Dynasty Rankings (12 Viewers)

[EBF]

F&L your random thoughts are great. Most of them were pretty much what I was thinking.I do have a question on one of them. Last year Bush was heralded as a back that you see maybe once a decade. Is Adrian Peterson that same kind of back? Better? Worse? I never liked him just because I thought this was a very weak year for RBs and thought his value was over-hyped due to the lack at the position. But I keep hearing too many good things about him. Is he that good? I also stayed away from him because it sounded like he is very tall (I heard 6'2") and I tend to believe that taller backs are more likely to be injured. Thoguhts?

Not F&L, but I'll take the bait.First off, Bush is a better prospect than Peterson. Some people don't want to hear that, but it's true. He's faster, quicker, more explosive, and more versatile. The "once a decade" thing is thrown around too often, but Bush is really that good. He's truly a rare player. That said, Peterson is still one of the best RB prospects to come out in the past 4-5 years. He's probably a better prospect than any of the backs in the 2002-2006 classes not named Reggie Bush. A pre-injury McGahee is about the only other guy who would've been on his level. Obviously Steven Jackson and Larry Johnson have gone on to great things, but Peterson is a better prospect than they were coming out of college. He has the instincts, power, speed, and overall skills to be one of the 5-6 most talented RBs in the NFL.The real downside with Peterson is his running style. He lacks ideal lateral quickness and absorbs too many hits. Will it lead to injury problems? Possibly. Also, playing for the Vikings will hurt his chances of immediate stardom. The Vikings are terrible. So while Peterson is definitely more talented than someone like Laurence Maroney, it's quite possible that Maroney will have the better career.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

First off, Bush is a better prospect than Peterson. Some people don't want to hear that, but it's true. He's faster, quicker, more explosive, and more versatile. The "once a decade" thing is thrown around too often, but Bush is really that good. He's truly a rare player. That said, Peterson is still one of the best RB prospects to come out in the past 4-5 years. He's probably a better prospect than any of the backs in the 2002-2006 classes not named Reggie Bush. A pre-injury McGahee is about the only other guy who would've been on his level. Obviously Steven Jackson and Larry Johnson have gone on to great things, but Peterson is a better prospect than they were coming out of college. He has the instincts, power, speed, and overall skills to be one of the 5-6 most talented RBs in the NFL.The real downside with Peterson is his running style. He lacks ideal lateral quickness and absorbs too many hits. Will it lead to injury problems? Possibly. Also, playing for the Vikings will hurt his chances of immediate stardom. The Vikings are terrible. So while Peterson is definitely more talented than someone like Laurence Maroney, it's quite possible that Maroney will have the better career.

BOOM....freaking

 

[spec1alk]

When I saw Adrian Peterson as a freshman at Oklahoma, he was the best pure rusher I'd seen since at least Marshall Faulk at Fresno St. and maybe even Bo Jackson at Auburn or Hershel Walker at Georgia.

I thought Marshall Faulk played for SDSU? I am from San Diego, but have never followed College Football closely. I remember driving with my dad up to Yosemite, CA for a job and he was saying that Faulk was robbed for the Heisman. We were listening to a game (The Mighty 690am broadcasting out of Tecate Mexico, you can get the signal up past LA) and I could have sworn it was SDSU.

 

[gregjcross]

yes it was SDSU Aztecs in 1992 and '93, not Fresno state; just the same uniform colors

When I saw Adrian Peterson as a freshman at Oklahoma, he was the best pure rusher I'd seen since at least Marshall Faulk at Fresno St. and maybe even Bo Jackson at Auburn or Hershel Walker at Georgia.

I thought Marshall Faulk played for SDSU? I am from San Diego, but have never followed College Football closely. I remember driving with my dad up to Yosemite, CA for a job and he was saying that Faulk was robbed for the Heisman. We were listening to a game (The Mighty 690am broadcasting out of Tecate Mexico, you can get the signal up past LA) and I could have sworn it was SDSU.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

yes it was SDSU Aztecs in 1992 and '93, not Fresno state; just the same uniform colors

When I saw Adrian Peterson as a freshman at Oklahoma, he was the best pure rusher I'd seen since at least Marshall Faulk at Fresno St. and maybe even Bo Jackson at Auburn or Hershel Walker at Georgia.

I thought Marshall Faulk played for SDSU? I am from San Diego, but have never followed College Football closely. I remember driving with my dad up to Yosemite, CA for a job and he was saying that Faulk was robbed for the Heisman. We were listening to a game (The Mighty 690am broadcasting out of Tecate Mexico, you can get the signal up past LA) and I could have sworn it was SDSU.

I'm a dolt. I remembered black and red uniforms and a Louisiana kid going to a California school. That's what I get for being too lazy to make one click and double-check.And that was back when I actually enjoyed college football...God, I was so pissed when the Bengals took Big Daddy instead of Marshall Faulk. They were in the middle of a big RB drought that saw them trying to ride Eric Ball, Derrick Fenner, and other dregs...and ultimately caused them to reach for Kijana Carter a year or two later. Who am I kidding? The Bengals were in the middle of an every position drought that lasted over 10 years.

 

[Finatic]

My latest dynasty rankings with player comments are now up on Rotoworld. The bad news for you guys is that they are in the Draft Guide, which is pay material. But the good news is that it's only $14.95 for the draft guide, and there is much more to it than just dynasty rankings. Rather than continuing to pimp the guide, I'll let you guys check out their sample page and decide for yourselves if the $15 is worth it.

So that kind of brings me to a dilemma: It's not fair to Rotoworld if I post the same material here for free, but I do take pride in having this thread updated. On the positive side, the rotoworld format and rankings are similar to what I've been posting all along. I've updated many of the player comments for the draft guide and changed the order due to fresh news updates and their non-PPR format. Since I can't copy and paste that work here, the best I can do is just continue to tweak the old rankings on page 7 from time to time without changing much in the way of player comments.

In addition to the dynasty rankings in the draft guide, Rotoworld is going to have me doing a weekly Dynasty Top 200 as well as a weekly Re-Draft Top 200. I am assuming this material will be free, so I will link to it here as soon it's up on their site in the next week or so.

One thing I don't want to lose in the transition is the quality debate that goes on in this thread. Please continue to chime in with opinions, questions, comments, insults, etc. It doesn't have to be a comment about a ranking. If you have a question on the [perceived] value of any of your players, just fling it on up here...you know you will get an answer from me as well as from other quality dynasty minds who are regulars to the thread. Time and news change value, so feel free to bring on your Jerious Norwood, Brandon Jacobs, and Joey Harrington questions.

