Couch Potato 2013 Offseason Dynasty Rankings (1 Viewer)

[Bruce Hammond]

This thread is as good as it gets in the shark pool. Thanks CP.

I love that some of our best board posters like to chime in and make me think harder, and whether I end up defending a position (Ben) or modifying it (Bryce Brown), it makes my rankings better at least in my own mind.

I haven't mentioned a lot of guys by name who have posted in here, but I appreciate each and every one of you for posting your thought, agree or disagree. And if I've been a wise a** or made some seemingly snooty or condescending comment toward anyone, it was probably meant to be cute or funny and it just went over badly. I do that sometimes and it's cuter in my head than it comes out on the screen. Sorry if anything I've said has annoyed. Again, thanks for everyone's contributions!

 

[Tau837]

joey, on 12 Apr 2013 - 18:22, said:This thread is as good as it gets in the shark pool. Thanks CP.

It's easily the best thread of the offseason so far IMO. The quality of discussion in this thread is what the F&L Dynasty Rankings thread used to contain.

 

[King of the Jungle]

I will go as far as saying this is the best thing FBG has....thanks Bruce. This is my opinion and I am dynasty driven.

This is random and slightly off topic....but I love the thread for dynasty purposes and am just throwing it out there....

I think Sam Bradford is bar-none the best dynasty fantasy QB available.

Short reason:

* The Rams swindled the Skins and gathered a plentiful amount of picks to add to a young talented roster.

* The workhorse RB (SJax) is gone.

* Look at his stats, he has not been that bad. Injuries and oline have hurt performance.

* Jake Long

* Jared Cook and maturation of the receivers. They will add a playmaker in the draft.

Bradford is accurate and has not had a chance to develop with an OC for two years in a row until now. He is a #1 overall that can be had for cheap. Go get him!

 

[thriftyrocker]

I think Sam Bradford is bar-none the best dynasty fantasy QB available.

Convince me his upside is more than low QB1.

 

[King of the Jungle]

I think Sam Bradford is bar-none the best dynasty fantasy QB available.

Convince me his upside is more than low QB1.

Oops... that is the beer talking a little. I do think the Rams are heading in the right direction and Sam statiscally has performed well under the circumstances (poor oline performance, poor wr core....etc). He is accurate and if he can stay healthy I think he is a buy low.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

I think Sam Bradford is bar-none the best dynasty fantasy QB available.

Convince me his upside is more than low QB1.

Oops... that is the beer talking a little. I do think the Rams are heading in the right direction and Sam statiscally has performed well under the circumstances (poor oline performance, poor wr core....etc). He is accurate and if he can stay healthy I think he is a buy low.

But I think the question is why? Why buy him low at all even if he is cheap, if his upside is a low-end QB1? You can buy those for peanuts in a start-1 QB league, especially if they're older. I wouldn't do anything to buy Bradford unless I thought he had top-5 upside, or at least consistent top-8 upside. Top-12 or top-15 does nothing for a dynasty roster, again in a start-1 QB league. Its just not worth pursuing, unless you're in need of a backup QB or in desperate need of a starter on a competitor, and in that case you wouldn't go after a young guy with risks, you'd go after a proven, steady vet who is cheaper and easier to acquire.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Right. I do think Bradford's situation has improved, and I don't hate him. But it's hard to imagine him jumping into 4500/35 area which is basically what he'd have to do to get excited. If you're just day trading hoping he improves this year, you might get a little bit of a return but not much.

I am buying/holding STL skill players, though.

 

[miqws]

I have Bradford, bought cheap - you get what you pay for today. Assuming better line play, how well Bradford goes through his read progressions (i.e do not get sacked!) and the young receivers being on the same page is key to jumping into relevance. I'd be optimitic for 2014 if Bradford is a low end QB1 at the end of this year, and dumping if no progress is shown.

 

[loose circuits]

Bruce, I bought into your Blackmon hype and sold Julio for Blackmon & Alf....we'll see if it works out

 

[SSOG]

I will go as far as saying this is the best thing FBG has....thanks Bruce. This is my opinion and I am dynasty driven. This is random and slightly off topic....but I love the thread for dynasty purposes and am just throwing it out there.... I think Sam Bradford is bar-none the best dynasty fantasy QB available. Short reason: * The Rams swindled the Skins and gathered a plentiful amount of picks to add to a young talented roster.* The workhorse RB (SJax) is gone.* Look at his stats, he has not been that bad. Injuries and oline have hurt performance.* Jake Long* Jared Cook and maturation of the receivers. They will add a playmaker in the draft. Bradford is accurate and has not had a chance to develop with an OC for two years in a row until now. He is a #1 overall that can be had for cheap. Go get him!

His volume stats are alright, but his efficiency stats are not. He's never topped 7 YPA, his TD:int ratio is uninspiring, his QB rating ranks 27th among active QBs, and his adjusted net yards per attempt ranks 28th. I don't think you can blame it on his weapons, either- Laurent Robinson left St. Louis for Dallas and then blew up. Danario Alexander left St. Louis for San Diego and then blew up. Watch Amendola do the same in New England. Jared Cook is a promising TE, but so was Kendricks when St. Louis spent a premium pick on him. Stephen Jackson was one of the top receiving backs in the league. Bradford always has had plenty of weapons, he just hasn't done anything with them. This makes me less optimistic about his chances of making good use of any new weapons going forward. I'm not a buyer on Bradford.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Bradford always has had plenty of weapons,

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Bradford is not Romo, especially the 2010 version of Bradford that was paired with Laurent Robinson for a sip of coffee while Laurent struggled to stay on the team, but Laurent isn't Miles Austin either. Laurent put in one decent year as a good WR2/WR3 for a good offense. He's not a WR1 despite what JAX paid him. Danario was rarely healthy before last year, and the sporadic games where Danario was healthy, Bradford had some very good games. Kendricks as much as I overdrafted him was never an elite prospect at TE and his success was tied to Bradford's coattails. Danny Amendola was a bottomfeeder player before last year but then got hurt. Stephen Jackson got cut from the Spurs today, I don't even know why you are mentioning him.

He never had weapons. He still may never be a great or noteworthy QB, and it's never an excuse given other QBs have done more with similar drech whether its Brady, McNabb, Cutler, or whoever. But let's not pretend the parade of misfit toys he's thrown to were some diamonds in the rough. Amendola can thank the Rams FO for never investing in WR and allowing to have all those targets when he couldn't even survive DAL and PHI roster cuts.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

I'm getting a later start tonight than expected, but the RB rankings in Post #3 have now been updated.

I've added a Rk Chg number after each ranking to show the movement since the previous rankings.

