Could Peyton Manning be overrated this year? (1 Viewer)

[djcolts]

One factor that may not have been mentioned is the Colts defense.

I don't think anyone is all of a sudden expecting the defense to become a juggernaut, but if it does show some marked improvement, it could necessitate less of a "bombs away" game plan.

Would it surprise anyone if Manning only had 1 or even ZERO TDs after week 1?

Jamal Lewis is capable of running all over Indy's def allowing them to do essentially what NE did in the playoffs earlier this year and hold the ball for 8+ minutes per drive.

They could. But, for the most part, they didn't do that last year, and Boller is no Tom Brady (which is an understatement) so the passing threat isn't the same as the Pats'.Of course - you say then pretty much say the opposite of the original poster.

Edit - I wouldn't take Manning in round 1 unless it is a 6pt/pass TD league and then I'd have to think about it.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

you watched them like I did you know that he could have easily had 55 td's.

If you were a bookie, and put the over/under at Peyton Manning's TD's for this upcoming season at 35 you would lose A LOT of money.

Not necessarily. You'd take a lot of handle, but you might win a lot of money.

 

[Keggers]

I think the easy answer here is that anybody coming off the best year in NFL history at his position is going to be overvalued.

I have been thinking though and was wondering does it hurt the team taking Manning at #1 overall more or would it hurt the team taking him at #6? I think the team picking at #1 can still find 2 solid RB at picks #24 and #25. The team picking at #6 can get a solid Rb at pick #19 but at pick #30? I'm not sure....

Great point, the person who drafts him in the top 5 will have a better chance of getting quality RBs with their next two picks....If you draft him later in the first round, that person can get one more RB but certainly not two.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

I think the easy answer here is that anybody coming off the best year in NFL history at his position is going to be overvalued.

I have been thinking though and was wondering does it hurt the team taking Manning at #1 overall more or would it hurt the team taking him at #6?  I think the team picking at #1 can still find 2 solid RB at picks #24 and #25.  The team picking at #6 can get a solid Rb at pick #19 but at pick #30?  I'm not sure....

Great point, the person who drafts him in the top 5 will have a better chance of getting quality RBs with their next two picks....If you draft him later in the first round, that person can get one more RB but certainly not two.

As opposed to the guy who takes one of the top 5 RBs in the first five and has a better chance of getting two quality ANYTHINGS in the 2nd and 3rd? What kind of logic is this?

 

[Keggers]

I think the easy answer here is that anybody coming off the best year in NFL history at his position is going to be overvalued.

I have been thinking though and was wondering does it hurt the team taking Manning at #1 overall more or would it hurt the team taking him at #6?  I think the team picking at #1 can still find 2 solid RB at picks #24 and #25.  The team picking at #6 can get a solid Rb at pick #19 but at pick #30?  I'm not sure....

Great point, the person who drafts him in the top 5 will have a better chance of getting quality RBs with their next two picks....If you draft him later in the first round, that person can get one more RB but certainly not two.

As opposed to the guy who takes one of the top 5 RBs in the first five and has a better chance of getting two quality ANYTHINGS in the 2nd and 3rd? What kind of logic is this?

Sorry but I didn't want to explain my whole draft strategy. I, like many, usually prefer to draft RB/RB in the first two rounds. If I were to stray from this strategy it would only be if I were drafting in the top 5. I would not do it if I drafted 11th in a 12 team league....I wouldn't be able to get a quality back in round three. Just personal preference is all...

 

[MelvinTScupper]

I think the easy answer here is that anybody coming off the best year in NFL history at his position is going to be overvalued.

I have been thinking though and was wondering does it hurt the team taking Manning at #1 overall more or would it hurt the team taking him at #6?  I think the team picking at #1 can still find 2 solid RB at picks #24 and #25.  The team picking at #6 can get a solid Rb at pick #19 but at pick #30?  I'm not sure....

Great point, the person who drafts him in the top 5 will have a better chance of getting quality RBs with their next two picks....If you draft him later in the first round, that person can get one more RB but certainly not two.

As opposed to the guy who takes one of the top 5 RBs in the first five and has a better chance of getting two quality ANYTHINGS in the 2nd and 3rd? What kind of logic is this?

Sorry but I didn't want to explain my whole draft strategy. I, like many, usually prefer to draft RB/RB in the first two rounds. If I were to stray from this strategy it would only be if I were drafting in the top 5. I would not do it if I drafted 11th in a 12 team league....I wouldn't be able to get a quality back in round three. Just personal preference is all...

Gotcha. I follow that.

 

[RustyFA]

You guys can talk all you want about 32 TDs being 1-=15th but the fact is that there is no surer bet in football than Peyton Manning. Getting the sure thing allows for a lot of flexibility in the draft and during the season.

 

[David Yudkin]

You guys can talk all you want about 32 TDs being 1-=15th but the fact is that there is no surer bet in football than Peyton Manning. Getting the sure thing allows for a lot of flexibility in the draft and during the season.

I have been in several drafts already where the guy that took Manning early said it screwed up his draft having to play catch up at other positions.It's nice that Manning is reliable, but how does taking Manning impact your other players?

 

[cobalt_27]

History does not suggest a high probability of a repeat by Manning. Look for an article on this in the next few days.

David, I don't think anybody here expects a repeat of 2004. What they expect is a repeat of what he's been doing, more generally, for over 5 years now. What safer, high-scoring pick is there beyond LT and Manning?

Using the FBG scoring system and a 12-team league, here are Manning's overall value rankings throughout his career: 40, 14, 11, 16, 24, 30, 2. Again, people can come to their own conclusions . . .

We could go in circles all day about how circular the reasoning is behind this "value rankings" business. But, Peyton's ACTUAL numbers--his actual fantasy scores--are more in line with top-5 overall production every year (I can look it up, but he's always top-3 or top-5 in raw fantasy points scored).

What you're citing here is based on inferential data that supposedly factors in supply/demand (i.e., 1QB:2RB start). This is akin to saying "When using a statistic that downgrades QBs, you can see here that this QB is downgraded."

Besides, given the variability most fantasy guys rank ea. year within their own position, the predictive confidence is remarkably high with a guy like Manning in a way it isn't with most players in any position (I'll set aside LT as the only other guy in the highest tier that I'd feel as comfortable with; up until C'Pepp lost Moss, I would've included him, as well). Manning chugs along each and every year.

(And, here, I looked it up: ranked 6, 6, 5, 8, 6, 2 overall since 1999; 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2 amongst QBs. I don't think you're gonna' find any player since 1970 to be ranked in the top-10 for 6 consecutive years in overall fantasy points...other than Manning.)

 

[David Yudkin]

History does not suggest a high probability of a repeat by Manning.  Look for an article on this in the next few days.

David, I don't think anybody here expects a repeat of 2004. What they expect is a repeat of what he's been doing, more generally, for over 5 years now. What safer, high-scoring pick is there beyond LT and Manning?

Using the FBG scoring system and a 12-team league, here are Manning's overall value rankings throughout his career: 40, 14, 11, 16, 24, 30, 2. Again, people can come to their own conclusions . . .

We could go in circles all day about how circular the reasoning is behind this "value rankings" business. But, Peyton's ACTUAL numbers--his actual fantasy scores--are more in line with top-5 overall production every year (I can look it up, but he's always top-3 or top-5 in raw fantasy points scored).

What you're citing here is based on inferential data that supposedly factors in supply/demand (i.e., 1QB:2RB start). This is akin to saying "When using a statistic that downgrades QBs, you can see here that this QB is downgraded."

Besides, given the variability most fantasy guys rank ea. year within their own position, the predictive confidence is remarkably high with a guy like Manning in a way it isn't with most players in any position (I'll set aside LT as the only other guy in the highest tier that I'd feel as comfortable with; up until C'Pepp lost Moss, I would've included him, as well). Manning chugs along each and every year.

(And, here, I looked it up: ranked 6, 6, 5, 8, 6, 2 overall since 1999; 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2 amongst QBs. I don't think you're gonna' find any player since 1970 to be ranked in the top-10 for 6 consecutive years in overall fantasy points...other than Manning.)

This is flaVVed on so many levels. For starters, we have to come up with a system to rank players, and many systems have QB as the highest scoring position. If the Top 20 players in a system were QB, would that mean we should pick 20 QB first because they scored the most? Of course not.By default, finding someone that ranked Top 10 for 6 straight years with all TD at 6 points eliminates every position but QB, so there's no point in even checking to see who else may have done it. Being one of the Top 10 players when they almost all play the same position isn't saying much.

Marino ranked in the Top 10 total points scored 9 years in a row. Favre did it 7. Do I get a prize?

So comparing players at different positions and trying to compare them as if they were equals is impossible. Some years QB there have been 6 or 8 QB that outscored the top RB. Therefore we should have taken QB for the first 8 picks because they score the most.

 

[Vicktimized]

You guys can talk all you want about 32 TDs being 1-=15th but the fact is that there is no surer bet in football than Peyton Manning.  Getting the sure thing allows for a lot of flexibility in the draft and during the season.

I have been in several drafts already where the guy that took Manning early said it screwed up his draft having to play catch up at other positions.It's nice that Manning is reliable, but how does taking Manning impact your other players?

I think it really depends on the type of draft you're taking part in. A 4 pt per td league, Manning can and should fall until later. A 6 point per, you have to think about him in the 1st half of the 1st. And if you have flexible lineups, where 2 rbs aren't required to start, Manning's combination of potential and stability really starts sounding good.

 

[cobalt_27]

History does not suggest a high probability of a repeat by Manning. Look for an article on this in the next few days.

David, I don't think anybody here expects a repeat of 2004. What they expect is a repeat of what he's been doing, more generally, for over 5 years now. What safer, high-scoring pick is there beyond LT and Manning?