One final note: bookmark Rotoworld for future dynasty coverage! I know it's a competitor, but we all check multiple sites for our amalgamated fantasy information anyway. Hopefully, adding another website to your list will be a boost for your dynasty team.

So for all intent and purposes,the list will never be updated in the future...Correct?..If so what a shame as this was my favorite thread in the pool

 

[Fear & Loathing]

F&L your random thoughts are great. Most of them were pretty much what I was thinking.

I do have a question on one of them. Last year Bush was heralded as a back that you see maybe once a decade. Is Adrian Peterson that same kind of back? Better? Worse? I never liked him just because I thought this was a very weak year for RBs and thought his value was over-hyped due to the lack at the position. But I keep hearing too many good things about him. Is he that good? I also stayed away from him because it sounded like he is very tall (I heard 6'2") and I tend to believe that taller backs are more likely to be injured. Thoguhts?

Not F&L, but I'll take the bait.First off, Bush is a better prospect than Peterson. Some people don't want to hear that, but it's true. He's faster, quicker, more explosive, and more versatile. The "once a decade" thing is thrown around too often, but Bush is really that good. He's truly a rare player.

That said, Peterson is still one of the best RB prospects to come out in the past 4-5 years. He's probably a better prospect than any of the backs in the 2002-2006 classes not named Reggie Bush. A pre-injury McGahee is about the only other guy who would've been on his level. Obviously Steven Jackson and Larry Johnson have gone on to great things, but Peterson is a better prospect than they were coming out of college. He has the instincts, power, speed, and overall skills to be one of the 5-6 most talented RBs in the NFL.

The real downside with Peterson is his running style. He lacks ideal lateral quickness and absorbs too many hits. Will it lead to injury problems? Possibly. Also, playing for the Vikings will hurt his chances of immediate stardom. The Vikings are terrible. So while Peterson is definitely more talented than someone like Laurence Maroney, it's quite possible that Maroney will have the better career.

Where do I start with this one? First of all, . Very well put.On the other hand, I don't think that believing Peterson is a better prospect than Bush is just "not wanting to hear the truth." It's more a difference in style. What do you want in your RB -- whether it's NFL or fantasy? I think both are "truly rare players," and Peterson has the overall skills to be not just one of the 5-6 most talented RBs in the NFL, but the most talented RB in the NFL. Top 5 or 6? That's the low end of the spectrum for Peterson.

Pardon the NBA comparison, but this reminds of an old debate I had with a friend over Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett. In the opening game of Duncan's rookie season, I was at a Halloween party and told a basketball junkie friend of mine that Duncan was already a Top 10 player in the NBA before he ever suited up for a game. My friend was dubious, of course, and announced a couple years later when Duncan was arguably the best player in the game that Kevin Garnett was actually a better player because of his versatility and skill set. Garnett was indeed more versatile and more skilled, but his team couldn't regularly go to him for the tough points when they needed them. They couldn't build their offense or their defense around a 7-footer who preferred to hang out on the perimeter. The advantage Duncan had over Garnett, in addition to a more innate sense of what makes basketball teams win, was that his team could hang their hat on his performance offensively and defensively every night. They could go to him. You could build an offense around him. When nothing else was working, when a steady presence was needed, when they were trying to grind out a win, they could just turn to Duncan.

I think that may end up being the difference between Peterson and Bush. Many NFL teams want that big, dynamic, bruising running back who can be turned to when yardage is tough, yet is also a threat to break off a big play. Who does the offense turn to when they're grinding? Bush will have more highlight reel plays, but will he be able to carry the offense when needed? Peterson will.

In PPR, Bush's ceiling is almost unlimited. In non-PPR, Peterson is a better bet because he's an elite rusher. I was raised in the mid-west in the heart of Big 10 country. I like my running backs like Jim Brown -- big, tough, explosive, and dominating.

I don't think you can go wrong with either, and I would love to have both. But my preference is Peterson.

 

[johnnyshaka]

I don't think you can go wrong with either, and I would love to have both. But my preference is Peterson.

I don't know if I've been out of touch, but the hype surrounding Bush's draft day seemed to far out-weigh Peterson's...no? Sure, you have to look at the rest of the class from last season compared to this season but I'm curious to know who you think gets drafted first between the two of them if they go out together?

 

[Ron_Mexico]

F&L your random thoughts are great. Most of them were pretty much what I was thinking.

I do have a question on one of them. Last year Bush was heralded as a back that you see maybe once a decade. Is Adrian Peterson that same kind of back? Better? Worse? I never liked him just because I thought this was a very weak year for RBs and thought his value was over-hyped due to the lack at the position. But I keep hearing too many good things about him. Is he that good? I also stayed away from him because it sounded like he is very tall (I heard 6'2") and I tend to believe that taller backs are more likely to be injured. Thoguhts?

Not F&L, but I'll take the bait.First off, Bush is a better prospect than Peterson. Some people don't want to hear that, but it's true. He's faster, quicker, more explosive, and more versatile. The "once a decade" thing is thrown around too often, but Bush is really that good. He's truly a rare player.

That said, Peterson is still one of the best RB prospects to come out in the past 4-5 years. He's probably a better prospect than any of the backs in the 2002-2006 classes not named Reggie Bush. A pre-injury McGahee is about the only other guy who would've been on his level. Obviously Steven Jackson and Larry Johnson have gone on to great things, but Peterson is a better prospect than they were coming out of college. He has the instincts, power, speed, and overall skills to be one of the 5-6 most talented RBs in the NFL.

The real downside with Peterson is his running style. He lacks ideal lateral quickness and absorbs too many hits. Will it lead to injury problems? Possibly. Also, playing for the Vikings will hurt his chances of immediate stardom. The Vikings are terrible. So while Peterson is definitely more talented than someone like Laurence Maroney, it's quite possible that Maroney will have the better career.

Where do I start with this one? First of all, . Very well put.On the other hand, I don't think that believing Peterson is a better prospect than Bush is just "not wanting to hear the truth." It's more a difference in style. What do you want in your RB -- NFL or fantasy? I think both are "truly rare players," and Peterson has the overall skills to be not just one of the 5-6 most talented RBs in the NFL, but the most talented RB in the NFL. Top 5 or 6? That's the low end of the spectrum for Peterson.