I'm headed over to the FBG dynasty rankings page to update RBs there now, and then I'm not sure if I'll have time for more posts tonight since I have to go do something a little over an hour from now in the real world.

BH

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Pead/Richardson -- There is a full blown, much-discussed thread on the topic of these guys and the STL RB situation. I've read that thread so I'm familiar with the positions folks have taken, and I believe I posted some short comments in it sometime earlier this offseason myself. I'd rather this thread not get too bogged down in the same debates for pages since that thread is there for that purpose, but I was asked why I have such disparate rankings for the two RBs so I will answer. For those who like Richardson, I'm afraid I'm about to give a rather unsatisfying and unconvincing answer, but it's my position nonetheless.

After my update today, I have Pead at RB28 (-2) and Richardson at RB45 (unchanged). I also have Ganaway at RB86 (unch).

The STL organization and HC Fisher drafted Pead in 2012 with the intention of making him the heir apparent in 2013 in anticipation of the likely departure of SJax, and I believe they remain with that intention. Comparisons were made to Chris Johnson by Fisher when drafting Pead, and when discussing Pead this offseason nothing has been said to make me think Fisher's faith in Pead has changed. Pead is a better running back IMO than Richardson based on the body of work in college and the level of competition. I believe that, and more importantly I believe the STL organization believes it. He had a slow start to his career based on 2012 when compared to Richardson, yes, but I won't let last year's numbers cloud my judgment as to who the better back is going to be in the future.

Richardson was drafted as a supplementary player, and I'm not giving real weight to his stats last year when saying I think he will remain a supplementary role player going forward. Scream bloody murder, call me ignorant, whatever you want, that's my position. People wasted several years waiting for Richardson's brother Bernard Scott (also from Ab. Christian, as is their other brother Clyde Gates by the way) to take over in Cincy, which of course never happened. Richardson will also be a role player and that's all. Board members regularly speculate better futures for these backup types than are warranted, and he's just not as good as Pead.

That's why I have Pead at RB28 and Richardson in a group of a half dozen guys at RB42-47 with maybe a 25-30% chance of becoming more than RBBC-light type players (Hillman DEN, Hunter SF, Tate HOU, Richardson STL, Pierce BAL, James SF). The reason Pead is lower than where I'd put a typical young starter is not out of fear of Richardson being the lead back, but the small concern a highly drafted rookie this year could end up being the guy instead. Also there's the likelihood Ganaway or another bigger back will get the lion's share of short and goal line duty, thus capping Pead's upside.

 

[SayWhat?]

RB update looks good, though one question/nitpick...why do you have a 32 year old McGahee as high as he is? There seem to be 20-30+ backs ranked below him that I'd take over McGahee without a second thought. I assume you think he's the guy in Denver for one more year? TIA

 

[Crippler]

I agree this post is great but why no PK as I love the format that you do with Age and contract. PK is an O position and it has more value in 16 team or greater leagues and even more in my home league

Would love this for IDP also. Jene has nice rankings but this format is awesome.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

I agree this post is great but why no PK as I love the format that you do with Age and contract. PK is an O position and it has more value in 16 team or greater leagues and even more in my home league

Would love this for IDP also. Jene has nice rankings but this format is awesome.

I wouldn't be against posting PK rankings, but for most people it's not considered very important. Let me put it on my to do list but not as a priority. The rankings would be pretty close to redraft rankings too. I actually have this wonky little process I use to rank them which has more to do with team offenses and defenses and projected team wins than with the PKs themselves, and it generally works reasonably well except for Jankowski OAK. He's an enigma who should never be putting up the points he does on a team that bad.

I've never had any interest in being in IDP leagues and wouldn't be interested in the time commitment required to provide and maintain IDP rankings, especially when I have no fantasy expertise on that side of the ball. I'm just not the guy for that.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

RB update looks good, though one question/nitpick...why do you have a 32 year old McGahee as high as he is? There seem to be 20-30+ backs ranked below him that I'd take over McGahee without a second thought. I assume you think he's the guy in Denver for one more year? TIA

The McGahee RB57 ranking is currently an on-the-fence ranking, waiting to see if he remains as starter one more year, sticks as a complementary player, or is cut.

That ranking is well below what his PPG stats of the last two years in DEN would warrant, and another year's commitment to him by the Broncos would give him tangible value. One year of starter value at that level is worth more than a career worth of most all of the backups listed below him. If I believed firmly this would be his situation in 2013 I'd probably have him ranked around RB40.

The next level (complementary player to a rookie) would probably have me ranking him somewhere around where I have similarly old and complementary RB72 Fred Jackson.

If McGahee is cut as has been speculated in some circles, his value becomes pretty much nonexistent and behind the 30 RBs you mentioned, down in RB95/96 Turner/Benson territory, guys still listed in case they latch on somewhere but whose careers may be effectively over from a fantasy standpoint.

Remember though that priority #1 is keeping Manning healthy, and John Fox is the HC. That combination doesn't lend itself to a rookie coming in and taking over right away. Moreno is an alternative to start, but the team wasn't in love with him last year and when pretty much forced into starting him after McGahee went down he produced due to volume of carries, but was not as good as old Willis had been. Hillman isn't going to be trusted to be lead back and protect Manning in 2013, and no one else on the roster is qualified to start. Bradshaw and Wells are out there, but Bradshaw is more likely to end up elsewhere and Wells' health issues are reportedly still a big concern, more than Bradshaw's are. So, I don't think we can decide yet what the season holds for the starting DEN RB position, and McGahee may still be in the mix. Until I know more, he is parked where I have him at RB57.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Comparisons were made to Chris Johnson by Fisher when drafting Pead

Thanks for the response. For what it's worth, Fisher compared Richardson to Chris Johnson after training camp.Truth be told neither player has close to the speed Johnson had while Fisher was there.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

QBs updated 4/13. Of note:

RGIII/Brees switched at 4/5.

Wilson moved up 3 spots, past PM, Brady, Kaep. Kaep still below PM and Brady.

Some minor switching in Tier 4.

Geno Smith moved to 2 spots to Tier 4, past Rivers and Ben, with Rivers dropping into Ben's tier.

Some movement in Tiers 6&7. Rookie Barkley up, other rookies down, Mallett and Osweiler up into Tier 6.

Henne up/Gabbert down and one spot below Henne, as my hunch is Henne emerges from preseason with job.

TEs updated 4/13. Of note:

No change to Gronk's TE1 status despite arm problem news. Even if not ready Week 1, rock solid long term TE1.

V Davis error correction posted about earlier, from TE18 to TE13 where I meant to have him, moving other Tier 4 guys down a spot accordingly.