Using the FBG scoring system and a 12-team league, here are Manning's overall value rankings throughout his career: 40, 14, 11, 16, 24, 30, 2. Again, people can come to their own conclusions . . .

We could go in circles all day about how circular the reasoning is behind this "value rankings" business. But, Peyton's ACTUAL numbers--his actual fantasy scores--are more in line with top-5 overall production every year (I can look it up, but he's always top-3 or top-5 in raw fantasy points scored).

What you're citing here is based on inferential data that supposedly factors in supply/demand (i.e., 1QB:2RB start). This is akin to saying "When using a statistic that downgrades QBs, you can see here that this QB is downgraded."

Besides, given the variability most fantasy guys rank ea. year within their own position, the predictive confidence is remarkably high with a guy like Manning in a way it isn't with most players in any position (I'll set aside LT as the only other guy in the highest tier that I'd feel as comfortable with; up until C'Pepp lost Moss, I would've included him, as well). Manning chugs along each and every year.

(And, here, I looked it up: ranked 6, 6, 5, 8, 6, 2 overall since 1999; 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2 amongst QBs. I don't think you're gonna' find any player since 1970 to be ranked in the top-10 for 6 consecutive years in overall fantasy points...other than Manning.)

This is flaVVed on so many levels. For starters, we have to come up with a system to rank players, and many systems have QB as the highest scoring position. If the Top 20 players in a system were QB, would that mean we should pick 20 QB first because they scored the most? Of course not.By default, finding someone that ranked Top 10 for 6 straight years with all TD at 6 points eliminates every position but QB, so there's no point in even checking to see who else may have done it. Being one of the Top 10 players when they almost all play the same position isn't saying much.

Marino ranked in the Top 10 total points scored 9 years in a row. Favre did it 7. Do I get a prize?

So comparing players at different positions and trying to compare them as if they were equals is impossible. Some years QB there have been 6 or 8 QB that outscored the top RB. Therefore we should have taken QB for the first 8 picks because they score the most.

If you go with standard scoring Marino did it 5 yrs in a row (84-88; had two #12 rankings after that). I stand corrected on Favre--he did it 6 as well, but not 7.I'm not comparing these folks--these positions--as equals. I understand the whole point of this screwy 1QB:2RB system and how it helps equilibrate (over-compensates, really) RB "value" compared to QB "value."

My point is one completely aside from this debate. It's that Manning, unlike most others, is predictable. Not only is he great, but he's predictably great. When you combine those two qualities, his "value" ranking should be higher than just the next RB on the board.

Just ask yourself how much variability there is year-to-year amongst RBs and their rankings. If you look at projections (and, look, I understand all the thought and work you guys put into these, but...) they pretty-much look like last year's rankings and finishes. I know the exceptions exist. But, the correlations between your preseason rankings and the stats from last year are much higher than the correlations between your preseason rankings and the year-end stats that they are supposed to predict. The reason is that it is atypical to have repeat performances year after year. Count Marino, Favre, Emmitt, Marvin, Manning and a handful of others--the elite guys--who have done it time after time. But, the rest (your Ahman Greens, Marc Bulgers, Jake Plummers, etc. of the world) they're all over the map from year to year. So, you get totally screwed if the previous year Ahman was the 4th best RB--and he's lo-and-behold, ranked 4th in the current year's projections--and winds up ranking 16th amongst RBs with the FOURTH pick of the draft.

Meanwhile, Manning is in a class unto himself (save C'Pepp, we'll see about this year - Moss) when it comes to consistency. You can count on him. The likelihood of him letting you down is so remote, he is not only a safe pick high in the first round, he will score you gobs of points with that selection, and you can go about taking your "risks" (as though the top-5 RBs are somehow safe bets) later in the draft.

Consistency is such a grossly underappreciated aspect of projecting/drafting. I suspect the RB culture that so over-values one position has guided people who are scared stiff of losing out on their "studs" that they never stop to think about why their 5th selection at RB never seems to rank 5th (or even 10th) at the end of the season. I'll take the sure thing (Manning) early and take my risks later on, tyvm--not the other way around.

 

[CalBear]

A few points:

1) FBG currently projects Manning to have 4500+ and 41 TDs, which is VBD > 100 based on worst starter. If those projections are correct, taking Manning in the top 5 is probably reasonable, whether you have 4 point TDs or 6 point TDs. However...

2) I think those projections are flawed. If you look at Manning's second-best season to date, 2000, he finished with 4600 yards and 34 TDs (33 passing). During that year he actually finished as the #3 QB (behind Culpepper and Garcia), and by worst-starter VBD was behind not only those two, but also three RBs, four WRs, and Tony Gonzalez. It seems dubious in the extreme to project a player who has seven years under his belt to have two seasons in a row which are off the map statistically compared to his other six years in the league.

3) If we keep the yardage projections and knock Manning down to 32 TDs, his VBD drops to 60. There is no way that a player with a VBD of 60 is worth a high first-round pick. Manning had VBD of 60 in 2002, and finished as the #24 player overall by VBD. So if you don't project 40+ TDs for Manning, if you project 32 instead, he shouldn't be a high first-round pick, despite the fact that he's durable and reliable. This is also true in 6 point TD leagues; 6 point TDs would only increase his VBD by 16 points.

4) It surprises me that people who have been on this board a long time are still talking about the fact that Manning scores more points than many top RBs and WRs as if it means anything. VBD is not the answer to all questions, but it is demonstrably much better than total points as an evaluation tool. To illustrate a concept that should be ingrained in everyone here by now: you could be deciding between McAllister and Manning at pick #5. Manning is projected to score 384 points by FBG, McAllister, 258. But you can get the baseline QB (Plummer) in round 7; if you take McAllister and Plummer, you'll be projected for 537 points, while if you take Manning and TJ Duckett (the best RB available at 7.05) you'll have 501 projected points. And that's even if you project 41 TDs for Manning; if you project him for 32-35, the gap is even wider.

 

[CalBear]

Consistency is such a grossly underappreciated aspect of projecting/drafting. I suspect the RB culture that so over-values one position has guided people who are scared stiff of losing out on their "studs" that they never stop to think about why their 5th selection at RB never seems to rank 5th (or even 10th) at the end of the season. I'll take the sure thing (Manning) early and take my risks later on, tyvm--not the other way around.

To pull out some names, Tom Brady, Aaron Brooks, and Brett Favre are just as consistent and reliable as Manning, and they're all available in the sixth round or later.

 

[LawFitz]

If we keep the yardage projections and knock Manning down to 32 TDs, his VBD drops to 60. There is no way that a player with a VBD of 60 is worth a high first-round pick. Manning had VBD of 60 in 2002, and finished as the #24 player overall by VBD. So if you don't project 40+ TDs for Manning, if you project 32 instead, he shouldn't be a high first-round pick, despite the fact that he's durable and reliable. This is also true in 6 point TD leagues; 6 point TDs would only increase his VBD by 16 points.

This is the beginning of an era of offense and Manning... stop discounting based on prior years with less strict mugging rules, lesser receivers, better Edge and younger Manning. All those variables are now in favor of more TDs for Peyton.This is how I see the probablity breakdown:

min TDs: 35 - 20% chance

likely TDs: 40 - 50% chance

less likely: 45 - 20% chance

if he gets hot early and runs for 50: 50 - 10% chance

The next 6 games after Baltimore should be very good matchups for the Colts passing game and Manning could go on another tear prompting another run at breaking the record. I'd say if he throws for 3 or more against the Ravens, look out as it will be a downhill race from there.

@BAL JAX CLE @TEN @SF STL @HOU BYE @NE HOU @CIN PIT TEN @JAX SD @SEA ARI

 

[LawFitz]

To pull out some names, Tom Brady, Aaron Brooks, and Brett Favre are just as consistent and reliable as Manning, and they're all available in the sixth round or later.

Yeah, consistently average, not consistently great.Actually, Aaron Brooks isn't even consistently average. He's a notorious slow starter who'll shoot your team in the foot for the first 6 weeks of the season and won't recover unitil your playoff hopes are shot.

But in the end he'll finish in the top ten and will get hyped up again the following year. Good luck with that guy.

 

[cobalt_27]

4) It surprises me that people who have been on this board a long time are still talking about the fact that Manning scores more points than many top RBs and WRs as if it means anything. VBD is not the answer to all questions, but it is demonstrably much better than total points as an evaluation tool. To illustrate a concept that should be ingrained in everyone here by now: you could be deciding between McAllister and Manning at pick #5. Manning is projected to score 384 points by FBG, McAllister, 258. But you can get the baseline QB (Plummer) in round 7; if you take McAllister and Plummer, you'll be projected for 537 points, while if you take Manning and TJ Duckett (the best RB available at 7.05) you'll have 501 projected points. And that's even if you project 41 TDs for Manning; if you project him for 32-35, the gap is even wider.

Cal, the point isn't on your distribution of projections...I totally agree with you. If you could guarantee those numbers you've projected, then Deuce is the pick there. We all have calculators, and your point is indisputable.What I'm trying to articulate here is that you cannot count on Deuce or Plummer or anyone to get the numbers you've projected. That, at least, is my opinion. We have no good correlational data anywhere that I know of that compares projections to results from year-to-year. But, I've been doing this long enough to come to the sobering conclusion that these projections not only miss the mark, they can also be deadly-wrong. It's all we can go on, and I'm not suggesting they are irrelevant. I'm merely stating that guys tend to fluctuate dramatically from year-to-year.

Manning is the exception. LT seems to be the exception. A few others seem to have a good three-to-four year window where they are what they are...they just keep doing the same damn thing year after year. In these rare cases, I think it's a factor that can't be ignored and will, thus, raise the "value" of that player in my drafts.

I'm just saying I trust Manning to turn in a typical year (because he has done it repeatedly) than I would with McAllister (will he be the 6th-best or 7th-best or 17th-best back this year?).