Pardon the NBA comparison, but this reminds of an old debate I had with a friend over Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett. In the opening game of Duncan's rookie season, I was at a Halloween party and told a basketball junkie friend of mine that Duncan was already a Top 10 player in the NBA before he ever suited up for a game. My friend was dubious, of course, and announced a couple years later when Duncan was arguably the best player in the game that Kevin Garnett was actually a better player because of his versatility and skill set. Garnett was indeed more versatile and more skilled, but his team couldn't regularly go to him for the tough points when they needed them. They couldn't build their offense or their defense around a 7-footer who preferred to hang out on the perimeter. The advantage Duncan had over Garnett, in addition to a more innate sense of what makes basketball teams win, was that his team could hang their hat on his performance offensively and defensively every night. They could go to him. You could build an offense around him. When nothing else was working, when a steady presence was needed, when they were trying to grind out a win, they could just turn to Duncan.

I think that may end up being the difference between Peterson and Bush. Many NFL teams want that big, dynamic, bruising running back who can be turned to when yardage is tough, yet is also a threat to break off a big play. Who does the offense turn to when they're grinding? Bush will have more highlight reel plays, but will he be able to carry the offense when needed? Peterson will.

In PPR, Bush's ceiling is almost unlimited. In non-PPR, Peterson is a better bet because he's an elite rusher. I was raised in the mid-west in the heart of Big 10 country. I like my running backs like Jim Brown -- big, tough, explosive, and dominating.

I don't think you can go wrong with either, and I would love to have both. But my preference is Peterson.

Injury history and the potential for future injury should be an important part of this discussion, imo.

advantage: Bush.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Injury history and the potential for future injury should

be an important part of this discussion, imo.

advantage: Bush.

I don't disagree. Peterson has had a more checkered injury history, but they haven't been the type of injuries that would be cause for concern about his future...at least not in my estimation.FRESHMAN Season: Playing with a dislocated left shoulder that would require surgery after the season, Peterson led the nation and set an NCAA freshman record with 339 rushing attempts and ranked third nationally with 1,925 rushing yards (1,365 of which came after contact). He broke the OU single-season rushing record set in 1978 by Billy Sims and the NCAA freshman record set in 1996 by Wisconsin's Ron Dayne. He also set the NCAA freshman marks for consecutive 100-yard rushing games (nine) and total 100-yard rushing games (11).

SOPHOMORE Season: Hampered by a high ankle sprain, Peterson missed the Baylor game and sat out parts of four other games. He still rushed for 1,108 yards and 14 touchdowns on 220 carries. As well all know, high ankle sprains are a #####...and they can ruin a runner's whole season.

JUNIOR Season: A right collarbone fracture sidelined Peterson for the final seven games, but he still earned All-Big Twelve Conference first-team honors and managed his third consecutive 1,000-yard season, picking up 1,012 yards with 12 touchdowns on 188 attempts.

He has shown that he'll play through a dislocated shoulder, and he tried to gut it out for most of a whole season with a high ankle sprain. He has stayed free of the major knee/quadriceps/groin injuries, which hinder many running backs. In summary, I would say he has had some fluke injuries and was tough-minded enough to try to play through them. I think notching the best freshman season in NCAA history while injured is a tremendous positive. NFL running backs have to play and play productively while in pain. Peterson has shown that he is willing and able to do so.

 

[DevilintheDetail]

-Quick Takes: - D.J. Hackett is the WR to own in Seattle.

Would you really rather own Hackett than Branch in a dynasty league? I like Hackett a lot, but Branch will be playing in the featured flanker role and Holmgren himself has said that Branch, playing flanker, is supposed to be the #1 option in that offense by design. Hackett played flanker last season filling in for Jackson. Hackett is in a contract year, which should be motivation, but that also means his future role and team is questionable, at best. Why do you like him better than Branch?

 

[Fear & Loathing]

I don't think you can go wrong with either, and I would love to have both. But my preference is Peterson.

I don't know if I've been out of touch, but the hype surrounding Bush's draft day seemed to far out-weigh Peterson's...no? Sure, you have to look at the rest of the class from last season compared to this season but I'm curious to know who you think gets drafted first between the two of them if they go out together?

Yes, I would say the hype surrounding Bush was louder than the hype on Peterson. But look at how decorated Bush was as a collegian: Heisman Trophy winner, 2-time NCAA champ, Sports Center darling, etc. Peterson was highly decorated as well, but the injuries kept him out of the spotlight a bit and Oklahoma wasn't the national draw that USC was. Who do I think would get drafted first if they both came out together? I think most teams would have taken Bush first because of the hype and Peterson's injury history, but I don't think it would have been close to unanimous. Just a guess...

 

[Fear & Loathing]

-Quick Takes:

- D.J. Hackett is the WR to own in Seattle.

Would you really rather own Hackett than Branch in a dynasty league? I like Hackett a lot, but Branch will be playing in the featured flanker role and Holmgren himself has said that Branch, playing flanker, is supposed to be the #1 option in that offense by design. Hackett played flanker last season filling in for Jackson. Hackett is in a contract year, which should be motivation, but that also means his future role and team is questionable, at best. Why do you like him better than Branch?

OK, but only if you explain why you do like Branch. I think by this point in Branch's career, the onus is on his supporters rather than his detractors. Anyway, yes I would really rather own Hackett than Branch in dynasty leagues for the following reasons:

1. Hackett outplayed Branch last season. In an extremely inconsistent Seahawks offense, Hackett was one of the few consistent performers.

2. Whenever Hackett has been on the field the past two seasons, he's performed better than the other Seattle WRs.

3. Over the past 2 seasons, Hackett has one of the best catch percentages in the entire league. He catches the ball and makes plays.

4. Hackett has the size, ability, and potential to be both a deep threat and a possession receiver. The best fantasy and NFL WRs share those qualities.

5. Deion Branch has never had more than one 100 yard game in a season.

6. Deion Branch has never had a 1000 yard season.

7. Deion Branch has never scored more than 5 TDs in a season.

8. How much of a factor is Branch's post-season success when Jabar Gaffney just duplicated it? Jabar Gaffney!

 

[DevilintheDetail]

-Quick Takes:

- D.J. Hackett is the WR to own in Seattle.

Would you really rather own Hackett than Branch in a dynasty league? I like Hackett a lot, but Branch will be playing in the featured flanker role and Holmgren himself has said that Branch, playing flanker, is supposed to be the #1 option in that offense by design. Hackett played flanker last season filling in for Jackson. Hackett is in a contract year, which should be motivation, but that also means his future role and team is questionable, at best. Why do you like him better than Branch?

OK, but only if you explain why you do like Branch. I think by this point in Branch's career, the onus is on his supporters rather than his detractors. Anyway, yes I would really rather own Hackett than Branch in dynasty leagues for the following reasons:

1. Hackett outplayed Branch last season. In an extremely inconsistent Seahawks offense, Hackett was one of the few consistent performers.