Also in that tier, switched Pettigrew and Gonzo at 15/16. Right now I'd take one year of Gonzo over the guys below him. (Considered moving F Davis ahead of him but the Achilles recovery is unknown and RGIII wasn't using him heavily before injury.)

Owen Daniels dropped to Tier 5. Extra risk with him I think post-age 30 with history of injuries and contract up in 2014.

Housler moved up to Tier 5, Cameron down to Tier 6.

James Casey added to TEs as discussed upthread, to TE32.

A fair amount of pushing guys up and down in Tier 8.

Also, as with the RB update posted 4/12, the rank change since the previous posted rankings is now shown for QB and TE

I hope to update WR on Sunday.

 

[ShaHBucks]

* The Rams swindled the Skins and gathered a plentiful amount of picks to add to a young talented roster.

No such thing as a swindle if you get a franchise QB like RG3.

 

[Kree]

CP, I'm interested in your views on Ben Tate... We've seen him produce, we've seen him get injured... I know it's a while back, but second round RB talent is all right these days, and given his relatively young age, I think he could have very good value if he moved into the right situation eventually. I was wondering if you could elaborate on his middlin' ranking. Not that I in particular think he should be ridiculously higher, but on first glance, I can't really think of 43 talents I would put ahead of him.

Without actually thinking about it, I might have him as high as low-mid 30s. Prefer him to Goodson, Ball, Williams, BJGE (From an age/potential POV), HIllman, Pead... And he's shown he has SOME value in his current situation at least.

Either way, appreciated your rankings! Always good to get another perspective that's obviously got some thought behind it.

 

[King of the Jungle]

* The Rams swindled the Skins and gathered a plentiful amount of picks to add to a young talented roster.

No such thing as a swindle if you get a franchise QB like RG3.

Time will tell if RG3 will be able to stay on the field long enough to prove that true. Bottomline is the Rams have enough faith in their QB and with that trade will be able to add a lot of young talent to the roster. Great trade for the Rams.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

QBs updated 4/13. Of note: RGIII/Brees switched at 4/5.Wilson moved up 3 spots, past PM, Brady, Kaep. Kaep still below PM and Brady.Some minor switching in Tier 4.Geno Smith moved to 2 spots to Tier 4, past Rivers and Ben, with Rivers dropping into Ben's tier.Some movement in Tiers 6&7. Rookie Barkley up, other rookies down, Mallett and Osweiler up into Tier 6.Henne up/Gabbert down and one spot below Henne, as my hunch is Henne emerges from preseason with job. TEs updated 4/13. Of note: No change to Gronk's TE1 status despite arm problem news. Even if not ready Week 1, rock solid long term TE1.V Davis error correction posted about earlier, from TE18 to TE13 where I meant to have him, moving other Tier 4 guys down a spot accordingly.Also in that tier, switched Pettigrew and Gonzo at 15/16. Right now I'd take one year of Gonzo over the guys below him. (Considered moving F Davis ahead of him but the Achilles recovery is unknown and RGIII wasn't using him heavily before injury.)Owen Daniels dropped to Tier 5. Extra risk with him I think post-age 30 with history of injuries and contract up in 2014.Housler moved up to Tier 5, Cameron down to Tier 6.James Casey added to TEs as discussed upthread, to TE32.A fair amount of pushing guys up and down in Tier 8. Also, as with the RB update posted 4/12, the rank change since the previous posted rankings is now shown for QB and TE I hope to update WR on Sunday.

Reason for the Wilson move? Personally I like kaepr better. And in a startup would take kaepr over the Brees brady Peyton.

 

[bigmarc27]

Any reason why Kendall Hunter is above LaMichael? Don't disagree really, just looking for discussion.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Hey gang... I've been mostly away from work and football since 4/15, getting some R&R after an exhausting couple of work weeks to wrap up tax season. Sorry more questions in this thread have not been addressed by now, but I think over the next three days I'll be able to get to most of them.

The rankings for QB RB WR and TE have been updated as of early this AM (4/19).

The biggest changes are to pre-draft rankings of rookies. As mentioned in post #1, for rookies I take the player rankings and projected draft rounds provided by NFLDRAFTSCOUT.COM and slot players within my vet rankings where I think there's a reasonable chance they might fall. They updated their rookie rankings and projected draft rounds as of 4/17, and I have made my new best guesses accordingly. Unless your rookie draft is before the NFL draft, this is mostly for amusement (or rookie trade pick purposes I suppose) since once the draft takes place next week it'll all change again, in some cases dramatically.

Other changes have been made too. I had already done an update for QB RB TE but not WR prior to my hiatus, so WR has more changes today.

Of note (aside from rookies):

QB

Freeman TB +2, Cutler -2 swap

Weeden CLE -3

RB

Bush DET +3

Stewart CAR +3

Mathews SD -2

Ivory NO +32, Goodson NYJ -2, Powel NYJ -10 in anticipation of the Ivory trade to NYJ I now believe will take place this offseason. If the talks break off, Ivory goes back to being RB4 on his team and again moves lower.

Some shuffling of the RB41-47 group

Turbin SEA +6

WR

Nelson GB +1, Cruz NYG -1 swap

Amendola NE +3, Sanders PIT +5 after Sanders stayed with PIT.

Some shuffling of the lower part of Tier 4

Brandon Lloyd -5 as he continues to drop due to concerns about finding a meaningful landing spot and role now that it appears less likely he'll re-sign with NE.

Morgan NO +25 as it is becoming clearer he'll play a larger part of offense a la Meachem/Henderson in years past rather than being just a depth bench player.

Streater OAK and Wright MIN both -9 as I feel I had them over-ranked before, not due to any news.

Donald Jones NE +20 into the bottom of Tier 6 as I'm liking his chances of having a meaningful role better than before.

Streeter BAL +48 but still just into Tier 7 as it looks like he's being given consideration for more playing time than I'd thought before.

Massaquoi JAC +34 as he lands in JAC and at least back on the radar with a chance for meaningful playing time.

TE

Eifert +1, Rudolph MIN -1 swap

Finley GB +1, Ertz -1 swap

Cameron CLE +4 to TE21 as I'm liking more and more his situation and role in the Chud/Norv TE-friendly offense.

Ballard +6 (TE42)

 

[Biabreakable]

What happened with Eifert recently that I missed? Many people seem to be ranking him just ahead of Rudolph here the last day or so. What did I miss?