 

[cobalt_27]

Consistency is such a grossly underappreciated aspect of projecting/drafting. I suspect the RB culture that so over-values one position has guided people who are scared stiff of losing out on their "studs" that they never stop to think about why their 5th selection at RB never seems to rank 5th (or even 10th) at the end of the season. I'll take the sure thing (Manning) early and take my risks later on, tyvm--not the other way around.

To pull out some names, Tom Brady, Aaron Brooks, and Brett Favre are just as consistent and reliable as Manning, and they're all available in the sixth round or later.

Yes, they are consistent in the 8-12 range over the last 4 years.

 

[CalBear]

Manning is the exception. LT seems to be the exception. A few others seem to have a good three-to-four year window where they are what they are...they just keep doing the same damn thing year after year. In these rare cases, I think it's a factor that can't be ignored and will, thus, raise the "value" of that player in my drafts.

I'm just saying I trust Manning to turn in a typical year (because he has done it repeatedly) than I would with McAllister (will he be the 6th-best or 7th-best or 17th-best back this year?).

I think it is fair to expect that Manning's floor is 4300 yards and 28 TDs, barring injury, and that means he is definitely in the QB1-QB5 range, while McAllister's range barring injury is more like RB1-RB17. And there is certainly some value to that consistency. But even so, unless you project another enormous season for Manning, the numbers just don't justify taking him in the high first round. Favre can definitely be said to be in the QB5-10 range (OK, once in the past 13 years he finished 11th), and within 50 points of Manning unless Manning repeats his 2004 performance, so you can get solidity and consistency without using a high draft pick and without giving up many VBD points.So while I agree that 60 VBD points for Manning is worth more than 60 VBD points for a RB or WR (examples: Rudi Johnson, Andre Johnson), and that Manning should probably be selected before RBs and WRs at a similar VBD level (or really, DVBD, since draft dynamics also come into play), I don't think that alone vaults him into the top of the first round. He needs to have 100+ VBD points to be worth considering there.

 

[cobalt_27]

Just a final point here. This only takes one year into account, but it's my contention that most years look like this.Below are the preseason rankings for 2004 RBs:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian2 Holmes,Priest3 Green,Ahman4 Portis,Clinton5 McAllister,Deuce6 Lewis,Jamal7 Alexander,Shaun8 James,Edgerrin9 Taylor,Fred10 Faulk,Marshall11 Barlow,Kevan12 Davis,Domanick13 Dillon,Corey14 Henry,Travis15 Davis,Stephen16 Johnson,Rudi17 Barber,Tiki18 Westbrook,Brian19 Bennett,Michael20 Jones,K

Now, you could look at this any number of ways. But, what interests me is how all over the map these guys are in terms of their final rankings:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian 32 Holmes,Priest 123 Green,Ahman 134 Portis,Clinton 115 McAllister,Deuce 176 Lewis,Jamal 257 Alexander,Shaun 18 James,Edgerrin 69 Taylor,Fred 2010 Faulk,Marshall 2911 Barlow,Kevan 2712 Davis,Domanick 513 Dillon,Corey 714 Henry,Travis 7315 Davis,Stephen 10716 Johnson,Rudi 817 Barber,Tiki 218 Westbrook,Brian 1019 Bennett,Michael 5420 Jones,K 21

Run a correlation on their preseason ranks and their final points ranking, and r=.33 (p=.152). This ain't good. Remove those guys who ranked 30+ at the end of the season from the analysis, and the correlation is still very bad (in fact worse).I'm just saying that you can take your Clinton Portises, Ahman Greens and Deuce McAllisters high if you like. I didn't consider them sure things at all and would have been happy enough with Manning and Tiki Barber (more so than Ahman and Aaron Brooks, I would say).

 

[cobalt_27]

Manning is the exception. LT seems to be the exception. A few others seem to have a good three-to-four year window where they are what they are...they just keep doing the same damn thing year after year. In these rare cases, I think it's a factor that can't be ignored and will, thus, raise the "value" of that player in my drafts.

I'm just saying I trust Manning to turn in a typical year (because he has done it repeatedly) than I would with McAllister (will he be the 6th-best or 7th-best or 17th-best back this year?).

I think it is fair to expect that Manning's floor is 4300 yards and 28 TDs, barring injury, and that means he is definitely in the QB1-QB5 range, while McAllister's range barring injury is more like RB1-RB17. And there is certainly some value to that consistency. But even so, unless you project another enormous season for Manning, the numbers just don't justify taking him in the high first round. Favre can definitely be said to be in the QB5-10 range (OK, once in the past 13 years he finished 11th), and within 50 points of Manning unless Manning repeats his 2004 performance, so you can get solidity and consistency without using a high draft pick and without giving up many VBD points.So while I agree that 60 VBD points for Manning is worth more than 60 VBD points for a RB or WR (examples: Rudi Johnson, Andre Johnson), and that Manning should probably be selected before RBs and WRs at a similar VBD level (or really, DVBD, since draft dynamics also come into play), I don't think that alone vaults him into the top of the first round. He needs to have 100+ VBD points to be worth considering there.

Okee-doke.

 

[David Yudkin]

Just a final point here. This only takes one year into account, but it's my contention that most years look like this.

Below are the preseason rankings for 2004 RBs:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian

2 Holmes,Priest

3 Green,Ahman

4 Portis,Clinton

5 McAllister,Deuce

6 Lewis,Jamal

7 Alexander,Shaun

8 James,Edgerrin

9 Taylor,Fred

10 Faulk,Marshall

11 Barlow,Kevan

12 Davis,Domanick

13 Dillon,Corey

14 Henry,Travis

15 Davis,Stephen

16 Johnson,Rudi

17 Barber,Tiki

18 Westbrook,Brian

19 Bennett,Michael

20 Jones,K

Now, you could look at this any number of ways. But, what interests me is how all over the map these guys are in terms of their final rankings:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian 3

2 Holmes,Priest 12

3 Green,Ahman 13

4 Portis,Clinton 11

5 McAllister,Deuce 17

6 Lewis,Jamal 25

7 Alexander,Shaun 1

8 James,Edgerrin 6

9 Taylor,Fred 20

10 Faulk,Marshall 29

11 Barlow,Kevan 27

12 Davis,Domanick 5

13 Dillon,Corey 7

14 Henry,Travis 73

15 Davis,Stephen 107

16 Johnson,Rudi 8

17 Barber,Tiki 2

18 Westbrook,Brian 10

19 Bennett,Michael 54

20 Jones,K 21

Run a correlation on their preseason ranks and their final points ranking, and r=.33 (p=.152). This ain't good. Remove those guys who ranked 30+ at the end of the season from the analysis, and the correlation is still very bad (in fact worse).I'm just saying that you can take your Clinton Portises, Ahman Greens and Deuce McAllisters high if you like. I didn't consider them sure things at all and would have been happy enough with Manning and Tiki Barber (more so than Ahman and Aaron Brooks, I would say).

The sure things at RB IMO are Holmes, LT, and SA with James very close. The others, while still a place to hang your hat on, are not risk free, as they have not shown that they are consistently worthy for consideration.Some will say Priest is no sure thing, but if he plays, he is a monster and then some, and even last year he still ranked in the Top 12 or so in half a season.

What others are forgetting is that if Manning does not deliver 40+ TD, your team is looking at a substantial shortage at RB production. More than likely, you have positioned yourself to have to start a RB2 and a RB3, meaning you lost out on elite RB1 production and replaced it with RB3 production.

If you took Manning instead of Alexander, say, you could be looking at the difference between SA (300 points) and the equivalent of last year's Fred Taylor (175 points).

On the flip side, palatable QB starters can be had rounds and rounds later that won't touch Manning's numbers but could still be viable starters. Any RB taken at that point will be wishes--something will have to happen for that guy to get a chance and put up decent production.

I understand that there are no absolutes--the RB taken could do better than expected, the other QB taken later could be less productive than expected, any of these guys could get banged up, etc.

But there's a high probability that Manning will have to be at least 100 points better than other starting QB or you will be starting out against the 8-ball.

 

[Vicktimized]

Just a final point here.  This only takes one year into account, but it's my contention that most years look like this.

Below are the preseason rankings for 2004 RBs:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian

2 Holmes,Priest

3 Green,Ahman

4 Portis,Clinton

5 McAllister,Deuce

6 Lewis,Jamal

7 Alexander,Shaun

8 James,Edgerrin

9 Taylor,Fred

10 Faulk,Marshall

11 Barlow,Kevan

12 Davis,Domanick

13 Dillon,Corey

14 Henry,Travis

15 Davis,Stephen

16 Johnson,Rudi

17 Barber,Tiki

18 Westbrook,Brian

19 Bennett,Michael

20 Jones,K

Now, you could look at this any number of ways. But, what interests me is how all over the map these guys are in terms of their final rankings:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian 3

2 Holmes,Priest 12

3 Green,Ahman 13

4 Portis,Clinton 11

5 McAllister,Deuce 17

6 Lewis,Jamal 25

7 Alexander,Shaun 1

8 James,Edgerrin 6

9 Taylor,Fred 20

10 Faulk,Marshall 29

11 Barlow,Kevan 27

12 Davis,Domanick 5

13 Dillon,Corey 7

14 Henry,Travis 73

15 Davis,Stephen 107

16 Johnson,Rudi 8

17 Barber,Tiki 2

18 Westbrook,Brian 10

19 Bennett,Michael 54

20 Jones,K 21

Run a correlation on their preseason ranks and their final points ranking, and r=.33 (p=.152). This ain't good. Remove those guys who ranked 30+ at the end of the season from the analysis, and the correlation is still very bad (in fact worse).I'm just saying that you can take your Clinton Portises, Ahman Greens and Deuce McAllisters high if you like. I didn't consider them sure things at all and would have been happy enough with Manning and Tiki Barber (more so than Ahman and Aaron Brooks, I would say).