2. Whenever Hackett has been on the field the past two seasons, he's performed better than the other Seattle WRs.

3. Over the past 2 seasons, Hackett has one of the best catch percentages in the entire league. He catches the ball and makes plays.

4. Hackett has the size, ability, and potential to be both a deep threat and a possession receiver. The best fantasy and NFL WRs share those qualities.

5. Deion Branch has never had more than one 100 yard game in a season.

6. Deion Branch has never had a 1000 yard season.

7. Deion Branch has never scored more than 5 TDs in a season.

8. How much of a factor is Branch's post-season success when Jabar Gaffney just duplicated it? Jabar Gaffney!

Don't get me wrong, I like Hackett a lot. But it's important to understand Seattle's offense here. When Hackett has outperformed other Seattle WRs in the past, he's been playing the featured flanker position. This season, that position is going to be given to Branch. Hackett is going to be used differently than in the past. And Branch will be, too. Last season, Branch had to fight off DB's at the line of scrimmage, something he is not particularly built for. Now, as the flanker, Branch will be in motion much more frequently, which should help free him up. Would Hackett outperform Branch if Hackett was in the flanker position all season? I'd definitely bet he would. But Seattle has decided that playing Branch at flanker in the featured role optimizes their WR talent. So Hackett, whether we like it or not, will no longer be playing the position that we've seen him shine in last year. He will still do well, as his size will allow him to get free at the line of scrimmage, but he's unlikely to see the number of targets that Branch will.

To understand the importance of playing flanker in this type of offense, all you have to do is look at Darrell Jackson. Jackson is not a special receiver. Branch has better hands and better speed. But Jackson was in the featured flanker role and reaped the benefits. Galloway has been playing the flanker role in Tampa Bay in a similar offense with similar results.

Although your stats about Branch certainly give one cause for concern, the simple fact is that he has never been featured in an offense the way he will be this season. Given that he missed several games last year when he first came over and was being brought up to speed on Seattle's offense, had to adjust to two new QBs in Hasselbeck and Wallace, and was playing a position that is suited for a large receiver when he is a small shifty one, I think Branch did fairly well. Well enough that the team was comfortable trading Jackson for a 4th rounder and putting Branch into the featured role.

The team has also committed to Branch with his contact. He's going to be here in Seattle for awhile as the featured guy. Hackett will probably be signed next year, too, unless someone offers him a huge sheet. Seattle's unlikely to franchise him since they already have a lot of cash wrapped up in Branch. Hackett could end up in a great situation or a poor one. We just don't know right now. And I think you have to factor that in.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

-Quick Takes:

- D.J. Hackett is the WR to own in Seattle.

Would you really rather own Hackett than Branch in a dynasty league? I like Hackett a lot, but Branch will be playing in the featured flanker role and Holmgren himself has said that Branch, playing flanker, is supposed to be the #1 option in that offense by design. Hackett played flanker last season filling in for Jackson. Hackett is in a contract year, which should be motivation, but that also means his future role and team is questionable, at best. Why do you like him better than Branch?

OK, but only if you explain why you do like Branch. I think by this point in Branch's career, the onus is on his supporters rather than his detractors. Anyway, yes I would really rather own Hackett than Branch in dynasty leagues for the following reasons:

1. Hackett outplayed Branch last season. In an extremely inconsistent Seahawks offense, Hackett was one of the few consistent performers.

2. Whenever Hackett has been on the field the past two seasons, he's performed better than the other Seattle WRs.

3. Over the past 2 seasons, Hackett has one of the best catch percentages in the entire league. He catches the ball and makes plays.

4. Hackett has the size, ability, and potential to be both a deep threat and a possession receiver. The best fantasy and NFL WRs share those qualities.

5. Deion Branch has never had more than one 100 yard game in a season.

6. Deion Branch has never had a 1000 yard season.

7. Deion Branch has never scored more than 5 TDs in a season.

8. How much of a factor is Branch's post-season success when Jabar Gaffney just duplicated it? Jabar Gaffney!

Don't get me wrong, I like Hackett a lot. But it's important to understand Seattle's offense here. When Hackett has outperformed other Seattle WRs in the past, he's been playing the featured flanker position. This season, that position is going to be given to Branch. Hackett is going to be used differently than in the past. And Branch will be, too. Last season, Branch had to fight off DB's at the line of scrimmage, something he is not particularly built for. Now, as the flanker, Branch will be in motion much more frequently, which should help free him up. Would Hackett outperform Branch if Hackett was in the flanker position all season? I'd definitely bet he would. But Seattle has decided that playing Branch at flanker in the featured role optimizes their WR talent. So Hackett, whether we like it or not, will no longer be playing the position that we've seen him shine in last year. He will still do well, as his size will allow him to get free at the line of scrimmage, but he's unlikely to see the number of targets that Branch will.

To understand the importance of playing flanker in this type of offense, all you have to do is look at Darrell Jackson. Jackson is not a special receiver. Branch has better hands and better speed. But Jackson was in the featured flanker role and reaped the benefits. Galloway has been playing the flanker role in Tampa Bay in a similar offense with similar results.

Although your stats about Branch certainly give one cause for concern, the simple fact is that he has never been featured in an offense the way he will be this season. Given that he missed several games last year when he first came over and was being brought up to speed on Seattle's offense, had to adjust to two new QBs in Hasselbeck and Wallace, and was playing a position that is suited for a large receiver when he is a small shifty one, I think Branch did fairly well. Well enough that the team was comfortable trading Jackson for a 4th rounder and putting Branch into the featured role.

The team has also committed to Branch with his contact. He's going to be here in Seattle for awhile as the featured guy. Hackett will probably be signed next year, too, unless someone offers him a huge sheet. Seattle's unlikely to franchise him since they already have a lot of cash wrapped up in Branch. Hackett could end up in a great situation or a poor one. We just don't know right now. And I think you have to factor that in.

Very well-reasoned Maybe I do have Branch too low, but I still like Hackett's chances of having a breakout season better than Branch's chances of becoming a consistently dependable starter. I just think Hackett is the better player.

 

[KellysHeroes]

Can we pin this or place it in the Dynasty Master Thread..... Please

 

[Fear & Loathing]

-Quick Takes:

- D.J. Hackett is the WR to own in Seattle.

