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!
No. Bloom was right on when he said that Mendenhall isn't as natural a pass-catcher. Although I don't think that aspect of a game is a knock on him, Stewart's got better hands and McFadden is more dangerous in open space.
I guess this depends on the definition of pretty decent. No Johnson, Edwards/Fitz, true; but imo, no Holmes, Marshall, Jennings, Colston, either. I don't see a Bowe or even a Rice. Certainly someone will emerge, but the best of this crew is very reminiscent of Meachem or Jarrett to me. Those two may get on track this season, and their may be a Colston hiding in the hay stack (I have some ideas on a couple); but this group of wides is pretty decent in depth like 06, but pretty lacking in high impact upside. Kelly is a big outlier to me. I thought for sure Sweed would outrun him at the Combine. I wish he competed. Sweed was supposed to be so slow, but he's got quite an impressive stride on him. Very fluid list right now...ThomasSweedHardyJacksonKellyI could be convinced to take any of them as WR1 at this point, but that is how I currently see the top 5 WRs. The reason I have no interest in any of them (non-ppr) before the top ten backs is this...CaldwellManninghamDoucetBennettBurtonetc about five more times...EBF said:
I've seen most of Stewart's career (missed maybe a game a year). He came on late catching the ball, but he's not natural. He's been benched for other backs because of his struggles in this department. The improvement came from a lot of work, it was never natural. His coaches have said as much for three years. Mendenhall, I have seen much less of and feel less qualified to comment on, but what I did see last season, he looked very comfortable in the flats snatching the ball in stride and accelerating downfield. I'd like both you and Bloom to discuss this is in more detail... examples would be great. I am very curious about this topic, and very open-minded.
Who?
Bloom hasn't responded, but I would think a big reason he has WRs higher then most is a value issue.I am under the assumption that he is ranking the rookies if he had to have a rookie draft prior to the NFL draft(which some leagues do). This changes things alot and affects the 2nd-3rd tier players the most. Pre-draft, after the top 3-4 RBs there is a pretty level group of RBs who will move up and down boards based on the team they are drafted by. If you are drafting now and have 1.05 or higher, you will be sitting with a huge group of RBs who have have question marks and no one knows where they will go. I would rather grab Kelly at 1.06 for someone who should be drafted into a starting role and then try to trade back up to 1.11-1.12 cheaply and grab whoever of the Charles, Smith, Forte, Johnson, etc falls. Without having a team, IMO these guys are all almost an equal pick. It is pretty much a lesson in VBD at this point. The top QB/WR have a larger value gap than the difference between RB6-RB10
Plus consider that alot of good RBs will go to teams that will not start them anytime soon.So you'll get a decent WR who goes to a team he might start on in a year or two at most (if he pans out) vs a RB who could be far enough back on the depth chart where you won't be able to keep him on your roster.In terms of Fantasy value, it makes sense. I might really like Chris Johnson more than Devin Thomas, say, but if Johnson is 2nd or 3rd on a depth chart, he's got less value to me, depending upon who is in front.Whereas Thomas might be higher on the depth chart and produce more, sooner (barring injury).All the above names are hypothetical of course, but you get the gist.EBF said:
I've said it before- I envision moving some of the 2nd tier backs down a notch when they are inevidibly drafted as clear-cut backups. But there are several intruiging openings such as ARZ, CLE, SEA, where they will need a young guy to compete for a starting job in the near future. Not to mention HOU, TB, DET, CHI, ATL and a few others are certain to take a dip into the Rookie RB pool (...or go after Michael Turner).
haterrrrrr.You can make an argument for Sweed, Hardy, Kelly and MAYYYBE Manningham (I'm sure you would agree there) over Thomas. But none of the guys in the next tier have the whole package like Thomas. Don't get me wrong, I like the depth behind the guys I mentioned... I think there will be a handful of eventual pro-Bowlers in this draft... but it's too tough to say who will surprise. Thomas' experience is the only question I have.