The sure things at RB IMO are Holmes, LT, and SA with James very close. The others, while still a place to hang your hat on, are not risk free, as they have not shown that they are consistently worthy for consideration.Some will say Priest is no sure thing, but if he plays, he is a monster and then some, and even last year he still ranked in the Top 12 or so in half a season.

What others are forgetting is that if Manning does not deliver 40+ TD, your team is looking at a substantial shortage at RB production. More than likely, you have positioned yourself to have to start a RB2 and a RB3, meaning you lost out on elite RB1 production and replaced it with RB3 production.

If you took Manning instead of Alexander, say, you could be looking at the difference between SA (300 points) and the equivalent of last year's Fred Taylor (175 points).

On the flip side, palatable QB starters can be had rounds and rounds later that won't touch Manning's numbers but could still be viable starters. Any RB taken at that point will be wishes--something will have to happen for that guy to get a chance and put up decent production.

I understand that there are no absolutes--the RB taken could do better than expected, the other QB taken later could be less productive than expected, any of these guys could get banged up, etc.

But there's a high probability that Manning will have to be at least 100 points better than other starting QB or you will be starting out against the 8-ball.

I'd simply argue the idea that Manning COULD be 100 points ahead of most other QBs is worth taking the shot on.

 

[cobalt_27]

Just a final point here. This only takes one year into account, but it's my contention that most years look like this.

Below are the preseason rankings for 2004 RBs:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian

2 Holmes,Priest

3 Green,Ahman

4 Portis,Clinton

5 McAllister,Deuce

6 Lewis,Jamal

7 Alexander,Shaun

8 James,Edgerrin

9 Taylor,Fred

10 Faulk,Marshall

11 Barlow,Kevan

12 Davis,Domanick

13 Dillon,Corey

14 Henry,Travis

15 Davis,Stephen

16 Johnson,Rudi

17 Barber,Tiki

18 Westbrook,Brian

19 Bennett,Michael

20 Jones,K

Now, you could look at this any number of ways. But, what interests me is how all over the map these guys are in terms of their final rankings:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian 3

2 Holmes,Priest 12

3 Green,Ahman 13

4 Portis,Clinton 11

5 McAllister,Deuce 17

6 Lewis,Jamal 25

7 Alexander,Shaun 1

8 James,Edgerrin 6

9 Taylor,Fred 20

10 Faulk,Marshall 29

11 Barlow,Kevan 27

12 Davis,Domanick 5

13 Dillon,Corey 7

14 Henry,Travis 73

15 Davis,Stephen 107

16 Johnson,Rudi 8

17 Barber,Tiki 2

18 Westbrook,Brian 10

19 Bennett,Michael 54

20 Jones,K 21

Run a correlation on their preseason ranks and their final points ranking, and r=.33 (p=.152). This ain't good. Remove those guys who ranked 30+ at the end of the season from the analysis, and the correlation is still very bad (in fact worse).I'm just saying that you can take your Clinton Portises, Ahman Greens and Deuce McAllisters high if you like. I didn't consider them sure things at all and would have been happy enough with Manning and Tiki Barber (more so than Ahman and Aaron Brooks, I would say).

The sure things at RB IMO are Holmes, LT, and SA with James very close. The others, while still a place to hang your hat on, are not risk free, as they have not shown that they are consistently worthy for consideration.Some will say Priest is no sure thing, but if he plays, he is a monster and then some, and even last year he still ranked in the Top 12 or so in half a season.

What others are forgetting is that if Manning does not deliver 40+ TD, your team is looking at a substantial shortage at RB production. More than likely, you have positioned yourself to have to start a RB2 and a RB3, meaning you lost out on elite RB1 production and replaced it with RB3 production.

If you took Manning instead of Alexander, say, you could be looking at the difference between SA (300 points) and the equivalent of last year's Fred Taylor (175 points).

On the flip side, palatable QB starters can be had rounds and rounds later that won't touch Manning's numbers but could still be viable starters. Any RB taken at that point will be wishes--something will have to happen for that guy to get a chance and put up decent production.

I understand that there are no absolutes--the RB taken could do better than expected, the other QB taken later could be less productive than expected, any of these guys could get banged up, etc.

But there's a high probability that Manning will have to be at least 100 points better than other starting QB or you will be starting out against the 8-ball.

And, I'd add that your RBs after Shaun are a crap shoot. The points difference between 4 and 20 at the end of the season make it look like there's a this enormous drop-off to worry about. This is the fallacy of all these post hoc analyses, me thinks. It's the problem of consistency and how the predictive validity is simply not there with the RB position. You and I, for however much we're married to our projections, don't have the slightest inkling of who will be ranked 4 and 20 or anywhere in-between at the end of the season. Last year, for example, there were more top-10 producers amongst those projected 11-20 (5) before the season than there were in the 1-10 projections (3). Why are we so sold on taking such a high draft pick on the flip of a coin when, right in front of us, we've got a guy who's going to be atop his position by miles ahead of his peers...and the ability to get 2 RBs at 14+ who have just as much potential to crack the top 10 as those who are slotted at 4 or 5?

 

[David Yudkin]

I'd simply argue the idea that Manning COULD be 100 points ahead of most other QBs is worth taking the shot on.

Manning outscored the QB in the Favre/Brooks/Plummer area by about 120-140 points in a 6 pt per TD league.Using the math I just cited, you would be investing . . .1st Manning2nd RB3rd RBto get the same production level (assuming Manning is as dominant again this year) as1st SA2nd RB6th or 7th QBIn the second option, you are investing a 6th or 7th round pick instead of a 3rd, and that is assuming Manning does near the same as he did last year. The rest of your lineup would be the same with the exception of you have better picks remaining in Option #2, so it's not like we're comparing ables to oranges.

 

[David Yudkin]

Just a final point here.  This only takes one year into account, but it's my contention that most years look like this.

Below are the preseason rankings for 2004 RBs:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian

2 Holmes,Priest

3 Green,Ahman

4 Portis,Clinton

5 McAllister,Deuce

6 Lewis,Jamal

7 Alexander,Shaun

8 James,Edgerrin

9 Taylor,Fred

10 Faulk,Marshall

11 Barlow,Kevan

12 Davis,Domanick

13 Dillon,Corey

14 Henry,Travis

15 Davis,Stephen

16 Johnson,Rudi

17 Barber,Tiki

18 Westbrook,Brian

19 Bennett,Michael

20 Jones,K

Now, you could look at this any number of ways. But, what interests me is how all over the map these guys are in terms of their final rankings:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian 3

2 Holmes,Priest 12

3 Green,Ahman 13

4 Portis,Clinton 11

5 McAllister,Deuce 17

6 Lewis,Jamal 25

7 Alexander,Shaun 1

8 James,Edgerrin 6

9 Taylor,Fred 20

10 Faulk,Marshall 29

11 Barlow,Kevan 27

12 Davis,Domanick 5

13 Dillon,Corey 7

14 Henry,Travis 73

15 Davis,Stephen 107

16 Johnson,Rudi 8

17 Barber,Tiki 2

18 Westbrook,Brian 10

19 Bennett,Michael 54

20 Jones,K 21

Run a correlation on their preseason ranks and their final points ranking, and r=.33 (p=.152). This ain't good. Remove those guys who ranked 30+ at the end of the season from the analysis, and the correlation is still very bad (in fact worse).I'm just saying that you can take your Clinton Portises, Ahman Greens and Deuce McAllisters high if you like. I didn't consider them sure things at all and would have been happy enough with Manning and Tiki Barber (more so than Ahman and Aaron Brooks, I would say).

The sure things at RB IMO are Holmes, LT, and SA with James very close. The others, while still a place to hang your hat on, are not risk free, as they have not shown that they are consistently worthy for consideration.Some will say Priest is no sure thing, but if he plays, he is a monster and then some, and even last year he still ranked in the Top 12 or so in half a season.

What others are forgetting is that if Manning does not deliver 40+ TD, your team is looking at a substantial shortage at RB production. More than likely, you have positioned yourself to have to start a RB2 and a RB3, meaning you lost out on elite RB1 production and replaced it with RB3 production.

If you took Manning instead of Alexander, say, you could be looking at the difference between SA (300 points) and the equivalent of last year's Fred Taylor (175 points).

On the flip side, palatable QB starters can be had rounds and rounds later that won't touch Manning's numbers but could still be viable starters. Any RB taken at that point will be wishes--something will have to happen for that guy to get a chance and put up decent production.

I understand that there are no absolutes--the RB taken could do better than expected, the other QB taken later could be less productive than expected, any of these guys could get banged up, etc.

But there's a high probability that Manning will have to be at least 100 points better than other starting QB or you will be starting out against the 8-ball.

And, I'd add that your RBs after Shaun are a crap shoot. The points difference between 4 and 20 at the end of the season make it look like there's a this enormous drop-off to worry about. This is the fallacy of all these post hoc analyses, me thinks. It's the problem of consistency and how the predictive validity is simply not there with the RB position. You and I, for however much we're married to our projections, don't have the slightest inkling of who will be ranked 4 and 20 or anywhere in-between at the end of the season. Last year, for example, there were more top-10 producers amongst those projected 11-20 (5) before the season than there were in the 1-10 projections (3). Why are we so sold on taking such a high draft pick on the flip of a coin when, right in front of us, we've got a guy who's going to be atop his position by miles ahead of his peers...and the ability to get 2 RBs at 14+ who have just as much potential to crack the top 10 as those who are slotted at 4 or 5?

See post above. But I would argue that LT, Priest, Holmes, and Edge are consistent enough to be the Top 5 candidates. (I wouldn't touch Willis with a 10 foot pole in terms of investing a Top 5 pick.)If, as I suggested, your decision is Manning or SA, that could mean that you'd be looking at 1 QB (Manning), 2 WR (maybe Moss/Holt), and 18 RB off the board when you pick again at 22 in a 12-team league. So your RB options will be RB19 or worse as your RB1/RB2. You might hit a home run. Or you might not.