I am not sure if it will be Cameron or perhaps a rookie or both, but I would expect at least one TE player in Cleveland to be a good player to own in the new offense. Richardson provides the running threat that will make the play action work well. I have liked some of what I have seen of Weeden also, but I do not expect him to progress quite as much as a young QB could from year 1 to year 2. I do think the coaching and personel have been upgraded though.

With the league trending more towards pass heavy offense, the few teams that go against the grain on this I think are gaining some advantage. Because defenses are morphing more into packages that can defend the pass, the teams are not as well equipped to deal with a team that runs the ball more than it passes,

The Browns are one of those teams. A strong running game makes the play action work but I still wonder somewhat about Weedens track record with TE? I know Flash Gordon will be taking advantage of this. Considering pizza face and Chuds track records, I think a TE is going to be a major part of their offense. If Weeden is not the guy for that, some one else will be. Watson and Cameron combined for 69 catches last season. With Watson gone and targets to the position perhaps increasing that is a lot of unclaimed action. I do think the Browns will add a TE through the draft. But without a 2nd round pick I wonder if it will be a player who could take Cameron from that role.

Cameron 40 targets 20 catches needs to improve for the targets to double I think. Watson was about 60% catch rate on 82 targets, Cameron could get those if the Browns do not add a major threat to those targets. Cameron did have a decent 11.3 ypc. Weeden got it to the TE enough that I do not see that being a problem. They may only have one main receiving TE and if Cameron is that guy should have some solid opportunity. If he can improve the catch percentage then he should be able to hang on to the job awhile. I wonder if the Browns might prefer him as a blocking TE though and go with someone else in the receiving role if they are not balanced.

From some stuff I read I recall them talking about using Richardson more in the passing game. So some of these 120 or so targets might be going Richardsons way if the TE are not up to task.

5 takeaways from Browns’ first minicampPosted by Vic Carucci on April 19, 2013 – 5:07 pm



By Vic Carucci, Senior Editor

Here are my five biggest takeaways from the Browns’ first minicamp week:

>>One thing that jumped out at me during the three days of Browns minicamp practices this week was the faster pace of the offense. This is a top priority of new offensive coordinator Norv Turner. He’s instilling in Brandon Weeden, and the rest of the quarterbacks, the importance of functioning with a greater sense of urgency. And Weeden, Jason Campbell, and Thaddeus Lewis seem to be grasping the concept, along with the other members of the offense. In particular, Weeden seemed to get the ball out of his hand more quickly than he generally did as a rookie last year.

>>Turner wasted no time demonstrating how aggressive the passing game will be. The first play from scrimmage in team drills was a long throw that Weeden completed to Josh Gordon. Weeden looks extremely comfortable working in a scheme that calls for him to frequently be in shotgun formation (as was the case when he was at Oklahoma State) and to often throw deep. The receivers also seem to enjoy the more attack-oriented mentality of the offense, although they will need more time to learn all of the finer points about where to line up and how to deal with all of the motion and adjusting before the snap.

>>Tight end Jordan Cameron seems to be in the best physical condition since he joined the Browns as a fourth-round draft pick in 2011. And it is showing up in his performance. He’s moving with excellent speed and explosiveness, and making athletic plays. Cameron looks to be more confident in how to play tight end. He seems to be making major strides in transitioning from a basketball player who is trying to play football to a legitimate football player.

>>While such observations must be tempered by the fact there is no contact in minicamp drills, the Browns’ new 3-4 defensive scheme looks as if it could be dynamic. It’s evident that outside linebacker Paul Kruger and the other newcomers in the front seven are excellent fits for what defensive coordinator Ray Horton is implementing. They get off the ball quickly and drop into coverage smoothly. Horton sounded downright ecstatic in talking with me about what he saw during the three days of practice.

>>When you look at the Browns’ schedule, you’re reminded of why this team has placed so much emphasis on bolstering its pass rush. Consider the quarterbacks this team will be facing: Baltimore’s Joe Flacco (on Sept. 15 and Nov. 3), Detroit’s Matthew Stafford (Oct. 13), Green Bay’s Aaron Rodgers (Oct. 20), Pittsburgh’s Ben Roethlisberger (Nov. 24 and Dec. 29), New England’s Tom Brady (Dec. 8), and Chicago’s Jay Cutler (Dec. 15). Something tells me the Browns aren’t finished in their search for game-changing pass-rushers.

http://blogs.clevelandbrowns.com/2013/04/19/5-takeaways-from-browns-first-minicamp/

Maybe Cameron is their guy. I do not see Kellen Davis being a threat. I do not know much about Gary Barnidge. I am guessing he is special teams but Chud knows this guy so maybe he could do more than that. The 2 free agent signings seem to mean they do not plan to draft a TE.

 

[Tau837]

Ivory NO +32, Goodson NYJ -2, Powel NYJ -10 in anticipation of the Ivory trade to NYJ I now believe will take place this offseason. If the talks break off, Ivory goes back to being RB4 on his team and again moves lower.

Shonn Greene ranked 19th in 2012 and 20th in 2011 in PPR, 15th in 2012 and 18th in 2011 in non-PPR. He was more durable than Ivory has shown, so that's a concern, while Ivory IMO is a more powerful runner. And a few years younger. Neither is a pass catcher, both are goal line backs. If this deal happens, and Ivory's contract is extended which it almost has to be for a deal to take place, and the Jets signal that he'll be used as Greene was instead of getting a smaller piece of a timeshare pie, it seems to me Ivory s/b ranked in a range similar to what Greene has done (high teens). The Jets are not suddenly going to become a pass-happy team with Sanchez/Garrard/rookie. They tried that before and failed. More ground and pound it shall be. Health and the adding of Goodson are the questions. I think Powell becomes mostly irrelevant. If they believed in him, Ivory and Goodson wouldn't have been targeted. And as far as McKnight goes, it would be great if he could get out of there and have a shot with another team. He's of no use as RB4 for NYJ, and he's shown some ability when given the ball.

Bruce, I read the second quote above (from the Ivory thread) first, then read your update post in this thread. I was surprised when I checked and found that you have Ivory ranked at #37. Are you going to move him up further if the trade and contract extension happen?

 

[Tau837]

RUNNING BACKS (updated 4/19)

Rank, Rk Chg, Player Name, Team, Age (at 9/1/13), QYR, Notes

37 +32 Ivory, Chris NOr 25.4 4.9 … Undrafted in 2010. RFA 2013.

45 +1 Pierce, Bernard BAL 22.3 7.3 … 3rd round in 2012. Signed through 2015.

53 +0 Brown, Andre NYGr 26.7 4.0 … 4th round in 2009. RFA 2013.

54 +6 Turbin, Robert SEA 23.7 6.2 … 4th round in 2012. Signed through 2015.

