, are named Emmitt Smith.I am hoping and praying he falls to 8 in my redraft. Mocking, it's about a 35/65 proposition, so I typically end up with Brees (gap between QB tiers is larger due to scoring system...the top 3 are exponentially more valuable).But man, if Gore falls to 8 I will be overjoyed. Situation perfect. Talent impeccable. Output...can't wait.

While I do agree that Gore not more of an injury risk, to say his injury history is the same as any running back's is silly. When you listed his injuries you completely ignored the two torn ACLs, which are far and away the two biggest.

Poor example. MJD was stellar. That pick probably had almost zero impact on who won and/or why

To be fair, Peterson destroyed MJD in the FF playoffs. Not that that is predictable, but to say it didn't have any effect on who won it all when Peterson nearly doubled up MJD in the playoffs isn't exactly accurate.

My bad on the ACLs. I assumed since people act as though AD has no injury history that collegiate injuries didn't count. In which case we should all be wary of AD just like we should Gore and SJax. Watch out for McGahee too (ok...that's different... )And the guy with MJD scored better before the playoffs, and was thus more likely to reach said playoffs....etc etc. Lots of "well if MJD's team had Jerome Harrison like I advocated last season then it wouldn't have mattered." In the end, the point stands as such: I really doubt the difference between MJD or AD cost anybody or won anybody a league last year.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Everybody talks about the Top 4 this year, I'd really say Top 5 and throw Gore in there. Give me any one of those 5. SF's improved offensive line should be huge for Gore.

I agree and ftr, I don't think it is crazy to consider him #2 either.

 

[u999spf]

I think Peterson may end up with the most points this season. He is going to get more swing passes and they feed him the ball at the goal line more than any other back in the NFL.

I see MJD at #2. He is a balanced scoring rb (yards, td's and catches) and I see that continuing this season.

CJ at #3, I don't think he gets 2000 yards this season. That was a career year and career years don't usually happen in back to back season. So he comes back to the pack this season.

Gore at #4 looks good to me. They upgraded the line and want to run the ball more. The fact that Alex Smith had to be in the shotgun so much last season made Gore less effective. They seem to be working on Smith under center more so its another reason to like Gore this year. The fact that he gets nicked a lot is the only knock on him.

- I have a feeling Ray Rice could be the bust of the first round. Not to the extent of a Matt Forte/Steve Slaton fall off last season, but he won't justify his #4 spot by year's end. Still a top 10-12 back though.

 

[SSOG]

While I do agree that Gore not more of an injury risk, to say his injury history is the same as any running back's is silly. When you listed his injuries you completely ignored the two torn ACLs, which are far and away the two biggest.

The two ACL injuries he had surgically repaired SIX YEARS AGO and which haven't given him a single problem since? Those ACLs? Should we also go back and look to see if he ever had hamstring problems in Pop Warner, too?Seriously, it was SIX YEARS AGO, and ACL surgery frequently leaves the joint stronger than it was pre-surgery. If Gore hasn't experienced any problem from the knees so far, then I think it's a pretty safe bet to just ignore those injuries entirely. Hell, John Elway played his entire career without an ACL in one knee. Hines Ward lost one of his ACLs in a childhood bicycle accident, and has been playing his entire career without it. Are you going to list a childhood bicycle accident on Hines Ward's injury history? At what point do we stop holding an injury against someone?

 

[GunslingerEnder]

Injury histories are what kept letting me draft Westbrook year after year in redrafts. That risk is what can put you over the top.

He's not going to miss very many games if any, but when healthy can match up with anyone.

Considering how many players have "injury histories" it's kind of surprising that some rosters get filled out during fantasy drafts.

 

[Abstract]

I have the 4th pick in my draft and I've decided that I'm taking Gore unless MJd, Peterson, or CJ are available.

 

[destro]

While I do agree that Gore not more of an injury risk, to say his injury history is the same as any running back's is silly. When you listed his injuries you completely ignored the two torn ACLs, which are far and away the two biggest.

The two ACL injuries he had surgically repaired SIX YEARS AGO and which haven't given him a single problem since? Those ACLs? Should we also go back and look to see if he ever had hamstring problems in Pop Warner, too?Seriously, it was SIX YEARS AGO, and ACL surgery frequently leaves the joint stronger than it was pre-surgery. If Gore hasn't experienced any problem from the knees so far, then I think it's a pretty safe bet to just ignore those injuries entirely. Hell, John Elway played his entire career without an ACL in one knee. Hines Ward lost one of his ACLs in a childhood bicycle accident, and has been playing his entire career without it. Are you going to list a childhood bicycle accident on Hines Ward's injury history? At what point do we stop holding an injury against someone?