People are forgetting that there are very low risk QB available several rounds later that offer as little risk as Manning.

 

[cobalt_27]

Just a final point here. This only takes one year into account, but it's my contention that most years look like this.

Below are the preseason rankings for 2004 RBs:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian

2 Holmes,Priest

3 Green,Ahman

4 Portis,Clinton

5 McAllister,Deuce

6 Lewis,Jamal

7 Alexander,Shaun

8 James,Edgerrin

9 Taylor,Fred

10 Faulk,Marshall

11 Barlow,Kevan

12 Davis,Domanick

13 Dillon,Corey

14 Henry,Travis

15 Davis,Stephen

16 Johnson,Rudi

17 Barber,Tiki

18 Westbrook,Brian

19 Bennett,Michael

20 Jones,K

Now, you could look at this any number of ways. But, what interests me is how all over the map these guys are in terms of their final rankings:

1 Tomlinson,Ladainian 3

2 Holmes,Priest 12

3 Green,Ahman 13

4 Portis,Clinton 11

5 McAllister,Deuce 17

6 Lewis,Jamal 25

7 Alexander,Shaun 1

8 James,Edgerrin 6

9 Taylor,Fred 20

10 Faulk,Marshall 29

11 Barlow,Kevan 27

12 Davis,Domanick 5

13 Dillon,Corey 7

14 Henry,Travis 73

15 Davis,Stephen 107

16 Johnson,Rudi 8

17 Barber,Tiki 2

18 Westbrook,Brian 10

19 Bennett,Michael 54

20 Jones,K 21

Run a correlation on their preseason ranks and their final points ranking, and r=.33 (p=.152). This ain't good. Remove those guys who ranked 30+ at the end of the season from the analysis, and the correlation is still very bad (in fact worse).I'm just saying that you can take your Clinton Portises, Ahman Greens and Deuce McAllisters high if you like. I didn't consider them sure things at all and would have been happy enough with Manning and Tiki Barber (more so than Ahman and Aaron Brooks, I would say).

The sure things at RB IMO are Holmes, LT, and SA with James very close. The others, while still a place to hang your hat on, are not risk free, as they have not shown that they are consistently worthy for consideration.Some will say Priest is no sure thing, but if he plays, he is a monster and then some, and even last year he still ranked in the Top 12 or so in half a season.

What others are forgetting is that if Manning does not deliver 40+ TD, your team is looking at a substantial shortage at RB production. More than likely, you have positioned yourself to have to start a RB2 and a RB3, meaning you lost out on elite RB1 production and replaced it with RB3 production.

If you took Manning instead of Alexander, say, you could be looking at the difference between SA (300 points) and the equivalent of last year's Fred Taylor (175 points).

On the flip side, palatable QB starters can be had rounds and rounds later that won't touch Manning's numbers but could still be viable starters. Any RB taken at that point will be wishes--something will have to happen for that guy to get a chance and put up decent production.

I understand that there are no absolutes--the RB taken could do better than expected, the other QB taken later could be less productive than expected, any of these guys could get banged up, etc.

But there's a high probability that Manning will have to be at least 100 points better than other starting QB or you will be starting out against the 8-ball.

And, I'd add that your RBs after Shaun are a crap shoot. The points difference between 4 and 20 at the end of the season make it look like there's a this enormous drop-off to worry about. This is the fallacy of all these post hoc analyses, me thinks. It's the problem of consistency and how the predictive validity is simply not there with the RB position. You and I, for however much we're married to our projections, don't have the slightest inkling of who will be ranked 4 and 20 or anywhere in-between at the end of the season. Last year, for example, there were more top-10 producers amongst those projected 11-20 (5) before the season than there were in the 1-10 projections (3). Why are we so sold on taking such a high draft pick on the flip of a coin when, right in front of us, we've got a guy who's going to be atop his position by miles ahead of his peers...and the ability to get 2 RBs at 14+ who have just as much potential to crack the top 10 as those who are slotted at 4 or 5?

See post above. But I would argue that LT, Priest, Holmes, and Edge are consistent enough to be the Top 5 candidates. (I wouldn't touch Willis with a 10 foot pole in terms of investing a Top 5 pick.)If, as I suggested, your decision is Manning or SA, that could mean that you'd be looking at 1 QB (Manning), 2 WR (maybe Moss/Holt), and 18 RB off the board when you pick again at 22 in a 12-team league. So your RB options will be RB19 or worse as your RB1/RB2. You might hit a home run. Or you might not.

People are forgetting that there are very low risk QB available several rounds later that offer as little risk as Manning.

Some people are likely to not be forgetting anything. Nor do I believe they are trying to hit a home run. Instead, they might be looking at RB4-RB20 and feeling that the likelihood of nabbing a top-10 RB is equivalent if they pick at the 4 spot or at 20. Maybe they are looking at pairing RB16 with Manning as better than pairing RB4 with Brady, Brooks, et al. (Again, please remember that when we talk about "RB16" and "RB4" these are projected slots and have, I will argue, no reliable relationship with their actual final numbers. If you disagree, I would love to see some data that compares predicted/projected finish with actual finish over the last few years. I've provided one year because 2004 is the only season for which I have any projections to compare. But, last year was certainly a bad year to be picking RB3,4,5 over Manning. Maybe it was just a bad year for projections, but I don't think so.)

 

[RustyFA]

FBG's is my favorite website. For many years those here had an incredible edge when it came to drafting. Those times are over. Everyone and their cat understands VBD and I imagine 1/2 of FF owners are on this website. The time has come to either set yourself apart from the pack or follow the same rules everyone else is and hope you get lucky. Any person on this website that drafts Dom Davis or Julius Jones ahead of Manning at any position is a damn fool. RB craziness has both taken over FF and completely leveled the playing field. I would rather take three RBs in 2, 3 and 4 and be set at QB for the season. Lets face it, I likely would take RBs there anyways because of value. Time are changing. Either make your new path or make way on the newly beaten down one. You are going to have a lot of comapny.

 

[cobalt_27]

FBG's is my favorite website. For many years those here had an incredible edge when it came to drafting. Those times are over. Everyone and their cat understands VBD and I imagine 1/2 of FF owners are on this website. The time has come to either set yourself apart from the pack or follow the same rules everyone else is and hope you get lucky. Any person on this website that drafts Dom Davis or Julius Jones ahead of Manning at any position is a damn fool. RB craziness has both taken over FF and completely leveled the playing field. I would rather take three RBs in 2, 3 and 4 and be set at QB for the season. Lets face it, I likely would take RBs there anyways because of value. Time are changing. Either make your new path or make way on the newly beaten down one. You are going to have a lot of comapny.

I suspect we have thousands of "damn fools" on these here boards who would do precisely this thing. The VBD bible gives them a number and, without using the damn brain god gave 'em, they pick the higher number.The product of very unintelligent design, if you ask me.

 

[DrJ]

David, I have a great deal of respect for your analyses, but I think you're overlooking some key factors about Manning vs historical precedents.1. Rule change - notice that all offensive numbers were up last year? 9 QBs threw for at least 27 TDs! Do you really think that Manning will only get 32???

It wasn't a rule change, they just called emphasis to the existing rule. And it isn't the first time that this has happened. It happened, in 1983 just before Marino's record breaking season. And passing numbers were pretty huge those next 2 seasons.It happened again in 1994, and 1995 was one of the hugest passing years in history. In 95 Rice set the record with 1848 receiving yards, barely nudging Bruce's 1781. Every QB in the world was at or around 4000 yards - even Scott Mitchell threw for 4000 and Erik Kramer wasn't far off at 3838.The scoring may or may not hold up this season, we'll see.

 

[LordHusker]

Wow. Somebody needs to take the Top 20 projected RBs for the past five years and set those against their actual finishes. Those disparate numbers for 4-20 are AMAZING. As a guy who just drew the 12th pick in a 14-teamer, I may be re-evaluating my ABSOLUTE RB theory. Why not take Moss instead, who I consider a sure thing? Or even an Owens? RB is looking more and more like a total crapshoot.

 

[David Yudkin]

FBG's is my favorite website.  For many years those here had an incredible edge when it came to drafting.  Those times are over.  Everyone and their cat understands VBD and I imagine 1/2 of FF owners are on this website.  The time has come to either set yourself apart from the pack or follow the same rules everyone else is and hope you get lucky.  Any person on this website that drafts Dom Davis or Julius Jones ahead of Manning at any position is a damn fool. RB craziness has both taken over FF and completely leveled the playing field.  I would rather take three RBs in 2, 3 and 4 and be set at QB for the season.  Lets face it, I likely would take RBs there anyways because of value.  Time are changing.  Either make your new path or make way on the newly beaten down one.  You are going to have a lot of comapny.

I suspect we have thousands of "damn fools" on these here boards who would do precisely this thing. The VBD bible gives them a number and, without using the damn brain god gave 'em, they pick the higher number.The product of very unintelligent design, if you ask me.

LOL. The Data Dominator would be telling them to take Manning and they took someone else instead, yet the software is poorly designed.

 

[David Yudkin]

David, I have a great deal of respect for your analyses, but I think you're overlooking some key factors about Manning vs historical precedents.

1. Rule change - notice that all offensive numbers were up last year?  9 QBs threw for at least 27 TDs!  Do you really think that Manning will only get 32???

It wasn't a rule change, they just called emphasis to the existing rule. And it isn't the first time that this has happened. It happened, in 1983 just before Marino's record breaking season. And passing numbers were pretty huge those next 2 seasons.It happened again in 1994, and 1995 was one of the hugest passing years in history. In 95 Rice set the record with 1848 receiving yards, barely nudging Bruce's 1781. Every QB in the world was at or around 4000 yards - even Scott Mitchell threw for 4000 and Erik Kramer wasn't far off at 3838.