Bruce,

I was wondering if you could give your thoughts about these players above and their rankings relative to each other and others in their tiers and the tiers above them.

1. Would you trade any of these players for Ivory, assuming you don't own them as handcuffs (e.g., having Turbin paired with Lynch)?

2. Are you ranking guys like Pierce and Turbin mainly based on situation? That might explain why you have Lamichael James ranked one spot higher than Pierce, even though they are under contract for the same duration, Pierce is 1.5 years younger, and Pierce significantly outproduced James last season. It still seems curious that you have two SF RBs sandwiching Pierce, though.

3. But, if Pierce's ranking is about situation, what about Brown's ranking? Are you expecting him to be a clear backup to Wilson, as opposed to having a significant RBBC role, which could include a goal line role? Or do you not feel he can stay healthy?

4. I realize your rookie rankings will change a lot, but I have a hard time believing that 5 rookie RBs will emerge from this draft with higher dynasty value than Ivory (assuming trade and contract extension) and Pierce, and 8 rookie RBs will emerge from this draft with higher dynasty value than Brown and Turbin. Is that really your expectation? Or am I misunderstanding your rookie rankings here?

I guess you can tell that I think all 4 of these RBs are underranked (again, assuming Ivory is traded and gets a contract extension).

 

[Tau837]

Bruce, I'm also interested in your thoughts on Gates. You have him ranked as TE #23. He played 15 games last season and finished as TE #12. He played 13 games in 2011 and finished as TE #7. I realize he is in decline and has dealt with a number of injuries in recent years. But he has produced at a level much higher than your ranking in each of his 10 seasons in the NFL.

Witten is 2 years younger and you have him at #4. Gonzalez is 4 years older and still going strong, and despite him stating he will play just one more season, you have him well ahead of Gates at #16.

Gates is 33. Are you assuming he only plays 1-2 more seasons and/or will not stay healthy?

 

[KellysHeroes]

Bruce, I'm also interested in your thoughts on Gates. You have him ranked as TE #23. He played 15 games last season and finished as TE #12. He played 13 games in 2011 and finished as TE #7. I realize he is in decline and has dealt with a number of injuries in recent years. But he has produced at a level much higher than your ranking in each of his 10 seasons in the NFL.

Witten is 2 years younger and you have him at #4. Gonzalez is 4 years older and still going strong, and despite him stating he will play just one more season, you have him well ahead of Gates at #16.

Gates is 33. Are you assuming he only plays 1-2 more seasons and/or will not stay healthy?

Witten's never missed a game while Gates been breaking down for yrs

 

[Adam Harstad]

4. I realize your rookie rankings will change a lot, but I have a hard time believing that 5 rookie RBs will emerge from this draft with higher dynasty value than Ivory (assuming trade and contract extension) and Pierce, and 8 rookie RBs will emerge from this draft with higher dynasty value than Brown and Turbin. Is that really your expectation? Or am I misunderstanding your rookie rankings here?

Obviously I'm not Bruce and he's perfectly capable of defending his own rankings, but I thought this was a good time to point out the difference between expectations and expected value. Let's say that Ivory is a $10 bill. Meanwhile, all of the rookie backs are lottery tickets that have a 10% chance of paying out $100, a 10% chance of paying out $10, and an 80% chance of paying out $0. The expectation is that Chris Ivory will be more valuable than any of those RBs- in fact, we're rating it as a 9 out of 10 chance that Ivory is equal or greater in value to those guys a month from now. The expected value of those RBs trumps Chris Ivory, though- if you ran the lottery a million times, you'd expect those RBs to average $11 in value, which is greater than Ivory's $10. As a result, the following two statements are not mutually exclusive:1. I think the chances that 5 RBs will emerge from the draft with more value than Ivory are essentially zero2. I think 5 rookie RBs should be ranked ahead of IvoryIf the Green Bay Packers released a statement that they were absolutely, positively, 100% going to draft an RB and make him their workhorse, I would be loading up on RB lottery tickets right now. Immediately after the draft, all but at most one of those tickets will be worthless, but since I don't know which one it is ahead of time, I'm forced to value them all. A lot of rankings that would never make sense ex post make perfect sense ex ante.

 

[Tau837]

4. I realize your rookie rankings will change a lot, but I have a hard time believing that 5 rookie RBs will emerge from this draft with higher dynasty value than Ivory (assuming trade and contract extension) and Pierce, and 8 rookie RBs will emerge from this draft with higher dynasty value than Brown and Turbin. Is that really your expectation? Or am I misunderstanding your rookie rankings here?

Obviously I'm not Bruce and he's perfectly capable of defending his own rankings, but I thought this was a good time to point out the difference between expectations and expected value. Let's say that Ivory is a $10 bill. Meanwhile, all of the rookie backs are lottery tickets that have a 10% chance of paying out $100, a 10% chance of paying out $10, and an 80% chance of paying out $0. The expectation is that Chris Ivory will be more valuable than any of those RBs- in fact, we're rating it as a 9 out of 10 chance that Ivory is equal or greater in value to those guys a month from now. The expected value of those RBs trumps Chris Ivory, though- if you ran the lottery a million times, you'd expect those RBs to average $11 in value, which is greater than Ivory's $10. As a result, the following two statements are not mutually exclusive:1. I think the chances that 5 RBs will emerge from the draft with more value than Ivory are essentially zero2. I think 5 rookie RBs should be ranked ahead of IvoryIf the Green Bay Packers released a statement that they were absolutely, positively, 100% going to draft an RB and make him their workhorse, I would be loading up on RB lottery tickets right now. Immediately after the draft, all but at most one of those tickets will be worthless, but since I don't know which one it is ahead of time, I'm forced to value them all. A lot of rankings that would never make sense ex post make perfect sense ex ante.

In my leagues, rookies cannot be owned/drafted until after the NFL draft, and I was viewing the rankings from that perspective.

Given the ability to roster rookie RBs right now, I'd certainly prefer a few rookie RBs to Ivory. But if I had 5 open roster spots and the ability to fill them with Ivory, Pierce, Turbin, Andre Brown, and/or any rookie RBs, I certainly wouldn't choose to fill all 5 spots with rookies. Are you saying you would choose all rookies in that scenario?

 

[Tau837]

Bruce, I'm also interested in your thoughts on Gates. You have him ranked as TE #23. He played 15 games last season and finished as TE #12. He played 13 games in 2011 and finished as TE #7. I realize he is in decline and has dealt with a number of injuries in recent years. But he has produced at a level much higher than your ranking in each of his 10 seasons in the NFL.