Would you really rather own Hackett than Branch in a dynasty league? I like Hackett a lot, but Branch will be playing in the featured flanker role and Holmgren himself has said that Branch, playing flanker, is supposed to be the #1 option in that offense by design. Hackett played flanker last season filling in for Jackson. Hackett is in a contract year, which should be motivation, but that also means his future role and team is questionable, at best. Why do you like him better than Branch?

OK, but only if you explain why you do like Branch. I think by this point in Branch's career, the onus is on his supporters rather than his detractors. Anyway, yes I would really rather own Hackett than Branch in dynasty leagues for the following reasons:

1. Hackett outplayed Branch last season. In an extremely inconsistent Seahawks offense, Hackett was one of the few consistent performers.

2. Whenever Hackett has been on the field the past two seasons, he's performed better than the other Seattle WRs.

3. Over the past 2 seasons, Hackett has one of the best catch percentages in the entire league. He catches the ball and makes plays.

4. Hackett has the size, ability, and potential to be both a deep threat and a possession receiver. The best fantasy and NFL WRs share those qualities.

5. Deion Branch has never had more than one 100 yard game in a season.

6. Deion Branch has never had a 1000 yard season.

7. Deion Branch has never scored more than 5 TDs in a season.

8. How much of a factor is Branch's post-season success when Jabar Gaffney just duplicated it? Jabar Gaffney!

Don't get me wrong, I like Hackett a lot. But it's important to understand Seattle's offense here. When Hackett has outperformed other Seattle WRs in the past, he's been playing the featured flanker position. This season, that position is going to be given to Branch. Hackett is going to be used differently than in the past. And Branch will be, too. Last season, Branch had to fight off DB's at the line of scrimmage, something he is not particularly built for. Now, as the flanker, Branch will be in motion much more frequently, which should help free him up. Would Hackett outperform Branch if Hackett was in the flanker position all season? I'd definitely bet he would. But Seattle has decided that playing Branch at flanker in the featured role optimizes their WR talent. So Hackett, whether we like it or not, will no longer be playing the position that we've seen him shine in last year. He will still do well, as his size will allow him to get free at the line of scrimmage, but he's unlikely to see the number of targets that Branch will.

To understand the importance of playing flanker in this type of offense, all you have to do is look at Darrell Jackson. Jackson is not a special receiver. Branch has better hands and better speed. But Jackson was in the featured flanker role and reaped the benefits. Galloway has been playing the flanker role in Tampa Bay in a similar offense with similar results.

Although your stats about Branch certainly give one cause for concern, the simple fact is that he has never been featured in an offense the way he will be this season. Given that he missed several games last year when he first came over and was being brought up to speed on Seattle's offense, had to adjust to two new QBs in Hasselbeck and Wallace, and was playing a position that is suited for a large receiver when he is a small shifty one, I think Branch did fairly well. Well enough that the team was comfortable trading Jackson for a 4th rounder and putting Branch into the featured role.

The team has also committed to Branch with his contact. He's going to be here in Seattle for awhile as the featured guy. Hackett will probably be signed next year, too, unless someone offers him a huge sheet. Seattle's unlikely to franchise him since they already have a lot of cash wrapped up in Branch. Hackett could end up in a great situation or a poor one. We just don't know right now. And I think you have to factor that in.

I'm sure this isn't news to you, but Rotoworld had a very positive blurb about Branch this morning:"Deion Branch has been "almost uncoverable" during training camp.

Branch scored a long touchdown in the Seahawks' exhibition opener and is likely benefitting from spending more time with Matt Hasselbeck in the offseason. He should be a fairly solid WR3 in points-per-reception formats."

I might have to head back to the drawing board on Branch vs. Hackett.

 

[DevilintheDetail]

Yep. Honestly, I think it's going to be really hard for Branch to not end up as a top 15 WR playing the flanker position in that offense.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

As for Ronnie Brown, I've just never been that impressed with him. I see him as a guy who got overdrafted due to a good combine. There are some legitimate excuses for his lack of production in college and the NFL, but the bottom line is that the guy has never really lived up to his billing. He still has time to turn it around, but I'm not too excited about his prospects.

More Ronnie Brown talk because I can't get a strong handle on his dynasty value.Did anyone see the Chiefs/Dolphins game tonight? I thought Ronnie Brown ran very hard, and I came away just as impressed with his ability as I've always been. There's no doubt in my mind he's one of the more talented starting RBs in the league. Unfortunately, the Dolphins line is still rotten, and on the majority of plays there was simply no hole. IF he can stay healthy this year, I could see him with 1350-1400 yards rushing and 400 receiving...and that's with a bad line. But will he sniff the end zone with any regularity in that creeping offense? His team's offense leaves him with less than optimal re-draft value for 2007, but I still see Ronnie Brown as a very good dynasty value. I believe in his talent, so the questions I have with him are: - How long will it take to build at least an average O-Line?- How long will it take for Cam Cameron to generate an effective passing game?- Can Ronnie Brown avoid the nagging injuries going forward? I had been giving some thought to offering Brain Westbrook for him in one league, but being a playoff league I don't think I could deal Philly's stud RB for Miami's stud RB. All things being equal, I'd probably make the offer...

 

[valhallan]

Zach Miller – The latest word is that he may start as a rookie, which is very impressive. But when you consider the Raiders offense and the fact that Miller will be extremely over-valued as a rookie TE, he looks a bit less appetizing. Throw in his borderline speed, and the odds of Miller being an elite TE on the NFL level decrease even more. Whoever gets him in your league is likely to overpay.

Wish I had read this before I took him as a backup today and immediately regretted it. What do you think about Pollard as a backup this year? Holmgren has had successful tight ends in the past and he constantly tried to get Jerramy Stevens involved the last few seasons. Heck, even Itula Mili had a couple solid years. I have to think they dumped Stevens and replaced him with a guy like Pollard because they wanted a reliable option at that position. He might be a super cheap option for 40 catches this year.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Zach Miller – The latest word is that he may start as a rookie, which is very impressive. But when you consider the Raiders offense and the fact that Miller will be extremely over-valued as a rookie TE, he looks a bit less appetizing. Throw in his borderline speed, and the odds of Miller being an elite TE on the NFL level decrease even more. Whoever gets him in your league is likely to overpay.

Wish I had read this before I took him as a backup today and immediately regretted it. What do you think about Pollard as a backup this year? Holmgren has had successful tight ends in the past and he constantly tried to get Jerramy Stevens involved the last few seasons. Heck, even Itula Mili had a couple solid years. I have to think they dumped Stevens and replaced him with a guy like Pollard because they wanted a reliable option at that position. He might be a super cheap option for 40 catches this year.