I agree that the ACL tears were well in the past and not a real concern. However, he has missed 5 or 6 games over the last three years, which is more than the other four top backs in question have missed. It's not a monstrous red flag or anything, but I think it explains why people have him slightly below MJD and Rice, in general. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

[SSOG]

I agree that the ACL tears were well in the past and not a real concern. However, he has missed 5 or 6 games over the last three years, which is more than the other four top backs in question have missed. It's not a monstrous red flag or anything, but I think it explains why people have him slightly below MJD and Rice, in general. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Eh, I look at the nature of the missed games (broken hand, sprained ankle), and I'm not too worried about it because it's exactly the same type of injuries that every RB in the league is subjected to at one point or another. I'd be worried if it looked like he was a slow healer (it doesn't), or if it looked like he was "soft" and would take himself out over injuries that a tougher back would just play through (it doesn't). Otherwise, all RBs get bumps and bruises. I don't think that Frank Gore is especially prone to them going forward.

 

[bigmiiiiike]

First off, I agree that the "top 4" should be expanded to the "top 5" to include Gore. My NON-PPR league does draft order by selecting a preference order, where the #1 name out of the hat can select his slot, the #2 guy can select of the remaining slots, and so on. I came out 4th and only the 1, 4, and 12 slots were taken. Tough choice between 5 and 2 for me, with the logic of taking Gore at 5 or AP at 2. I settled on 2, thinking that as much as I like Gore, I think his upside is what AP is already producing. Barring injury, what's AP's downside in non-PPR, especially with no Chester Taylor? 1400 rushing, 300 receiving, and 12 TDs? If everyone is "right" about Gore having a studly year, how much better will it be than AP's downside? AP's upside is 2000 yards and 20 TDs. Gore's downside is 1600 total yards and 7 TDs. As much as I like Gore, I just couldn't pass up on the opportunity to go for AP at #2. Could he end up being the better pick? Of course, but I don't think it's the better statistical play. However, if I were forced to pick 5th, I'd be more than happy and would take Gore thinking I got the last of the great RBs.

 

[destro]

I agree that the ACL tears were well in the past and not a real concern. However, he has missed 5 or 6 games over the last three years, which is more than the other four top backs in question have missed. It's not a monstrous red flag or anything, but I think it explains why people have him slightly below MJD and Rice, in general. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Eh, I look at the nature of the missed games (broken hand, sprained ankle), and I'm not too worried about it because it's exactly the same type of injuries that every RB in the league is subjected to at one point or another. I'd be worried if it looked like he was a slow healer (it doesn't), or if it looked like he was "soft" and would take himself out over injuries that a tougher back would just play through (it doesn't). Otherwise, all RBs get bumps and bruises. I don't think that Frank Gore is especially prone to them going forward.

Yeah, none of the injuries are major but he's seemed to have more of them than other RBs over the same span. Could be bad luck, definitely, but when you have such limited data to work with to separate a few guys who are all very talented and in very good situations, I can understand why people use his injury history as a tiebreaker of sorts.It could be that he doesn't miss a game for the next 3 years. It's also possible that he ends up finishing his career like Westbrook, in that he misses a couple games every season but is a stud for 14. It's impossible to know if it's luck or a pattern, but we don't have a whole lot to go in when deciding who among these elite guys will have the best year.

 

[butcher boy]

While I do agree that Gore not more of an injury risk, to say his injury history is the same as any running back's is silly. When you listed his injuries you completely ignored the two torn ACLs, which are far and away the two biggest.

The two ACL injuries he had surgically repaired SIX YEARS AGO and which haven't given him a single problem since? Those ACLs? Should we also go back and look to see if he ever had hamstring problems in Pop Warner, too?Seriously, it was SIX YEARS AGO, and ACL surgery frequently leaves the joint stronger than it was pre-surgery. If Gore hasn't experienced any problem from the knees so far, then I think it's a pretty safe bet to just ignore those injuries entirely. Hell, John Elway played his entire career without an ACL in one knee. Hines Ward lost one of his ACLs in a childhood bicycle accident, and has been playing his entire career without it. Are you going to list a childhood bicycle accident on Hines Ward's injury history? At what point do we stop holding an injury against someone?