The scoring may or may not hold up this season, we'll see.

My league history is a bit fuzzy, but I recall that the 1984 season was the start of the USFL and a lot of teams were pirated for players that defected to the new league. I don't so much remember the rules enforcement being the driving force behind the inflated numbers, but if that were the case that would add to the lack of defensive depth available.Again, IIRC, there were a couple of things that happened in 1995, and I believe the first was enforcing defensive holding. the other was that the league had just expanded by adding Jacksonville and Carolina, somewhat diluting some of the

defensive depth that teams had and giving teams some easy numbers against expansion teams.

In 1985 and 1996, things reverted back to normal (or even lower) in terms of yardage and scoring. Will that happen this year? Who knows, but last year was the highest scoring year for the Top 12 QB since they started playing 16 games (325.3 fantasy points @ 4 pts/TD). As a footnote, QB scoring has not gone up more than 2 years in a row in that time (27 years) and only two times has QB scoring gone up in consecutive years.

People can do whatever they want and draft whomever they want where, but I have studied QB, RB, draft theories, ADP vs actual production, and the like extensivey, and IMO for a standard league I have concluded that Manning as a Top 5 pick will hinder your team's success.

As of yet, I have not seen anyone refute that a pairing of SA at 1.03 and Favre at 6.10 would produce any worse than Manning at 1.03 and another RB at 3.03. You can hope to find that RB at that spot that greatly exceeds his draft position, but I certainly feel there are no sure things after 20+ RB off the board. Since the topic evolved into Manning being risk free, would a pairing of Alexander and Favre not be as equally risk free?

To be clear, if there are people that strongly feel that Manning will throw 50 TD this year, than the value play is to take Manning. So I am not shooting down taking the most valuable player. My concern is projecting Manning at that level of production again.

And no one has asked me about what I think Manning will do this year. I have him in the 38-39 total TD range which makes him a decent late first round option (based on those numbers) as others have mentioned that the pack of RB there are pretty similar. However, the leagues that I play have other quirky rules and many have PPR and 4 pts for passing TD, and therefore taking Manning there is not as clear cut. in general, I am somewhat adverse to taking a QB in the first round, as it seems like the times I have seen one taken in the first round he gets hurt or under produces.

 

[Mark Wimer]

To those saying he faced a lot of woeful defenses last season...what about the 2 games vs Tenn this season? Stl Louis? Frisco? Brownies? The Texans, who might be worse defensively and gave up one of Manning's huge games last season? Seattle is going to stop him? Etc...even if schedule was a major factor last season, why does this one look like any less of a cakewalk? Plus, people forget, he threw 49 tds in 15 games. That 16th game he played maybe 1 series and sat. 

I'm arguing from playing in a 6 point per passing TD system, but let me ask...for all those citing risk for Manning, why then would you advocate McAllister, McGahee, Holmes, or Portis ahead of him? 2 of those guys disappointed last year, one got hurt, and one has a questionable situation in front of him now. Any could disappoint this season, and I'd argue that it's more likely than Manning doing so.

We know Manning has grade A protection, anticipates and reads coverages probably better than any QB going today,and has great weapons at WR, TE, and the threat of James to play off of. He isn't likely to get hurt, yet carries the potential to score 40-50 Tds again. With the contact rules enforced, nobody can really cover guys like Harrison consistantly, and what safety or LB can run with Clark 1 on 1?

The ONLY knock on Peyton is that he's a QB in a RB's game...but given the depth of RB, isn't this the year to draft a Manning? And even if you get STUCK with all viable RBs gone in round 3, is drafting Owens or Holt the worst thing ever?

I'd say, you get a shot at Manning in your draft, it's worth punching your lotto ticket to see if you can get those 50 tds and be the favorite in your league. If not, a QB who throws 35 TDs isn't exactly a downside to fear.

I'm not as concerned with how players do or where people have them ranking. I am concerned, however, with where to slot them in terms of value on draft day.Much of this thread has focused on whether Manning is a viable Top 5 or even #1 draft pick. IMO, LT, Holmes, Alexander, and Edge are all better options based on what they've already done. The other guys admittedly are riskier (I wouldn't take Portis or McGahee that early either.)

LT's value scores have been 85, 155, 202, and 130. Alexander's have been 127, 119, 127, and 139.

Holmes' value scores in KC have been 142, 220, 231, and 41 (although he was on pace for 400 fantasy points before getting hurt).

As mentioned earlier, Manning's have been 70, 60, 53, and 150 (in a 4 pt/TD system). His value would be higher in a 6 pt/TD system, but until this year last year people talking about taking a QB that early would have been lambasted. What changed in a year?

I've said all along that Manning should still have a good season, but the fact of the matter is that people taking him this year will be paying for last year's inflated statistics.

In his first two years and last two years, Edge's value scores have been 186, 179, 79, and 100.

I agree David, but aren't we paying for any of the top 3 RB's last year's statistics.In fact, for Priest Holmes, aren't we paying from 2 years ago if you draft him top 3. He certainly didn't put up top 3 numbers overall last season, we're going on what he could put up when he was Superman a couple years ago and are hoping he can do that again.

The difference is that Holmes, LT, Alexander, and James have established a baseline of what their usual performance level has been. Holmes had back to back seasons of 373 points scored and was on his way to 400 last year when he got hurt (196 points scored in 7.5 games). Those were their established baselines.Manning's baseline has been at a level a lot lower and last year's totals were a great deal higher. Using AVT, Manning's baseline (3-yr average) would be 35 TD. I would say that that is a much better representation than those thinking the baseline for comparison for Manning this year should be in the 40s for TD passes.

Since there will forever be a comparisonto Brady, Brady's AVT number for TD passes is 26.3, so those that believe in the AVT theory would start with Brady being 8.7 TD behind Manning.

If you use the same approach for the RB, their average season would be very similar to their numbers from recent seasons.

I agree with what your saying, but also think that you can't just take the average and make it nice and neat and not think about anything else.You have to take into account player personnel and where they are in their careers as well. Peyton Manning is definately in his prime, to take into account what he did a few years ago skews things. Not only that, he's got Reggie Wayne who's looks to be at the top of his game etc.....Indy's always been good on offense, but that haven't been this good. Then you can take into account any rule changes that may have occured that could benefit the offense.

I'm not here to say Peyton is a top 5 pick, that's for you guys to decide for your own teams. But like many of you, I watched the Colts......they're exciting right. Well, 49 Td's is a lot, but if you watched them like I did you know that he could have easily had 55 td's.

If you were a bookie, and put the over/under at Peyton Manning's TD's for this upcoming season at 35 you would lose A LOT of money.

Oh Really? Manning's career to date:+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| 1998 ind | 16 | 326 575 56.7 3739 6.5 26 28 | 15 62 0 |

| 1999 ind | 16 | 331 533 62.1 4135 7.8 26 15 | 35 73 2 |

| 2000 ind | 16 | 357 571 62.5 4413 7.7 33 15 | 37 116 1 |

| 2001 ind | 16 | 343 547 62.7 4131 7.6 26 23 | 35 157 4 |

| 2002 ind | 16 | 392 591 66.3 4200 7.1 27 19 | 38 148 2 |

| 2003 ind | 16 | 379 566 67.0 4267 7.5 29 10 | 28 26 0 |

| 2004 ind | 16 | 336 497 67.6 4557 9.2 49 10 | 25 38 0 |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

Looks to me that under 35 is a solid bet, but then again the weight of history could be wrong...

 

[cobalt_27]

David, I have a great deal of respect for your analyses, but I think you're overlooking some key factors about Manning vs historical precedents.

1. Rule change - notice that all offensive numbers were up last year? 9 QBs threw for at least 27 TDs! Do you really think that Manning will only get 32???

It wasn't a rule change, they just called emphasis to the existing rule. And it isn't the first time that this has happened. It happened, in 1983 just before Marino's record breaking season. And passing numbers were pretty huge those next 2 seasons.It happened again in 1994, and 1995 was one of the hugest passing years in history. In 95 Rice set the record with 1848 receiving yards, barely nudging Bruce's 1781. Every QB in the world was at or around 4000 yards - even Scott Mitchell threw for 4000 and Erik Kramer wasn't far off at 3838.

The scoring may or may not hold up this season, we'll see.

My league history is a bit fuzzy, but I recall that the 1984 season was the start of the USFL and a lot of teams were pirated for players that defected to the new league. I don't so much remember the rules enforcement being the driving force behind the inflated numbers, but if that were the case that would add to the lack of defensive depth available.Again, IIRC, there were a couple of things that happened in 1995, and I believe the first was enforcing defensive holding. the other was that the league had just expanded by adding Jacksonville and Carolina, somewhat diluting some of the

defensive depth that teams had and giving teams some easy numbers against expansion teams.

In 1985 and 1996, things reverted back to normal (or even lower) in terms of yardage and scoring. Will that happen this year? Who knows, but last year was the highest scoring year for the Top 12 QB since they started playing 16 games (325.3 fantasy points @ 4 pts/TD). As a footnote, QB scoring has not gone up more than 2 years in a row in that time (27 years) and only two times has QB scoring gone up in consecutive years.

People can do whatever they want and draft whomever they want where, but I have studied QB, RB, draft theories, ADP vs actual production, and the like extensivey, and IMO for a standard league I have concluded that Manning as a Top 5 pick will hinder your team's success.

As of yet, I have not seen anyone refute that a pairing of SA at 1.03 and Favre at 6.10 would produce any worse than Manning at 1.03 and another RB at 3.03. You can hope to find that RB at that spot that greatly exceeds his draft position, but I certainly feel there are no sure things after 20+ RB off the board. Since the topic evolved into Manning being risk free, would a pairing of Alexander and Favre not be as equally risk free?