I could easily be wrong about Zach Miller. He was a highly touted draft pick, so he could carve out a very bright future even in the Raiders offense. I just don't mess with rookie tight ends unless they're elite prospects...and I don't see Miller as a TE in the Gonzalez, Shockey, Heap mold.You may be able to do worse than Pollard as a back-up tight end, but surely you're not counting on him as a sleeper starter...right? Tight ends are like running backs when it comes to the effects of aging. Pollard is a 35-year-old tight end who relies on his speed, and he didn't have a reception in the last six games of last season. The opportunity is there, but will the body be willing? That's not something I would bank on.

I don't think they dumped Stevens because of reliability. I think they dumped him because they were tired of his act (and his salary) and thought they could replace him with Daniel Graham.

 

[gregjcross]

I don't think they dumped Stevens because of reliability. I think they dumped him because they were tired of his act (and his salary) and thought they could replace him with Daniel Graham.

J. Stevens is a huge clown act who got his life together for one year, one excellent camp and season when Seahawks went to the Superbowl and then returned to his old ways. There is a story about his neighbors absolutley hating him up in Washington as he was a nightmare.

Here it is..

Neighbors don't miss Jerramy

By Nicole Brodeur

Seattle Times staff columnist

Related

Nicole Brodeur's columns via RSS

They paid $500,000 and more to live at Astoria at Meydenbauer, but there are times when some wonder if it's such a privilege.

One resident woke to find his deck splattered with vomit. Another found used condoms. Others told of being awakened at 3 a.m. by loud fights, or were startled by strangers who partook of their patios. And they have had it. The noise, the fear and the man behind it — fifth-floor resident Jerramy Stevens.

Last month, the Astoria condominium board sent the former Seattle Seahawk tight end a letter, calling him to a meeting this week to discuss the complaints against him. Be there, it warned, or risk legal action to push him out.

But since Stevens was cited Tuesday in Arizona on suspicion of driving under the influence and possession of marijuana, Astoria board President Jay Kasin isn't sure Stevens will make it.

"If he does not show up, we will give him one more chance to respond," Kasin said.

That's far more consideration than Stevens has given his neighbors since moving in a few years ago, according to several residents.

He has parties that last all night. He has set off illegal fireworks from his deck, showering other units with debris. He takes up two spaces in a lot reserved for the building's retail shops. He gives the building security code to friends, who walk in at all hours.

"[stevens] just seems to ignore authority," Kasin said. "I'm not bothered by him, but I do know a number of residents are afraid."

One said that if Stevens gets on the elevator, he will get off.

"It's not because he's black," said the resident, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. "It's because he's a big guy and he has a terrible history and everybody knows it."

It wasn't that long ago that, after years of tracking his various misdeeds, I was open to the idea that Jerramy had grown up and straightened out.

But I spoke too soon. And to me and the folks who live with him, the Scottsdale arrest was simply overdue.

On Jan. 28, Astoria residents called police to report noise coming from Stevens' unit. The first call came in at 3:40 a.m. Yelling and screaming, the police log says. A fight between two males. Police arrived, but by then it was over, and, neighbors said, no one inside would answer the door.

Kasin knew all about it. The police have been called several times, he said, "but if they don't have a search warrant, they can't do anything."

The condo board has fined Stevens several times for rules violations at $500 a pop.

"But, you know, the guy's got a lot of money," Kasin said. "It's chump change to him."

Residents have considered asking for help from city officials, Kasin said. "We are officially trying to file a complaint," he said. "But I'm pretty sure it's hard to kick someone out of a place that they own."

Neighbors hope Stevens gets another job in another city. For now, his out-of-town jam is a blessing enough.

"He's been gone for a month now," one resident told me. "And it has been like a vacation for us."

Reach Nicole Brodeur at 206-464-2334 or nbrodeur@seattletimes.com.

She'll say it again: Call, Jerramy.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Other thoughts on tonights Chiefs/Dolphins game:

- Trent Green's favorite target was David Martin, and they appeared to be on the same page. Martin did have a bad drop, but I thought he looked pretty good in the Dolphins offense.

- Kolby Smith has been very underwhelming in both pre-season games, and he clearly has a problem running side-to-side instead of hitting a hole and running straight ahead. I'll probably look to replace him on my dynasty roster sooner rather than later...depending on LJ's status.

- Croyle had that one impressive drive, but I'm far from sold on him. And Jaws pointed out how it's not really a fair competition when you have one QB hand off the whole time and allow the other QB every chance to make plays. The Chiefs are begging Croyle to take the job, but I don't know if he can. If you ask me, both QBs are well below NFL average. Seriously, stay away from the Chiefs.

- Jesse Chatman is clearly the back-up to Brown. Where's Lorenzo Booker? Maybe he's the next Travis Minor...a lot of hype but never anything more than a role player.

- Did Cleo Lemon throw a pass longer than 8 yards? He dumped off to Chatman on half the passing plays, so he's certainly not bringing a vertical attack to the passing game. This is Trent Green's job.

- Despite positive reports earlier this week, there doesn't appear to be a quick fix in the Larry Johnson hold-out situation.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

So for all intent and purposes,the list will never be updated in the future...Correct?..If so what a shame as this was my favorite thread in the pool

Finatic,I'm doing my best to find an arrangement that will work considering all of the factors involved. Tonight, I copied the lists from pages 7 & 8 and moved it all back to Post #1 on the first page. Then I updated the rankings and took out all of the player comments. Again, I just don't think it's fair to Rotoworld to overhaul this list with new rankings and new player comments for free on a message board. I'm probably cutting it close as it is. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears...

 

[Fear & Loathing]

First off, Bush is a better prospect than Peterson. Some people don't want to hear that, but it's true. He's faster, quicker, more explosive, and more versatile. The "once a decade" thing is thrown around too often, but Bush is really that good. He's truly a rare player. That said, Peterson is still one of the best RB prospects to come out in the past 4-5 years. He's probably a better prospect than any of the backs in the 2002-2006 classes not named Reggie Bush. A pre-injury McGahee is about the only other guy who would've been on his level. Obviously Steven Jackson and Larry Johnson have gone on to great things, but Peterson is a better prospect than they were coming out of college. He has the instincts, power, speed, and overall skills to be one of the 5-6 most talented RBs in the NFL.The real downside with Peterson is his running style. He lacks ideal lateral quickness and absorbs too many hits. Will it lead to injury problems? Possibly. Also, playing for the Vikings will hurt his chances of immediate stardom. The Vikings are terrible. So while Peterson is definitely more talented than someone like Laurence Maroney, it's quite possible that Maroney will have the better career.