Witten is 2 years younger and you have him at #4. Gonzalez is 4 years older and still going strong, and despite him stating he will play just one more season, you have him well ahead of Gates at #16.

Gates is 33. Are you assuming he only plays 1-2 more seasons and/or will not stay healthy?

Witten's never missed a game while Gates been breaking down for yrs

Understand that. Witten was probably a bad example. What I was really thinking is that Gates could produce 2-3 more top 10 seasons before retiring. Would you rather have that or the rest of the careers of Pettigrew, Davis, Myers, etc.? I own Gates, and I could drop him for some of the players ranked higher in Bruce's rankings, but I find myself unwilling to do so. Am I off base?

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Ivory NO +32, Goodson NYJ -2, Powel NYJ -10 in anticipation of the Ivory trade to NYJ I now believe will take place this offseason. If the talks break off, Ivory goes back to being RB4 on his team and again moves lower.

>Shonn Greene ranked 19th in 2012 and 20th in 2011 in PPR, 15th in 2012 and 18th in 2011 in non-PPR. He was more durable than Ivory has shown, so that's a concern, while Ivory IMO is a more powerful runner. And a few years younger. Neither is a pass catcher, both are goal line backs. If this deal happens, and Ivory's contract is extended which it almost has to be for a deal to take place, and the Jets signal that he'll be used as Greene was instead of getting a smaller piece of a timeshare pie, it seems to me Ivory s/b ranked in a range similar to what Greene has done (high teens). The Jets are not suddenly going to become a pass-happy team with Sanchez/Garrard/rookie. They tried that before and failed. More ground and pound it shall be. Health and the adding of Goodson are the questions. I think Powell becomes mostly irrelevant. If they believed in him, Ivory and Goodson wouldn't have been targeted. And as far as McKnight goes, it would be great if he could get out of there and have a shot with another team. He's of no use as RB4 for NYJ, and he's shown some ability when given the ball.

Bruce, I read the second quote above (from the Ivory thread) first, then read your update post in this thread. I was surprised when I checked and found that you have Ivory ranked at #37. Are you going to move him up further if the trade and contract extension happen?

Yes, this is a tentative wait-and-see ranking, recognizing that the trade hasn't happened and still might fall through. It also recognizes we don't know for sure yet whether the Jets are thinking of him as a full replacement for Greene's role or something less. I couldn't keep him at his old ranking and totally ignore something that is more likely than not to happen, nor do I believe I should at this point simply assume best case / done deal.

However, should the trade take place, his contract get extended at least a couple years, and he projects to surpass the other RBs on the Jets' roster for early down carries (all are better than 50-50 to happen IMO), I'd currently expect to rank Ivory somewhere in the second half of my Tier 4 of RB2s, in the 19-24 range.

Goodson would fall another 15-20 spots or so if it looks like he'll stay ahead of Powell and get the passing down role, Powell would fall further down into the Tier 7 "uphill climb" tier, and McKnight would become a Tier 8 guy hopeful of greener pastures elsewhere.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Any reason why Kendall Hunter is above LaMichael? Don't disagree really, just looking for discussion.

Upon further review... I've reshuffled the 2nd half of that tier since your post and have James ahead of Hunter (for now).

 

[Bruce Hammond]

What happened with Eifert recently that I missed? Many people seem to be ranking him just ahead of Rudolph here the last day or so. What did I miss?

Eifert was TE6 in my initial posting on 4/7. I recently moved him ahead of Rudolph to TE5, but if you don't mind me being flippant I'd have to say you must have missed everything. (OK, before someone PMs me that I'm being a jerk, Biabreakable and I are friends and I'm messing with him).

Elite talent and college career, likely top-20 selection in NFL draft and important part of his new team's offense from the start. There may be a recent thread discussing this, but I've had him ranked up here from the beginning -- just as I had elite talents like Luck/RGIII/Richardson/Blackmon ranked very very high as rookies last year before playing in an NFL game (which I got ripped for by some). I have no other rookies this year in the first two tiers at their positions, but Eifert I believe belongs.

 

[ShaHBucks]

What are your thoughts on Kolb and Foles? Two of my biggest buy really really lows this offseason. Kolb is rated lower than some backups. Foles last 4 games as a starter he averaged something like 20 ppg.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Someone had a question in PM about how I get my ranking change number within the 999 groups.

For example, RB Cedric Benson shows as 999 (-25). That doesn't mean he has dropped below 25 other 999-ranked guys. All of the 999 players are unranked, and are listed by draft year then round. So, they are all considered to be one spot below the last ranked Tier 8 player. For RBs, that would be RB120 +1, or 121. In the Benson example, he had been RB 96 in my previous rankings but has fallen out of rankings consideration for me at this time. So, 121-96 = 25, the number you see for his ranking change.

 

[Adam Harstad]

4. I realize your rookie rankings will change a lot, but I have a hard time believing that 5 rookie RBs will emerge from this draft with higher dynasty value than Ivory (assuming trade and contract extension) and Pierce, and 8 rookie RBs will emerge from this draft with higher dynasty value than Brown and Turbin. Is that really your expectation? Or am I misunderstanding your rookie rankings here?

Obviously I'm not Bruce and he's perfectly capable of defending his own rankings, but I thought this was a good time to point out the difference between expectations and expected value. Let's say that Ivory is a $10 bill. Meanwhile, all of the rookie backs are lottery tickets that have a 10% chance of paying out $100, a 10% chance of paying out $10, and an 80% chance of paying out $0. The expectation is that Chris Ivory will be more valuable than any of those RBs- in fact, we're rating it as a 9 out of 10 chance that Ivory is equal or greater in value to those guys a month from now. The expected value of those RBs trumps Chris Ivory, though- if you ran the lottery a million times, you'd expect those RBs to average $11 in value, which is greater than Ivory's $10. As a result, the following two statements are not mutually exclusive:1. I think the chances that 5 RBs will emerge from the draft with more value than Ivory are essentially zero2. I think 5 rookie RBs should be ranked ahead of IvoryIf the Green Bay Packers released a statement that they were absolutely, positively, 100% going to draft an RB and make him their workhorse, I would be loading up on RB lottery tickets right now. Immediately after the draft, all but at most one of those tickets will be worthless, but since I don't know which one it is ahead of time, I'm forced to value them all. A lot of rankings that would never make sense ex post make perfect sense ex ante.

In my leagues, rookies cannot be owned/drafted until after the NFL draft, and I was viewing the rankings from that perspective. Given the ability to roster rookie RBs right now, I'd certainly prefer a few rookie RBs to Ivory. But if I had 5 open roster spots and the ability to fill them with Ivory, Pierce, Turbin, Andre Brown, and/or any rookie RBs, I certainly wouldn't choose to fill all 5 spots with rookies. Are you saying you would choose all rookies in that scenario?