I've made the comparison of this year's WR group to the 2006 group in the past. The thing people forget is that Holmes, Jennings, and Marshall weren't widely touted as difference makers and yet they eventually emerged as top 20 type dynasty receivers. I think we'll see that same thing happen this year. Sure, there isn't an obvious lock for success like Fitzgerald or Calvin, but there are guys with talent who will make an impact. I feel pretty good about this group overall.
I'm particularly enamored with Kelly, and I was open to putting Thomas in the elite before his combine, pretty much sold after.Rodeojones said:
I am already feeling like maybe I was giving Charles upside a little bit too much weight. My gut feeling is much more bust than boom on him after watching him a lot the last three years - Still, with his destination unknown, its hard to quantify him because if it all lines up, he could be a quite a stud. At what point is he worth the risk? Maybe it should be closer to 12-13, but not much lower.
I could see putting Forte as high as 7th right now - the 7-13 range is very much unsettled in my mind. I really like Forte, but Im afraid he's going to get lost in the shuffle and fall to the 3rd and a bad situation. He is definitely the next RB on my list, and I wouldnt argue if you took him ahead of Jones or Charles.
It's more like, Devin Thomas had a great senior year and then punctuated it with a sick combine. He was already pretty high on my list before the combine, I just wanted to see if he could rise to the occasion, and man did he.
I was more enamored with Kelly before this year. This year, when Bradford needed a catch, he looked for Iglesias far more often than he looked to Kelly. In that offense, with a QB as accurate as Bradford, I found Kelly's production to be a little light this year.
I can agree with all of that, but my problem is feeling like I have as good a chance of landing a guy who will make an impact in rounds 2-4 of a rookie draft as I do in the first. I got Jennings in the 2nd, missed Marshall early in the 3rd, grabbed James Jones in the 5th, Colston after the draft, and I see maybe more of that type of opportunity in this class than even 06., Thus again, I'll take an RB first and let that first tier of WRs fall and pick from what's left. I'm not convinced there is a break in the first tier of WRs for about 12 names. A validating Pro Day from Kelly will interest me. I agree with Wildman about Thomas. But for all I know (and wouldn't be surprised by) Keenan Burton and Earl Bennett may actually be the two best WRs in this class, or maybe Manningham and Caldwell, or Doucet and Avery or. That kind of noncommitment could be said of any group, sort of weaseling out of an opinion, but at this point of the process, I've never seen such a fog. Not even in 06. This fog is more condensed and deeper. If that makes sense...
Hmmmm, so 11, 12, 13 must consist of Forte and 2 of the following: Kevin Smith, Chris Johnson, Limas Sweed, DeSean Jackson, Mario Manningham, and Brian Brohm.My guess is Sweed and Smith.If so, I understand why you'd be low on Johnson. I've been wavering on Chris Johnson for weeks and I think his ranking will be heavily dependent on where he is drafted.
Tell me about it. I had Kelly on my fantasy team and there were games that he had 0 catches
I'll give you one example on what sold me on Stewart as a receiver - against USC this year during the two minute drill to end the first half, there was a play where Stewart was about 15 yards downfield as an outlet, and Dixon threw the ball way too high. Stewart skied, caught the ball behind his head with soft hands at full extension and put the ball away before he came down to secure the catch even though he was wide open for the big hit.I can't even tell you the last time I saw an RB make a catch at full extension like that. Its very very hard with RB shoulder pads. He might not be consistent yet, but he can do more as an athlete in the passing game than Mendenhall. Mendenhall is definitely excellent on screens and short passes, but he catches the ball like an RB. Stewart showed me the ability to make WR plays.
I miss your cat on the couch profile pic.All are money leagues. The Misfits & Outlaws leagues and the HyperActive leagues are pretty well known on this board, made up mostly of FBG message boarders and staff.But let's talk about Bloom's list instead.Or, a easy way too put it Stewart won't be in your top 2.It would have been interesting to see.Did you at least win money in those Leagues?Do you play in any money leagues?I don't have a top 10. I don't have any rookie drafts until after the NFL draft so I don't have to think about it very hard until I know what teams they land on (how's that for a cop out answerI guess what all your League Champs under your belt, we should have you rank your top 10.So what is your top 10?I've always suspected EBF is just a Bloom alias. Now I know it's true.