After tonight's game it might be too late to buy on Peterson. I don't mean buy low -- I mean buy at all. If I had Peterson on my roster, I'd hold onto him like grim death. The cat is out of the bag .Where would you place Bush and Peterson in a dynasty RBs list?I realize it may be overreaction from tonight's game, but I just moved Peterson ahead of both LJ and Bush. LJ's situation (contract, team, heavy workload) just puts me off too much. Worst case scenario, I'd pass on LJ and he'd make me pay for a year or two, but I'd still have Peterson to show for it. And I still like Bush, but I prefer Peterson's dominant rushing ability to Bush's premier skill set.

 

[EBF]

First off, Bush is a better prospect than Peterson. Some people don't want to hear that, but it's true. He's faster, quicker, more explosive, and more versatile. The "once a decade" thing is thrown around too often, but Bush is really that good. He's truly a rare player. That said, Peterson is still one of the best RB prospects to come out in the past 4-5 years. He's probably a better prospect than any of the backs in the 2002-2006 classes not named Reggie Bush. A pre-injury McGahee is about the only other guy who would've been on his level. Obviously Steven Jackson and Larry Johnson have gone on to great things, but Peterson is a better prospect than they were coming out of college. He has the instincts, power, speed, and overall skills to be one of the 5-6 most talented RBs in the NFL.The real downside with Peterson is his running style. He lacks ideal lateral quickness and absorbs too many hits. Will it lead to injury problems? Possibly. Also, playing for the Vikings will hurt his chances of immediate stardom. The Vikings are terrible. So while Peterson is definitely more talented than someone like Laurence Maroney, it's quite possible that Maroney will have the better career.

After tonight's game it might be too late to buy on Peterson. I don't mean buy low -- I mean buy at all. If I had Peterson on my roster, I'd hold onto him like grim death. The cat is out of the bag .Where would you place Bush and Peterson in a dynasty RBs list?I realize it may be overreaction from tonight's game, but I just moved Peterson ahead of both LJ and Bush. LJ's situation (contract, team, heavy workload) just puts me off too much. Worst case scenario, I'd pass on LJ and he'd make me pay for a year or two, but I'd still have Peterson to show for it. And I still like Bush, but I prefer Peterson's dominant rushing ability to Bush's premier skill set.

Didn't you expect him to break some long runs here and there? It's not like he showed us anything we haven't seen before. Tonight's game doesn't change my opinion of him. Reggie Bush is a better prospect than Peterson in PPR because he has elite receiving skills with the potential to eventually develop into a 250-300 carry type back. He also plays on a much better team with a much better supporting cast. It's a bit closer in a non-PPR because Bush's upside hinges on his ability to ultimately become a team's sole workhorse. I think he'll get that opportunity when Deuce is gone and I think he'll do quite well, but nothing is guaranteed. He may be a RBBC type for the rest of his career. Peterson won't have that concern, but the Vikes are putrid. That might not change for a while. Bottom line is they're both great options. I like Bush more in PPR. In a non-PPR I could see it break either way. Bush will have to prove that he can carry the load. Peterson will have to prove that he can carry the Vikes offense out of mediocrity.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Reggie Bush is a better prospect than Peterson in PPR because he has elite receiving skills with the potential to eventually develop into a 250-300 carry type back. He also plays on a much better team with a much better supporting cast. ....Bottom line is they're both great options. I like Bush more in PPR. In a non-PPR I could see it break either way. Bush will have to prove that he can carry the load. Peterson will have to prove that he can carry the Vikes offense out of mediocrity.

You are making too big a deal about the latter point. The Saints were a terrible team. The Chargers were a terrible team before LT. The 49'ers were a poor team and Gore did well.Chester Taylor produced pretty well last year and seems very unremarkable. I remember when many people here were much higher on Leftwich than Palmer because Palmer had only done it one year and "had much lesser supporting talent. The Bengals always will be a FF hell." Good rb's will produce. They always have.

 

[Finatic]

So for all intent and purposes,the list will never be updated in the future...Correct?..If so what a shame as this was my favorite thread in the pool

Finatic,I'm doing my best to find an arrangement that will work considering all of the factors involved. Tonight, I copied the lists from pages 7 & 8 and moved it all back to Post #1 on the first page. Then I updated the rankings and took out all of the player comments. Again, I just don't think it's fair to Rotoworld to overhaul this list with new rankings and new player comments for free on a message board. I'm probably cutting it close as it is. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears...

F&L, Just ranting as I know your hands are tied in this matter.You are probably taking it to the edge now as you have stated.I'm not blaming you as in my opinion Joe and David dropped the ball on this one by letting you jump ship.FBG's has really upped their Dynasty coverage the past two years by bringing some great Dynasty guys on board,Can't get them all I guesss...Good Luck to you at Roto and in any future endeavors....Fin

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Didn't you expect him to break some long runs here and there? It's not like he showed us anything we haven't seen before. Tonight's game doesn't change my opinion of him.Reggie Bush is a better prospect than Peterson in PPR because he has elite receiving skills with the potential to eventually develop into a 250-300 carry type back. He also plays on a much better team with a much better supporting cast. ....Bottom line is they're both great options. I like Bush more in PPR. In a non-PPR I could see it break either way. Bush will have to prove that he can carry the load. Peterson will have to prove that he can carry the Vikes offense out of mediocrity.

You are making too big a deal about the latter point. The Saints were a terrible team. The Chargers were a terrible team before LT. The 49'ers were a poor team and Gore did well.Chester Taylor produced pretty well last year and seems very unremarkable. I remember when many people here were much higher on Leftwich than Palmer because Palmer had only done it one year and "had much lesser supporting talent. The Bengals always will be a FF hell." Good rb's will produce. They always have.

Sure, I expected Peterson to break some long runs. Last night's game didn't change my opinion of him, but it did solidify my belief that his talent is on another level. I think we agree that Peterson and Bush are both great options. It's just a matter of preference.I think rabidfireweasel makes a legit point here. Frank Gore is a perfect example. I know you're a big Alex Smith fan, but Gore dominated the 2nd half of the season when Smith couldn't put together any semblance of a passing threat. It won't take much for Tarvaris Jackson to generate a passing threat on the level of late 2006 Alex Smith.We don't know how bad the Vikings are going to be this year, and we've been very wrong in the past in assuming that poor teams would hold down superstar talent. The Vikes may just be able to pull off the running game/defense style with a good offensive line, a game changer at RB, another solid vet at RB, and a QB with raw talent. Elite runningbacks can make things happen in an offense as long as the O-Line isn't overwhelmed. I wouldn't let the state of the Vikings bother me in a dynasty league.