It doesnt matter how long ago it was and his injury risk has nothing to do with him reaggravating old injuries. The fact of the matter is that Gore has a tendency to get hurt a lot. To his credit, he plays hurt a lot too, but he is definitely an injury risk.

 

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

I think he has as good a chance as Rice or MJD to justify that pick. He gets better as the game goes on. When he gets more than 20 carries good things happen. I see a lot of touches this year.

 

[Warrior]

Ranking players based on strength of schedule is foolish...so many things change during the offseason, preseason, and early regular season. A top run-defense last year could be piss-poor in 2010 and a soft run D could be one of the top in the league. It happens every season.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

While I do agree that Gore not more of an injury risk, to say his injury history is the same as any running back's is silly. When you listed his injuries you completely ignored the two torn ACLs, which are far and away the two biggest.

The two ACL injuries he had surgically repaired SIX YEARS AGO and which haven't given him a single problem since? Those ACLs? Should we also go back and look to see if he ever had hamstring problems in Pop Warner, too?Seriously, it was SIX YEARS AGO, and ACL surgery frequently leaves the joint stronger than it was pre-surgery. If Gore hasn't experienced any problem from the knees so far, then I think it's a pretty safe bet to just ignore those injuries entirely. Hell, John Elway played his entire career without an ACL in one knee. Hines Ward lost one of his ACLs in a childhood bicycle accident, and has been playing his entire career without it. Are you going to list a childhood bicycle accident on Hines Ward's injury history? At what point do we stop holding an injury against someone?

Woah there bessy, like I said I don't believe Gore is "injury prone" (whatever that means), and I am very high on him this year and have him in that top, elite tier. However, when a guy has literally played one complete season in his entire career (college and pro), I would say that two torn ACLs being in the mix is pertinent information, especially when the two guys he's being most directly compared to (MJD and Rice) have missed fewer games in their entire careers than Gore does in a typical season."Injury history" when most people talk about it is about the frequency of injury, much moreso than the possibility of injury reaggravation. No one avoided Sjax last year (to their own peril) because they were worried that he was going to re-aggravate his groin pull from two years before, but they still counted it against him.

I could see six year old injuries being forgotten if a guy was a perfect model of health beyond that, but when the guy has missed time in 5 out of the 6 years since then, not so much.

Like I said, I don't count it against him myself, but I could easily see how some people would.

 

[delusional]

Got him at 5 in my antsports draft challenge. I am happy

 

[Bayhawks]

Frank Gore could EASILY put up:325 / 4.5 ypc / 1,462 rush yds / 12 rush TD's55 rcpts / 440 recpt yds / 2 recpt TD'sAnd a #2 PPR ranking Let's not forget it was only 2006 when he put up over 300 carries and nearly 2,200 total yards and doesn't appear incapable of repeating that.

EASILY? Do you realize that Gore has never had 325 carries, 12 rush TDs, or 14 total TDs? Not even in his ONE SINGLE season where he played in all 16 games?I realize he has an easy schedule, but in his 5 NFL seasons, he's averaged 234 carries and just over 6 TDs? SOS isn't the be-all and end-all of projecting stats.Gore will very likely be a top 5-7 RB, but #2 will be tough.

 

[gandalas]

Managed to snag Gore at 2.2 in our 10-team recent dynasty startup.

I will happily ride his top-5 production for the next 2 or 3 years - I was VERY happy with the pick.

 

[PhantomJB]

Ranking players based on strength of schedule is foolish...so many things change during the offseason, preseason, and early regular season. A top run-defense last year could be piss-poor in 2010 and a soft run D could be one of the top in the league. It happens every season.