)
I agree with you CC - Im surprised how much I like the guys in the 5-15 range at WR in this class. All kinds of styles and strengths too. There are also a few outside of the 15 that I expect to surprise, including Reynaud - another CC guy that we were all late to the party on.People out there, you should listen to what this guy says as much as me or anyone else (if not more)
Makes perfect sense to me, and I think you hit the nail on the head. This is as deep of a rookie class for fantasy football as I can remember but IMO most of the running back value will be off the board by early in the 2nd round. You can surely grab a Kelly, Sweedy, Hardy or Thomas in the first but you'll be passing up some quality running backs in the process. While it may be hard to pass on one of the perceived "first tier" wide receivers, I think the value in this draft lies in grabbing a running back early and then trying to acquire a few of the Bennett, Caldwell, Doucet, Avery and Bowman types later on.
I love Burton and Bennett too. Chaos...we're on the same page about WRs in many respects.
Very true, that's the most impressive catch Stewart made in his career. Surprised I couldn't find it on youtube. He stretched just about as much as he could, although he didn't get up very high, it was impressive nonethless. All 3 of these guys will be as big of a threat out of the backfield as anyone, except for Chris Johnson and I'd say in a generic system, they'd be good for 30-40 catches each year. I'll maybe give a slight edge to McFadden for Reception potential given his explosiveness in the open field.
Thanks, I think I remember that play. I am rethinking this. I have Stewart 3rd for no other reason than I expect him to get Kevin Faulked by some 3rd down RB. He is a more impressive all around package than any of them. EBF, nevermind that PM. I'll probably just take Stewart and live with Bloom's mistake.
PS: Glad to see the 100 rolling. Looking forward to the rest much more than the top 10. 
Me three. Bennett isn't the most explosive player, but he is so well rounded it's hard to imagine he'll be anything less than a career #2 WR, and more likely a 1b. Burton is an underrated red-zone threat as he has great hands and concentration on jump balls from what I've seen. Experts have been talking him up more as a specialist who may also contribute in the return game, but I can see him potentially developing into a shorter version of Sidney Rice.
Me too. I still have it in my files, but FBG changed its parameters on avatar sizes and it got removed. :( So I pulled it from my leagues too.I miss your cat on the couch profile pic.All are money leagues. The Misfits & Outlaws leagues and the HyperActive leagues are pretty well known on this board, made up mostly of FBG message boarders and staff.But let's talk about Bloom's list instead.Or, a easy way too put it Stewart won't be in your top 2.It would have been interesting to see.Did you at least win money in those Leagues?Do you play in any money leagues?I don't have a top 10. I don't have any rookie drafts until after the NFL draft so I don't have to think about it very hard until I know what teams they land on (how's that for a cop out answerI guess what all your League Champs under your belt, we should have you rank your top 10.So what is your top 10?I've always suspected EBF is just a Bloom alias. Now I know it's true.
)
You're welcome!
Absolutely - there are some interesting spots (as you named) where the return will be quicker than not. The Cards, Browns and Seahawks are especially interesting to me in the next two years (even with Jamal signed for a few years).In fact I like CLE as a spot for a complimentary back as well - someone whose skill set is different than Lewis, and might be production - though not wildly so - right away.