No, but my rankings are different from Bruce's . I just wanted to bring up the difference between expectations and EV.

What are your thoughts on Kolb and Foles? Two of my biggest buy really really lows this offseason. Kolb is rated lower than some backups. Foles last 4 games as a starter he averaged something like 20 ppg.

I was just posting on Twitter the other day about backup QBs in dynasty leagues, and it's relevant here. In a 1QB league, if a QB doesn't rank in the top 12, he essentially has no value (well, not really- there are bye weeks and injuries, but in practice it winds up being extremely little value, and you can usually acquire a comparable asset for pennies). So unless I think a guy is going to be hitting the top 12, I don't much care about him. From that standpoint, once you get past the top 18 or so QBs, highly-regarded backups begin to be much smarter bets than lightly-regarded starters. Who was the last lightly-regarded starter to become an elite fantasy QB? Drew Brees? Meanwhile, check out the list of highly-regarded backups that have turned into studs- you have Rodgers, Rivers, Kaepernick, Vick (in Philly), and Schaub. Even Kolb himself, who you think should be higher, was once nothing more than a highly regarded backup. Going back even further, you've got Trent Green, Matt Hasselbeck, Steve Young, Brett Favre, etc. And I'm not counting guys like Brady or Delhomme, who were backups, but lightly-regarded ones. Or Russell Wilson, who was anticipated to be a backup, but never wound up being one. Based on that history, I'd much rather gamble on an Osweiler, Mallet, Cousins, or yes, Foles than continue buying uninspiring starters like Alex Smith, Carson Palmer, or Kevin Kolb.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Who was the last lightly-regarded starter to become an elite fantasy QB? Drew Brees?

Stafford

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

White Star

 

[Adam Harstad]

Who was the last lightly-regarded starter to become an elite fantasy QB? Drew Brees?

Stafford

Was Stafford lightly regarded? People thought he'd never be able to stay healthy, but I don't think anyone ever questioned his talent. Before his breakout, he was a #1 overall pick with 13 career starts. I'm talking more about guys pretty universally considered one of the bottom 16 starting QBs in the league with little room for further growth or development- your Kolbs, your Fitzpatricks, your Flynns, your Palmers, your Cassels, your Ponders, your Hennes, your Gabberts. I don't think Stafford was ever thought of like those guys- guys who had been given opportunities and who had demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they were mediocre or worse starters.

 

[Adam Harstad]

White Star

Is this Bruce's new nickname?

 

[wodahSShadow]

Who was the last lightly-regarded starter to become an elite fantasy QB? Drew Brees?

Stafford

Dude was the 1st Overall Pick in 2009 and started/played in only 13 games before he absolutely blew up 2011. Can't think of many QBs who have started fewer games before becoming a fantasy stud (Rodgers, Cam, Kaep and RGIII being the rare exceptions).

 

[Biabreakable]

Glad to hear it wasn't something silly like McShay ranking Eifert in the top 10 recently.

I will throw you another softball later.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Who was the last lightly-regarded starter to become an elite fantasy QB? Drew Brees?

Stafford

Was Stafford lightly regarded? People thought he'd never be able to stay healthy, but I don't think anyone ever questioned his talent. Before his breakout, he was a #1 overall pick with 13 career starts. I'm talking more about guys pretty universally considered one of the bottom 16 starting QBs in the league with little room for further growth or development- your Kolbs, your Fitzpatricks, your Flynns, your Palmers, your Cassels, your Ponders, your Hennes, your Gabberts. I don't think Stafford was ever thought of like those guys- guys who had been given opportunities and who had demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they were mediocre or worse starters.

Not much different than if Bradford suddenly had a top 5 year.

Stafford pre-2011

18th in USA Today power rankings behind Sanchez, Flacco, Freeman, Bradford, Cassel

19th by some dude at Bleacher Report

19th by John Clayton ESPN

So he was "pretty universally one of the bottom 16 QBs of the league." Yeah, he still had upside. But so does Bradford, I guess. At least members of the SF defense think so.

Did people question Brees' talent his last couple years at SD? No. No one thought he'd turn into Dan Marino but he was a good QB.

There are backups you should own/acquire for cheap, and Mallet is one of those. Not that I think he's hot chocolate but he will start for another team probably next year, and he will be dramatically overvalued when that does happen in the same way Ivory will be once the NYJ trade goes down.

Saying "let's get all these backups" or "lots of backups become great QBs" is bad advice. Cousins' only value is a handcuff. Osweiler not much more than that. At some point the roster spot is worth more than most of these backups. Their upside is no more than what Palmer is now, to be honest, and you have to blow a spot on them for 2+ years in order to figure that out. It seems to me you're not really evaluating the players, and just saying they have to be better than the garbage we already know is garbage. Really I have more faith in Carson Palmer putting up VBD in any season in the future (which probably means 2013) than most of those guys. Volek value is still value.

Alex Smith is not without upside too. Why did Foles have value last year? Because Reid made him hurl it up to 50 times per game. Why does Foles not have much value now? Because Chip Kelly will never ever NEVER have him hurl it anywhere near that godforsaken amount, and Reid wasn't able or wiling to trade for him. Unless the NYJ make another trade, Foles may never get another chance to start, and it certainly won't be as advantageous as 2012.

Would I roster Palmer or Smith over Mallet? No, of course not. The writing's on the wall there. Over EJ Manuel. No, his upside is a little more substantial. But yes over Osweiler, Cousins and Foles. In shallow leagues none of these guys should be rostered - not the garbage starter, and not the 2+ years away backup. In deep leagues depth is depth and garbage stats still count whether for you or the other team.

If we're picking backups, I'd even make a case for Chase Daniel over Osweiler, Cousins and Foles. But I'd still rather have Palmer now, and pay a fifth for Daniel later.

Really my strategy has been to turn your advice on its head. People will overvalue the mediocre prospect who hasn't failed yet. If you can get a garbage QB and a pick for Foles or Osweiler or Cousins, that is a great trade, because the pick is the most valuable part. There will be more garbage backup QBs coming soon for you to pin your hopes on and hopefully sell before they fall face forward or get cut waiting in line. Will Zac Dyssert and Landry Jones even be drafted in most leagues?

I mean, I agree we should learn something from Kaepernick. He was undervalued last year. He was dropped in two of my leagues for chrissakes. But rostering Kirk Cousins hoping he starts in 2015/2016 isn't what I got out of it.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Not much different than if Bradford suddenly had a top 5 year.