Love these kinds of bold and definitive statements that are based on...well not exactly sure what this one is based on.The following is based on NFL.com stats.Over the period 2006-2009, on average, 9 of the teams that finished in the Top 16 of the league in Run D followed up with a Top 16 finish the following year (9 from '06 to '07, 10 from '07 to '08, and 9 from '08 to '09).Over the same period, on average, 11 of the teams that finished in the Bottom 16 one year finished in the Bottom 16 the next (10/12/10). That's only about 30% turnover.Is there SOME turnover in the league's Run Defense rankings? Absolutely. Is it as completely random and irrelevant and non-meaningful as you are implying? Doubtful. The consistency is too much to ignore, especially when it comes to the poorer defenses.In Gore's case, in 2010 he plays (on average) against 2009's 20th ranked Run D (easiest schedule in the NFL), which gave up about 124 yds and about 1.0 TD's. In particular, in 9 of those games he faces...KC (Bottom 16 Run D ranking four years running)Saints (two years running)SEAx2 (three of last four)OAK (four years running)DEN (three years in a row)Tampa Bay (four years)Ramsx2 (four years Bottom 16 in a row)Based on the last four years of NFL stats, it is HIGHLY probable that MOST of these defenses are going to stay bottom tier.In Adrian Peterson's case, in 2010 he plays (on average) against 2009's 15th ranked Run D, which gave up about 111 yds and 0.8 TD's.So, on average, it appears Gore will have an advantage over Peterson when considering their schedules. How much? About 11% in yards/game and 24% in TD's/game based on last year but the TD number in particular surely needs discounting.Is this SOS difference on its own enough to take Gore over Peterson? Don't be ridiculous. But when used as a tiebreaker between the two, or as PART of an argument that Gore has the goods to put up a #2 season, it is not "foolish."

 

[PhantomJB]

Frank Gore could EASILY put up:325 / 4.5 ypc / 1,462 rush yds / 12 rush TD's55 rcpts / 440 recpt yds / 2 recpt TD'sAnd a #2 PPR ranking Let's not forget it was only 2006 when he put up over 300 carries and nearly 2,200 total yards and doesn't appear incapable of repeating that.

EASILY? Do you realize that Gore has never had 325 carries, 12 rush TDs, or 14 total TDs? Not even in his ONE SINGLE season where he played in all 16 games?I realize he has an easy schedule, but in his 5 NFL seasons, he's averaged 234 carries and just over 6 TDs? SOS isn't the be-all and end-all of projecting stats.Gore will very likely be a top 5-7 RB, but #2 will be tough.

"Could" - used to express possibility"Will" - used to express certaintyDo you realize that Ray Rice had never had more than 33 receptions in ONE SEASON before he got 78 last year?Based on Baltimore's addition of Anquan Boldin and Donte Stallworth, a reasonable person *could easily* see Rice's receptions decrease in 2010.Do you realize that MJD had only 531 rush yds and a 3.7 ypc and 4 total TD's in his FINAL SEVEN GAMES last year and yet his FBG consensus 2010 projections are at 4.5ypc (a 22% increase) and 13-16 TD's?Given MJD's poor performance over the last nearly half of 2009, a reasonable person *could easily* see him falling short of his projected 4.5 ypc and 13-16 TDs in 2010.Saying definitively that because something hasn't happened before that it won't happen in the future, as well as the inverse that because it DID happen last year that it is going to happen again pretty much sums up the entire point of my post. The former seems to be the case when evaluating Gore, while the latter seems to the case when evaluating MJD, Rice and Peterson.This has led to a mortal lock in the projections/rankings for the "Top 4," and a strong burden of proof situation for Gore. But when objectively evaluating all factors (including past performance, predicted future utilization, offensive improvements, talent, situation, injury risk, SOS, etc.), Gore at #2 is as justifiable a selection as either of those three. By the way, no one is saying SOS is the be-all and end-all of projecting stats. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Bayhawks]

Frank Gore could EASILY put up:325 / 4.5 ypc / 1,462 rush yds / 12 rush TD's55 rcpts / 440 recpt yds / 2 recpt TD'sAnd a #2 PPR ranking Let's not forget it was only 2006 when he put up over 300 carries and nearly 2,200 total yards and doesn't appear incapable of repeating that.

EASILY? Do you realize that Gore has never had 325 carries, 12 rush TDs, or 14 total TDs? Not even in his ONE SINGLE season where he played in all 16 games?I realize he has an easy schedule, but in his 5 NFL seasons, he's averaged 234 carries and just over 6 TDs? SOS isn't the be-all and end-all of projecting stats.Gore will very likely be a top 5-7 RB, but #2 will be tough.