I can't find the link, but we did a poll on this last year and it was about 60-40 in favor of NON PPR leagues. Just because the high stakes leagues do it does not make it right. Logic tells you two things. 1) RB's are overinflated already, so why give them credit for a glorified handoff to add to their value? 2) This is an artificial scoring methodology (you could argue everything is), in that you are rewarding something that by itself has no value (no different than giving a point for a handoff).If you wanted to give a half a point to WR's because you felt the need to boost the WR's a little I could at least say that it had some merit. My personal opinion is that the yards are already being accounted for so why reward the reception, but at least for WR's there is some logic to it.Fullback Fro said:
Just for the record, I am not one to just throw my opinion out there and say everyone else is foolish. I have played in 3 leagues for 7 years or so. In one we got rid of PPR because of the artificial nature and that RB's were worth way too much (they already over slightly overvalued because of scarcity and starting 2). One league nobody wanted PPR and ion another league that was full PPR we went to .5 PPR for WR and TE's ONLY. In the contest done by Dodds, I believe he gave .5 to RB's, 1 to WR's and 1.5 to TE's. This works OK, but why not just drop each .5 so RB's don;t get credit for glorified handoffs?Anyone who does not play PPR should try.brock said:Fullback Fro said:
Zealots fault for not including PPR shouldn't be everyone else's burden. Either you are with the times or live in the stone ages.
I'm in a Zealots league and the only thing I dislike about it is that it's NOT PPR.
My point isn't that Zealots is right, it's that there are 60 leagues, or 720 teams, or with overlap ~450? owners who play non-PPR and are interested in non-PPR rankings. It takes a TON of other leagues to make up for that.I'm in a Zealots league and the only thing I dislike about it is that it's NOT PPR.
I see. But my point was that I think Zealots is missing the boat by not being PPR. But it gets voted down every year because it would be "unfair" to those teams that have good WRs. :shakeshead:My point isn't that Zealots is right, it's that there are 60 leagues, or 720 teams, or with overlap ~450? owners who play non-PPR and are interested in non-PPR rankings. It takes a TON of other leagues to make up for that.I'm in a Zealots league and the only thing I dislike about it is that it's NOT PPR.
I agree. First, I like Forte's mix of six and measurables and production. I don't understand why he isn't ranked higher by more people. And as far as fantasy QBs, I have come to conclusion that it is never worth drafting any of them in first round of rookie draft unless you are in a two QB league. Their likelihood of panning out is too low and unpredictable--a third round NFL pick is almost as likely to succeed as a first rounder. Plus, it takes too long for them to develop. Better to let someone else draft them and then pick them up in a year or two after they have been dropped when they finally string together a couple of strong games.
We could argue this all day and not agree, and it would just distract from Bloom's work here; but IMO, a RB who is also a decent receiver is more beneficial to a team than one that can just run, so we should add .5 or 1 pt per receptionJust for the record, I am not one to just throw my opinion out there and say everyone else is foolish. I have played in 3 leagues for 7 years or so. In one we got rid of PPR because of the artificial nature and that RB's were worth way too much (they already over slightly overvalued because of scarcity and starting 2). One league nobody wanted PPR and ion another league that was full PPR we went to .5 PPR for WR and TE's ONLY. In the contest done by Dodds, I believe he gave .5 to RB's, 1 to WR's and 1.5 to TE's. This works OK, but why not just drop each .5 so RB's don;t get credit for glorified handoffs?Anyone who does not play PPR should try.brock said:Fullback Fro said:
Even my last comment saying that 60% of the people wanted NON PPR leagues doesn't really prove that it is better. My opinion is just that, but having more people agree does not necessarily make it true (as we see in the top 100 music charts)
I don't want to hijack Blooms thread, but for those of you who are looking for a fairer way to score, I have yet to hear a single argument why anyone would want PPR. The only arguments for PPR are that people have played that way and they are used to it. Because giving a point to a RB for a reception isn't rewarding anything that leads to production on the field (you are already getting the yards) and then you might as well reward a RB for every hand off they get? This discussion went on prior and after many pages, it was either "that is what I like" compared to "an analysis shows that rewarding points for PPR gives an even more unfair advantage to the RB's and the advantage isn't even something that has meaning in football."Sorry Bloom; I won't comment anymore.I'm in a Zealots league and the only thing I dislike about it is that it's NOT PPR.