To be clear, if there are people that strongly feel that Manning will throw 50 TD this year, than the value play is to take Manning. So I am not shooting down taking the most valuable player. My concern is projecting Manning at that level of production again.

And no one has asked me about what I think Manning will do this year. I have him in the 38-39 total TD range which makes him a decent late first round option (based on those numbers) as others have mentioned that the pack of RB there are pretty similar. However, the leagues that I play have other quirky rules and many have PPR and 4 pts for passing TD, and therefore taking Manning there is not as clear cut. in general, I am somewhat adverse to taking a QB in the first round, as it seems like the times I have seen one taken in the first round he gets hurt or under produces.

That would be a fine pairing. I'm not a big SA fan, but I'd have to have a big Come to Jesus meeting if I had the 3rd pick (LT, Holmes, SA). But, after SA, I wouldn't want anyone paired with Favre over Manning + RB~17.David, in reference to your bolded statement above, the reason it can't be refuted is because we don't know who those RBs will be and what they will do. Most folks here talk about RBx and RBy and offer numbers attached to those names. But, this assumes that preseason rankings relate to results at the end of the season. It is my contention that myriad factors make this a rather tenuous association, at best.

This is the issue central to my point: You can rank these guys all you want, but the ADP is not going to reliably predict where they finish. This is a falsifiable hypothesis, and if you have some ADP data to suggest differently, I'd love to see it. But, Manning, on the other hand, will reliably finish atop his position (or damn near close). So, taking a RB4 when your confidence in him finishing top-10 isn't appreciably more than your confidence in RB~17 finishing top-10 seems like a mistake to me when you know that Manning will far-and-away outscore his peers at QB5+.

I appreciate your studies and analyses, and we've tossed around a few issues in the past. I'm just going on record stating that the one thing that's so often missing in these debates is the confidence one has (or, more appropriately, should have based on ADP v. Totals) in his projections. Some guys elicit more confidence than others, to be sure. But, on this issue, and we may differ here, but I simply do not trust my--or anyone else's projections--enough after RB3 to pass on the certain production Manning offers and the stdev he will score beyond his peers. In other words, I trust that my selection at RB~17 has as much of a chance to put together a top-10 season as I do RB4.

If you have data to change my mind, that's what this is all about, and I'd love to see it.

 

[Mike]

I'm a little late to the party here, but thought I would toss this in to get some opinions, even if they are of this variety

Copied below is an excerpt from an article I wrote recently. There is a lot more in the article discussing whether Manning is worthy of being a 1st round pick (top of the 1st actually), but here is short checklist I made to help decide yay or nay on Manning. Note this was a very unscientificly constructed checklist:

Assuming no wild changes in the scoring system, here is the “Cosmo” survey on when to pull, or pull back, the trigger on drafting Manning early this season:

Does your league start more than 1 QB, including the offensive flex starter(s)? (4 points)

Does your league start 5 or fewer RB + WR , including the offensive flex starter(s)? (2 points)
Does your league score the same points for passing TD as rushing and receiving TD? (2 point)
Does your league favor QB passing yds more than normal performance leagues (EX. 1 pt per 15 yds passing, 1 pt for 10 yds rushing/receiving)? (2 points)
Does your league score negative points for interceptions thrown? (1 point)
Does your league give bonus points for long distance TD scored? (1 point)
Does your league have less than 10 teams, or more than 14 teams? (1 point)
Do the other owners in your league historically allow lesser known but quality RB + WR to “slip” further than they would in experienced leagues (i.e. Kevin Jones falling to the late 2nd or early 3rd round; LaMont Jordan to the 4th round)? (2 points)11-15 points = Potential #1 overall pick.

7-10 points = Some consideration for Manning at the top of the draft.

3-6 points = He’d better crack 50 TD if you’re going to spend a 1st round pick on him.

0-2 points = Someone else please draft this guy in the 1st.

While I’m having some fun here with this pseudo-survey, the point is I’m not against drafting Manning in the 1st round, but it has to be under the right circumstances of your league so you are getting proper value for your high draft pick. Otherwise, it is going to be an uphill battle the rest of the way.

http://fftoday.com/articles/macgregor/05_draft1-5_part1.htm

 

[Mike]

Similar to cobalt_27's point about confidence, the greatest asset a QB like Manning brings to the table for me is he is a no brainer starter every week. There is no start/bench decision to make. No matter who he plays against, he starts. Thats not to say he won't have subpar games here and there, but anyone would be stupid to sit Manning in favor of one of their backup QBs because they have a seemingly better matchup.The guys who love drafting platoon QBs in the preseason always sound like they are 100% accurate in their start/bench decisions. I'm sure that is far from the truth. Weekly QB performance is not easy to predict.Bringing this back into context though, Holmes, LT, Alexander, Edge would all fall into the no brainer starter category too, so this doesn't really help support Manning as a 1st round pick.

 

[David Yudkin]

David, I have a great deal of respect for your analyses, but I think you're overlooking some key factors about Manning vs historical precedents.

1. Rule change - notice that all offensive numbers were up last year?  9 QBs threw for at least 27 TDs!  Do you really think that Manning will only get 32???

It wasn't a rule change, they just called emphasis to the existing rule. And it isn't the first time that this has happened. It happened, in 1983 just before Marino's record breaking season. And passing numbers were pretty huge those next 2 seasons.It happened again in 1994, and 1995 was one of the hugest passing years in history. In 95 Rice set the record with 1848 receiving yards, barely nudging Bruce's 1781. Every QB in the world was at or around 4000 yards - even Scott Mitchell threw for 4000 and Erik Kramer wasn't far off at 3838.

The scoring may or may not hold up this season, we'll see.

My league history is a bit fuzzy, but I recall that the 1984 season was the start of the USFL and a lot of teams were pirated for players that defected to the new league. I don't so much remember the rules enforcement being the driving force behind the inflated numbers, but if that were the case that would add to the lack of defensive depth available.Again, IIRC, there were a couple of things that happened in 1995, and I believe the first was enforcing defensive holding. the other was that the league had just expanded by adding Jacksonville and Carolina, somewhat diluting some of the

defensive depth that teams had and giving teams some easy numbers against expansion teams.

In 1985 and 1996, things reverted back to normal (or even lower) in terms of yardage and scoring. Will that happen this year? Who knows, but last year was the highest scoring year for the Top 12 QB since they started playing 16 games (325.3 fantasy points @ 4 pts/TD). As a footnote, QB scoring has not gone up more than 2 years in a row in that time (27 years) and only two times has QB scoring gone up in consecutive years.

People can do whatever they want and draft whomever they want where, but I have studied QB, RB, draft theories, ADP vs actual production, and the like extensivey, and IMO for a standard league I have concluded that Manning as a Top 5 pick will hinder your team's success.

As of yet, I have not seen anyone refute that a pairing of SA at 1.03 and Favre at 6.10 would produce any worse than Manning at 1.03 and another RB at 3.03. You can hope to find that RB at that spot that greatly exceeds his draft position, but I certainly feel there are no sure things after 20+ RB off the board. Since the topic evolved into Manning being risk free, would a pairing of Alexander and Favre not be as equally risk free?

To be clear, if there are people that strongly feel that Manning will throw 50 TD this year, than the value play is to take Manning. So I am not shooting down taking the most valuable player. My concern is projecting Manning at that level of production again.

And no one has asked me about what I think Manning will do this year. I have him in the 38-39 total TD range which makes him a decent late first round option (based on those numbers) as others have mentioned that the pack of RB there are pretty similar. However, the leagues that I play have other quirky rules and many have PPR and 4 pts for passing TD, and therefore taking Manning there is not as clear cut. in general, I am somewhat adverse to taking a QB in the first round, as it seems like the times I have seen one taken in the first round he gets hurt or under produces.

That would be a fine pairing. I'm not a big SA fan, but I'd have to have a big Come to Jesus meeting if I had the 3rd pick (LT, Holmes, SA). But, after SA, I wouldn't want anyone paired with Favre over Manning + RB~17.David, in reference to your bolded statement above, the reason it can't be refuted is because we don't know who those RBs will be and what they will do. Most folks here talk about RBx and RBy and offer numbers attached to those names. But, this assumes that preseason rankings relate to results at the end of the season. It is my contention that myriad factors make this a rather tenuous association, at best.

This is the issue central to my point: You can rank these guys all you want, but the ADP is not going to reliably predict where they finish. This is a falsifiable hypothesis, and if you have some ADP data to suggest differently, I'd love to see it. But, Manning, on the other hand, will reliably finish atop his position (or damn near close). So, taking a RB4 when your confidence in him finishing top-10 isn't appreciably more than your confidence in RB~17 finishing top-10 seems like a mistake to me when you know that Manning will far-and-away outscore his peers at QB5+.

I appreciate your studies and analyses, and we've tossed around a few issues in the past. I'm just going on record stating that the one thing that's so often missing in these debates is the confidence one has (or, more appropriately, should have based on ADP v. Totals) in his projections. Some guys elicit more confidence than others, to be sure. But, on this issue, and we may differ here, but I simply do not trust my--or anyone else's projections--enough after RB3 to pass on the certain production Manning offers and the stdev he will score beyond his peers. In other words, I trust that my selection at RB~17 has as much of a chance to put together a top-10 season as I do RB4.

If you have data to change my mind, that's what this is all about, and I'd love to see it.

What's intersting is that I have also taken the approach after looking into things that there's almost as much chance of getting a Top 20 RB well BEYOND the Top 15 RB, so I am avoiding taking RB like the masses have.I have a difficult time with some of these debated because I do not adhere to rankings and projections and drafting softwar (other than to see which players are still available).

There are basically guys that I want to take and guys that I don't. Similarly, there are players that I would consider if the price is right, but I generally approach things having a preconcieved idea of players that I think will have value at their projected draft range and hone in on them.