"Could" - used to express possibility"Will" - used to express certaintyDo you realize that Ray Rice had never had more than 33 receptions in ONE SEASON before he got 78 last year?Based on Baltimore's addition of Anquan Boldin and Donte Stallworth, a reasonable person *could easily* see Rice's receptions decrease in 2010.Do you realize that MJD had only 531 rush yds and a 3.7 ypc and 4 total TD's in his FINAL SEVEN GAMES last year and yet his FBG consensus 2010 projections are at 4.5ypc (a 22% increase) and 13-16 TD's?Given MJD's poor performance over the last nearly half of 2009, a reasonable person *could easily* see him falling short of his projected 4.5 ypc and 13-16 TDs in 2010.Saying definitively that because something hasn't happened before that it won't happen in the future, as well as the inverse that because it DID happen last year that it is going to happen again pretty much sums up the entire point of my post. The former seems to be the case when evaluating Gore, while the latter seems to the case when evaluating MJD, Rice and Peterson.This has led to a mortal lock in the projections/rankings for the "Top 4," and a strong burden of proof situation for Gore. But when objectively evaluating all factors (including past performance, predicted future utilization, offensive improvements, talent, situation, injury risk, SOS, etc.), Gore at #2 is as justifiable a selection as either of those three. By the way, no one is saying SOS is the be-all and end-all of projecting stats. That's just ridiculous.

First-Rice had ONE NFL season in which he "never had more than 33 receptions." Tiny sample size.Second-You're using a 7 game sample for MJD. Tiny sample size.Third-Gore has played in 5 NFL seasons. In NONE of them has he scored as many TDs as you postulated. In NONE of them has he garnered the number of carries you postulated. In ONLY ONE of them has he been able to play in every game. HUGE SAMPLE SIZE, comparatively speaking."Should" -used to express possibility."Tough"-used to express difficulty, but no impossibility.Please show me where I "definitively" said anything.You post on a FF message board asking whether anyone will rank Gore as #2, and then you get all defensive and whiny when someone doesn't agree with you. Better if you'd have just kept this "great idea" of ranking Gore #2 all to yourself.

 

[Dragon1952]

While I think his ADP of 5 seems legitimate, I don't understand why he isn't considered in the same tier as the "top 4" (for the reasons you mentioned). On a per game basis, he was the # 4 back in my league last year (0.5 PPR). I personally see Rice, MJD, and Gore as a push and would be content with any of them when I draft in the 5 slot.

Everybody talks about the Top 4 this year, I'd really say Top 5 and throw Gore in there. Give me any one of those 5. SF's improved offensive line should be huge for Gore.

 

[fatmnkypants]

Looks like Heitmann- the Center for the past few years is out for 6-8 weeks with broken leg......... How bad does this hurt Gore?

 

[Brady Gaga]

I'm all for bucking the traditional rankings which is why I don't have Gore in my top 8.

1. CJ

2. AD

3. Greene

4. Rice

5. MJD

6. Charles

7. DeAngelo

8. Turner

9. Gore

Not saying I'd actually draft Greene before Gore (I'd trade down first) but that's how I think they should be ranked. And yeah, I know it's not fair and you can't predict injuries but I just can't help but fear injuries for Gore.

We all know new RBs enter the top 5 each year and this year, I see Greene and Charles finishing top 5.

 

[Brady Gaga]

Frank Gore could EASILY put up:

325 / 4.5 ypc / 1,462 rush yds / 12 rush TD's

55 rcpts / 440 recpt yds / 2 recpt TD's

And a #2 PPR ranking

Let's not forget it was only 2006 when he put up over 300 carries and nearly 2,200 total yards and doesn't appear incapable of repeating that.

EASILY? Do you realize that Gore has never had 325 carries, 12 rush TDs, or 14 total TDs? Not even in his ONE SINGLE season where he played in all 16 games?

I realize he has an easy schedule, but in his 5 NFL seasons, he's averaged 234 carries and just over 6 TDs?

SOS isn't the be-all and end-all of projecting stats.

Gore will very likely be a top 5-7 RB, but #2 will be tough.

"Could" - used to express possibility"Will" - used to express certainty

Do you realize that Ray Rice had never had more than 33 receptions in ONE SEASON before he got 78 last year?

Based on Baltimore's addition of Anquan Boldin and Donte Stallworth, a reasonable person *could easily* see Rice's receptions decrease in 2010.

Do you realize that MJD had only 531 rush yds and a 3.7 ypc and 4 total TD's in his FINAL SEVEN GAMES last year and yet his FBG consensus 2010 projections are at 4.5ypc (a 22% increase) and 13-16 TD's?

Given MJD's poor performance over the last nearly half of 2009, a reasonable person *could easily* see him falling short of his projected 4.5 ypc and 13-16 TDs in 2010.

Saying definitively that because something hasn't happened before that it won't happen in the future, as well as the inverse that because it DID happen last year that it is going to happen again pretty much sums up the entire point of my post. The former seems to be the case when evaluating Gore, while the latter seems to the case when evaluating MJD, Rice and Peterson.