Stafford pre-2011

18th in USA Today power rankings behind Sanchez, Flacco, Freeman, Bradford, Cassel

19th by some dude at Bleacher Report

19th by John Clayton ESPN

So he was "pretty universally one of the bottom 16 QBs of the league." Yeah, he still had upside. But so does Bradford, I guess. At least members of the SF defense think so.

Did people question Brees' talent his last couple years at SD? No. No one thought he'd turn into Dan Marino but he was a good QB.

There are backups you should own/acquire for cheap, and Mallet is one of those. Not that I think he's hot chocolate but he will start for another team probably next year, and he will be dramatically overvalued when that does happen in the same way Ivory will be once the NYJ trade goes down.

Saying "let's get all these backups" or "lots of backups become great QBs" is bad advice. Cousins' only value is a handcuff. Osweiler not much more than that. At some point the roster spot is worth more than most of these backups. Their upside is no more than what Palmer is now, to be honest, and you have to blow a spot on them for 2+ years in order to figure that out. It seems to me you're not really evaluating the players, and just saying they have to be better than the garbage we already know is garbage. Really I have more faith in Carson Palmer putting up VBD in any season in the future (which probably means 2013) than most of those guys. Volek value is still value.

Alex Smith is not without upside too. Why did Foles have value last year? Because Reid made him hurl it up to 50 times per game. Why does Foles not have much value now? Because Chip Kelly will never ever NEVER have him hurl it anywhere near that godforsaken amount, and Reid wasn't able or wiling to trade for him. Unless the NYJ make another trade, Foles may never get another chance to start, and it certainly won't be as advantageous as 2012.

Would I roster Palmer or Smith over Mallet? No, of course not. The writing's on the wall there. Over EJ Manuel. No, his upside is a little more substantial. But yes over Osweiler, Cousins and Foles. In shallow leagues none of these guys should be rostered - not the garbage starter, and not the 2+ years away backup. In deep leagues depth is depth and garbage stats still count whether for you or the other team.

If we're picking backups, I'd even make a case for Chase Daniel over Osweiler, Cousins and Foles. But I'd still rather have Palmer now, and pay a fifth for Daniel later.

Really my strategy has been to turn your advice on its head. People will overvalue the mediocre prospect who hasn't failed yet. If you can get a garbage QB and a pick for Foles or Osweiler or Cousins, that is a great trade, because the pick is the most valuable part. There will be more garbage backup QBs coming soon for you to pin your hopes on and hopefully sell before they fall face forward or get cut waiting in line. Will Zac Dyssert and Landry Jones even be drafted in most leagues?

I mean, I agree we should learn something from Kaepernick. He was undervalued last year. He was dropped in two of my leagues for chrissakes. But rostering Kirk Cousins hoping he starts in 2015/2016 isn't what I got out of it.

When I mention Brees being the last lightly regarded QB to become a stud, I don't mean when he went to New Orleans. At that point, he had triggered elite offenses and made the pro bowl. He got a big contract despite an injury that some teams feared could be career-ending. He was a highly-regarded QB. No, when I call Brees a lightly-regarded QB, I refer to after his first two seasons, when he got benched for journeyman Doug Flutie and saw his team spend a top5 draft pick drafting his replacement. At that point, he was considered junk, a substantially below-average QB, nothing more than a placeholder or a seats warmer. Stafford isn't remotely comparable- as I said, he'd only had 13 starts at that point. His franchise had never once benched him. They'd never once brought in any competition or wavered for a second in their support for him. Not at all comparable. I'm not saying acquire all backups ever because at least the crappy ones have not yet proven they are crappy. I specifically limited myself to "highly regarded backups". I specifically listed four names: Mallett, Osweiler, Cousins, and Foles. Mallett, as you mentioned, will either have his own starting gig or not within a year. The same is true for Foles (and yeah, Andy Reid is gone, but as I mentioned... I think VERY highly of Kelly, and I think all Eagles' stats will be inflated by 10% just because they'll be running so many extra plays- I think in a couple of years, he'll be looked at in the same light as Harbaugh in SF, and I think the fact he didn't trade Foles means he thinks he can do good things with him). Osweiler is as good of a prospect as anyone in this draft, and landed in pretty much the perfect situation- his upside is sky-high. There's a good chance Cousins will get to show what he has again early next season, and ultimately, if I have to stash him for two years, I'm okay with it. I don't think churning roster spots at QB produces the same value that it produces at WR- I'm much more a fan of holding a guy and letting him develop. And yes, that includes Kaepernick, who I added with a ridiculously late rookie pick and carried for nearly two whole years (facing the prospect of carrying him for more time beyond that). And Michael Vick, who I got for a 30th round pick in a startup the year he went berserk in Philly. And I'm currently carrying Foles, and plan to do so for at least another year, if that's what it takes. I don't think these are mediocre prospects who haven't failed yet. I think these are very good prospects. I actually think Mallett is the most mediocre of the bunch, but he also has the clearest path to playing time. These are all guys I genuinely like, though- for who they are, not for the fact that they just haven't failed yet. Foles looked fantastic in preseason last year. Cousins looked fantastic in the regular season. Osweiler has strong pedigree and is learning from two of the greatest to ever play. Mallett was a weaker prospect, but he's coveted in the league, and he'll have a chance to show it, soon enough. And even if these prospects are the next Kevin Kolb instead of the next Matt Schaub, well, at least that's still a positive net gain.

I'm not even saying these guys are hugely valuable pieces. I believe that QBs have very, very little value once you get too far past the top 12. I just think that the little value of quality backups trumps the nonexistent value of crappy starters. If someone offered me Palmer and a halfway decent pick for any of them, I'd jump at it, because no QB outside the top 18 or so is worth so much as a halfway decent pick (say, mid-2nd). Still, as I'm fond of saying, SOMEONE has to be ranked there, and if I have to rank someone in the early 20s, I'd rather roll with someone with actual upside. Not an injury-riddled, washed-up vet with no top-12 finishes since 2007, playing in a bad offense behind a sieve of an offensive line in the toughest division of football, a guy who is already 33 and has spoken openly of retirement several times, a guy whose arm hasn't been the same in years. No thanks.

 

[kutta]

 

[KellysHeroes]

when do u think you'll update these awesome rankings

 

[Bruce Hammond]

when do u think you'll update these awesome rankings

I was hoping I'd already have them up but things in my world have slowed the process. And I wasted the free time I had today in the Blackmon suspension thread.

This week I hope, with QB up on Wed, TE Wed or Thu, RB Thu or Fri, WR by Fri.