Manning to me is one of those in the middle group where I would look at him if he fell some, but it hasn't happened so I haven't had to consider him.

The reason I intentionally paired SA and Favre is you essentially already know what their numbers will be like. They are known commodities and you know they will play. Obviously, any player can get hurt at any time, but they would have to be considered about as minimal risk as there is.

Alexander is going to get 16-20 TD and a bunch of yards and Favre will put up 28-30+ TD. Whoever gets paired with Manning will have to be consider a crap shoot unless through some minor miracle a proven and healthy RB falls. It could happen, but most guys will be a roll of the dice.

As you suggest, there are wore thing than being "stuck" with Manning as a Top 5 pick. You at least know that you will get near the top production (he's never been the #1 QB in most leagues) and he is both a safe and risky pick.

I actually do not think he is that bad a pick for savy drafters that can build a team around him and get some nuggets later on. However, some of the people that have taken Manning very early have dug themselves holes by reaching for players and overall not compensating for holes elsewhere. For example, I was in a draft the other night where the Manning owner took Collins a few rounds later. IMO, that makes no sense, as when would you ever start Collins over Manning?

Part of the challenge in posting strategies and mapping out what people might do or not do is not really knowing who is reading the topic and what skill level they are at. A nonshark taking Manning but being somewhat less informed about strategy and what RB might be available, etc. could get killed if he/she just thinks getting Manning is halfway to the title.

 

[NYG Endzone]

Similar to cobalt_27's point about confidence, the greatest asset a QB like Manning brings to the table for me is he is a no brainer starter every week. There is no start/bench decision to make. No matter who he plays against, he starts. Thats not to say he won't have subpar games here and there, but anyone would be stupid to sit Manning in favor of one of their backup QBs because they have a seemingly better matchup.

The guys who love drafting platoon QBs in the preseason always sound like they are 100% accurate in their start/bench decisions. I'm sure that is far from the truth. Weekly QB performance is not easy to predict.

Thats what I love about having Peyton. Especially in leagues where you dont have to keep a backup or if you have small roster sizes too. I have found that my platoon QB's, on a week to week basis, that I picked the correct starter 55%-75% of the time. Even with this endless amount of information on these forums and subscriber content, platoon at QB is a challenge at times. You always kick yourself when you lose and chose the wrong QB.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

As of yet, I have not seen anyone refute that a pairing of SA at 1.03 and Favre at 6.10 would produce any worse than Manning at 1.03 and another RB at 3.03.

According to FBG projections:Manning (ADP 1.05)- 384

L.Jordan (ADP 3.02) - 195

Total - 579

Favre (ADP 6.01) - 287

S.Alexander (ADP 1.02) - 278

Total - 565

 

[cobalt_27]

What's intersting is that I have also taken the approach after looking into things that there's almost as much chance of getting a Top 20 RB well BEYOND the Top 15 RB, so I am avoiding taking RB like the masses have.I have a difficult time with some of these debated because I do not adhere to rankings and projections and drafting softwar (other than to see which players are still available).There are basically guys that I want to take and guys that I don't. Similarly, there are players that I would consider if the price is right, but I generally approach things having a preconcieved idea of players that I think will have value at their projected draft range and hone in on them.Manning to me is one of those in the middle group where I would look at him if he fell some, but it hasn't happened so I haven't had to consider him.The reason I intentionally paired SA and Favre is you essentially already know what their numbers will be like. They are known commodities and you know they will play. Obviously, any player can get hurt at any time, but they would have to be considered about as minimal risk as there is.Alexander is going to get 16-20 TD and a bunch of yards and Favre will put up 28-30+ TD. Whoever gets paired with Manning will have to be consider a crap shoot unless through some minor miracle a proven and healthy RB falls. It could happen, but most guys will be a roll of the dice.As you suggest, there are wore thing than being "stuck" with Manning as a Top 5 pick. You at least know that you will get near the top production (he's never been the #1 QB in most leagues) and he is both a safe and risky pick.I actually do not think he is that bad a pick for savy drafters that can build a team around him and get some nuggets later on. However, some of the people that have taken Manning very early have dug themselves holes by reaching for players and overall not compensating for holes elsewhere. For example, I was in a draft the other night where the Manning owner took Collins a few rounds later. IMO, that makes no sense, as when would you ever start Collins over Manning?Part of the challenge in posting strategies and mapping out what people might do or not do is not really knowing who is reading the topic and what skill level they are at. A nonshark taking Manning but being somewhat less informed about strategy and what RB might be available, etc. could get killed if he/she just thinks getting Manning is halfway to the title.

Best post of the evening.

 

[David Yudkin]

As of yet, I have not seen anyone refute that a pairing of SA at 1.03 and Favre at 6.10 would produce any worse than Manning at 1.03 and another RB at 3.03.

According to FBG projections:Manning (ADP 1.05)- 384

L.Jordan (ADP 3.02) - 195

Total - 579

Favre (ADP 6.01) - 287

S.Alexander (ADP 1.02) - 278

Total - 565

The difference is 14 points but you also have the difference between a 3rd round pick and a 6th round pick to make up the difference. I suspect that there will be at least that much value gained between those two picks.

 

[CalBear]

As of yet, I have not seen anyone refute that a pairing of SA at 1.03 and Favre at 6.10 would produce any worse than Manning at 1.03 and another RB at 3.03.

According to FBG projections:Manning (ADP 1.05)- 384

L.Jordan (ADP 3.02) - 195

Total - 579

Favre (ADP 6.01) - 287

S.Alexander (ADP 1.02) - 278

Total - 565

The difference is 14 points but you also have the difference between a 3rd round pick and a 6th round pick to make up the difference. I suspect that there will be at least that much value gained between those two picks.

It's also based on a projection of 41 TDs for Manning. As I noted earlier, if you project 41 TDs for Manning, you can make the argument in the mid-first-round. But I think that's fanciful.

 

[David Yudkin]

Using the SA/Favre and Manning/Jordan pairings and -14 points as a benchmark . . .Javon Walker 181 pointsvsIsaac Bruce 146 pointsORTony Gonzalez 156 pointsysJeremy Shockey 112 points

 

[NYG Endzone]

I wanted to dig deeper past RB20 and find out just what ranges these RBs came from... I used standard FBG scoring and the 9/1/04 projections.

actual	last	first	projected01	Alexander	Shaun	0702	Barber	Tiki	1403	Tomlinson	LaDainian	0104	Martin	Curtis	1905	Davis	Domanick	1006	James	Edgerrin	0507	Dillon	Corey	1808	Johnson	Rudi	2009	McGahee	Willis	4110	Westbrook	Brian	1311	Portis	Clinton	0612	Holmes	Priest	0214	Green	Ahman	0415	Dunn	Warrick	2416	Pittman	Michael	4217	McAllister	Deuce	0318	Bettis	Jerome	4019	Jones	Thomas	1620	Taylor	Fred	0921	Jones	Kevin	2623	Smith	Emmitt	4324	Brown	Chris	2125	Lewis	Jamal	1126	Johnson	Larry	5427	Barlow	Kevan	0828	Jones	Julius	3230	Faulk	Marshall	1231	Smith	Onterrio	6632	Jackson	Steven	3033	Suggs	Lee	2834	Taylor	Chester	6035	Duckett	T.J.	3436	Morris	Sammy	4637	Staley	Duce	1738	Smith	Antowain	6139	Zereoue	Amos	4740	Green	William	4441	George	Eddie	3643	Jordan	Lamont	4844	Faulk	Kevin	3946	Fisher	Tony	5847	Bell	Tatum	6448	Thomas	Anthony	5649	Minor	Travis	3350	Wheatley	Tyrone	3152	Williams	Moe	2754	Bennett	Michael	2555	Bryson	Shawn	6257	Anderson	Richie	3758	Alstott	Mike	4559	Griffin	Quentin	2265	Davenport	Najeh	5766	Foster	DeShaun	3868	Sowell	Jerald	5269	Hambrick	Troy	5573	Henry	Travis	1574	Pinner	Artose	5384	Schlesinger	Cory	6785	Fargas	Justin	6586	Dayne	Ron	5190	Strong	Mack	5995	Garner	Charlie	2999	Hearst	Garrison	35103	Konrad	Rob	50107	Davis	Stephen	23118	Hollings	Tony	49

RB13 Droughns, RB22 Goings, RB29 BlaylockP.S. other players MIA were not "projected"4 of top10 projected RB's actually finished in the top10(2 were LT and SA)5 of the actual top10 RB's could of been had in projected rb10-rb20 range15 of top20 projected RB's actually finished in the top20edit: fixed format

 

[David Yudkin]

The list has holes in it. What happened to the other RB?

 

[NYG Endzone]

The list has holes in it. What happened to the other RB?

I only went 65 deep so they would have to be in both. One sec

 

[David Yudkin]

While we wait for the updated list, the other thing to consider about the non Top 20 RB is that they liekly will not rank as high because they more than likely did not start every game.So guys like McGahee, Johnson, and the Joneses look worse but in reality did great when they got in the lineup.I ended up riding Goings and Droughns last year, and prudent player acquisitions will take you a long way.By my count, there were at least 40% different NFL starters at RB at the end of the year vs the beginning of the year, so people will pay top dollar on draft day for guys that won't be there at the end while guys that will get a chance come way cheaper.

 

[fballer]

Well, it is very early in the season, but Peyton is coming in as was feared...way below projections and perceived value. Most were caught drinking the Manning cool aide. Where do you think Manning's TD numbers come in now?I'll say 29 with the wind behind him. That is averaging 2 TD passes per game from here on out. I can't believe that seems difficult to achieve now. Jim

 

[CalBear]

I don't think 29 TDs will be difficult for Manning to achieve. But at this point 40, or even 35 should be looking fairly unlikely even to the people who were high on Manning going into the season.