This has led to a mortal lock in the projections/rankings for the "Top 4," and a strong burden of proof situation for Gore. But when objectively evaluating all factors (including past performance, predicted future utilization, offensive improvements, talent, situation, injury risk, SOS, etc.), Gore at #2 is as justifiable a selection as either of those three.

By the way, no one is saying SOS is the be-all and end-all of projecting stats. That's just ridiculous.

First-Rice had ONE NFL season in which he "never had more than 33 receptions." Tiny sample size.Second-You're using a 7 game sample for MJD. Tiny sample size.

Third-Gore has played in 5 NFL seasons. In NONE of them has he scored as many TDs as you postulated. In NONE of them has he garnered the number of carries you postulated. In ONLY ONE of them has he been able to play in every game. HUGE SAMPLE SIZE, comparatively speaking.

"Should" -used to express possibility.

"Tough"-used to express difficulty, but no impossibility.

Please show me where I "definitively" said anything.

You post on a FF message board asking whether anyone will rank Gore as #2, and then you get all defensive and whiny when someone doesn't agree with you. Better if you'd have just kept this "great idea" of ranking Gore #2 all to yourself.

Those career TD stats (or lack there of), on top of the injury risk, is exactly why I can't justify taking Gore as high as you would need to in order to get him. Add to that Alex Smith's new found success hitting Vernon Davis in the red zone and I wouldn't be shocked to see Gore finish 2010 with less TDs than Vernon Davis.

 

[Ray_T]

I like Gore a lot, probably more than a lot of people, and I have him on multiple dynasty teams, but... I don't think I would go higher than #5. MJD and Rice are just too good. I think if you want to convince me that Gore should be taken higher than #5, you'd be better off selling me on one of Rice or MJD have a down year than you are to simply tell me about how good Gore and his situation is. The bottom line is that the guys ahead of him are really good and in really good situations, and have less perceived injury risk as well. If you think one of them may fall off, and have good reasons to support that theory, then it would be more compelling.Also...

Anyway, it just seems the guys who do best at FF are the ones who go against the grain sometimes and zig when the herd is zagging.

I have never been convinced of this, but I see this kind of remark constantly. I don't get it. In redrafts, fancy play at the top of the draft isn't how you consistently win, imo. Consistent winners are the guys who just don't make big mistakes early on and draft well in the mid-to-late round picks, snagging guys who are stars before anyone knew about them. Getting zany with the #3 pick rarely works out, in my experience, and I certainly have never seen a pattern of that kind of behavior paying off.

I think #5 is the right spot for him.Even if you think he will produce more, people will draft based on recent production and If I picked at #4 or #5 I would plan on him being available. It wouldnt surprise me if he's gone, but I'd expect otherwise.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Looks like Heitmann- the Center for the past few years is out for 6-8 weeks with broken leg......... How bad does this hurt Gore?

I don't know anything about his backups, but this can't be good when SF is working 2 rookies into the lineup on the oline. The only positive is that it happened early in camp so whoever replaces him will have a month to mesh with the line.

 

[PhantomJB]

Looks like Heitmann- the Center for the past few years is out for 6-8 weeks with broken leg......... How bad does this hurt Gore?

From what I understand, although not believed to be highly talented, at 9years in the league Heitman is the vet presence on the O-line. With the recent promotion of rookies Davis and Iupati to starters, it may be cause for concern to be without the main guy presumably calling coverages in training camp while the rookies try to develop. Speaking for myself, it's definitely worth monitoring to see if the O-line looks a little out of synch during preseason games and if that is the case could temper my own (admittedly) enthusiastic outlook ...

ETA: Sorry, DM, for basically repeating your words but was writing when you posted. In addition, below is a link to this morning's SF Chronicle that basically says David Baas (who was displaced by one of the rookies at G) will be moving over to center for the time being.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../SPV11ERGMB.DTL

 

[Heep]

No way I take him #2! Why? Not because he's not worth it. But because almost everyone values CJ and ADP above him. So why not take one of those 2, and then work a deal with the Gore owner for Gore + something. Heck you might even be able to swap your 2nd or 4th round picks too. Say Gore falls to 5, you could trade ADP and your 2nd (say 23rd overall in a 12 teamer) for Gore and his 2nd (20th overall). It's only a few spots but it could be the difference between a Tier 1 and Tier 2 player...