 

[EBF]

Reggie Bush is a better prospect than Peterson in PPR because he has elite receiving skills with the potential to eventually develop into a 250-300 carry type back. He also plays on a much better team with a much better supporting cast. ....Bottom line is they're both great options. I like Bush more in PPR. In a non-PPR I could see it break either way. Bush will have to prove that he can carry the load. Peterson will have to prove that he can carry the Vikes offense out of mediocrity.

You are making too big a deal about the latter point. The Saints were a terrible team. The Chargers were a terrible team before LT. The 49'ers were a poor team and Gore did well.Chester Taylor produced pretty well last year and seems very unremarkable. I remember when many people here were much higher on Leftwich than Palmer because Palmer had only done it one year and "had much lesser supporting talent. The Bengals always will be a FF hell." Good rb's will produce. They always have.

If there's one position that's dependent on supporting talent, I think it's RB. For every player who excels with a weak supporting cast, there are multiple players who are held back by their team's lack of offensive talent. Jamal Lewis was once one of the best backs in the NFL, but his production never matched his talent because Baltimore couldn't move the football. Guys like Kevin Jones, Ronnie Brown, Fred Taylor, Willis McGahee, Cadillac Williams, and Clinton Portis have been held back by weak supporting casts in recent seasons. Put any one of them on the Chiefs or Rams and you might have a top 5-6 back. I like Peterson. I took him first overall in a PPR league rookie draft. There are only a handful of RBs in the league that I'd trade him for. But last night's game means almost nothing to me. Good prospects are expected to make good plays. So when a good prospect makes a good play, it doesn't affect my ranking of him. Peterson should be a top 15 type RB over the next several seasons. If the Vikes manage to give him some help on offense, he could be a top 3-5 guy. But there's a world of difference between Drew Brees and Tarvaris Jackson at this point, so let's not get carried away just yet.

 

[gianmarco]

Guys like Ronnie Brown, McGahee, Cadillac, and Portis struggled because of the OFFENSIVE LINE (pun intended), not because of the other supporting cast. When you talk about putting them on a team like the Chiefs and they would thrive, the Chiefs have NEVER had a stellar supporting cast. Trent Green and Gonzo are not what allowed Priest and LJ to do what they did. It was their HOF offensive line.

Now go back to Minn and look at what they have at OL. They have the best rush blocking left side in the league. That's the reason why Chester was so successful last year and why ADP is going to be unstoppable when he finally gets the starting job.

 

[valhallan]

F&L, do you really think Arnaz Battle isn't even good enough for your tier 8? He has an impressive 66% catch ratio over the course of his career and was targeted 53 times over the last 8 games of last year. Sure, DJax will be a factor for the 49ers offense this year but there are legitimate concerns about his ability to play a full season after missing time the last two seasons and being let go by a division rival. Also, I don't think Ashley Lelie, Jason Hill, or any of the other unproven receivers will challenge Arnaz for playing time, given Mike Nolan's recent statements:

According to San Francisco 49ers HC Mike Nolan, the best run-blocking receiver in the league is Hines Ward of the Pittsburgh Steelers. "If Hines was a 10, I'd say Arnaz Battle was about an 8. I think he's pretty....good," Nolan said. "They're both tough guys -- tough, competitive. They play the game like it should be played." One of the reasons Battle has remained at the flanker position while celebrated offseason acquisition Darrell Jackson, who played flanker for the Seattle Seahawks last season, has been moved to split end, is Battle's blocking ability.

Battle blocks with the best of them, Nolan saysHe'll never be a top fantasy player, but I gotta think a guy who looks like a lock to start for his team is worth consideration among your top 100 wide receivers.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

F&L, do you really think Arnaz Battle isn't even good enough for your tier 8? He has an impressive 66% catch ratio over the course of his career and was targeted 53 times over the last 8 games of last year. Sure, DJax will be a factor for the 49ers offense this year but there are legitimate concerns about his ability to play a full season after missing time the last two seasons and being let go by a division rival. Also, I don't think Ashley Lelie, Jason Hill, or any of the other unproven receivers will challenge Arnaz for playing time, given Mike Nolan's recent statements:

According to San Francisco 49ers HC Mike Nolan, the best run-blocking receiver in the league is Hines Ward of the Pittsburgh Steelers. "If Hines was a 10, I'd say Arnaz Battle was about an 8. I think he's pretty....good," Nolan said. "They're both tough guys -- tough, competitive. They play the game like it should be played." One of the reasons Battle has remained at the flanker position while celebrated offseason acquisition Darrell Jackson, who played flanker for the Seattle Seahawks last season, has been moved to split end, is Battle's blocking ability.

Battle blocks with the best of them, Nolan saysHe'll never be a top fantasy player, but I gotta think a guy who looks like a lock to start for his team is worth consideration among your top 100 wide receivers.

Nolan has a good point. I've been saying for awhile that Arnaz Battle is a poor man's Hines Ward; unfortunately, he takes the best of Hines' NFL qualities and very few of his fantasy football qualities. If we ever start giving fantasy credit for blocking, toughness and football IQ, then you might have something of value in Arnaz Battle.You mentioned D-Jax as a factor, but let's keep in mind that Battle never had any value in San Fran before D-Jax came around. He's been a starting NFL WR, but he's never held any fantasy value. I just don't see an upside to Battle's game in fantasy circles. The catch % is a good sign, but there are plenty of guys like Bobby Engram who always have a high catch % and never carry fantasy value. Judge Smails was right: the world needs ditch diggers too...just as the NFL world needs role players too. Arnaz Battle is a role player -- and a good one at that.

I hope you won't take any offense here, but this reminds of a story from the mid-to-late 90's. We had a re-draft league that started in the early 90s with a group of high school/neighborhood friends. As was the case with most of these types of leagues, some of us caught on to the fantasy fever quickly, some finished in the basement every year, and others just waited for a lucky year. Two of us in the league were probably a bit more into the game than the rest, and we coined the name "Sean Dawkins All-Stars" for players of Arnaz Battle's ilk. As the same owner continued to draft Sean Dawkins year in and year out while he racked up 750 yard/3 TD seasons, we had quite a few chuckles to ourselves. Another owner would draft Shawn Jefferson or James Jett every year. Not only is there very little chance a player like that will break out, there's actually a very good chance that the player will hurt your chances of winning on a weekly basis...not to mention a precious waste of roster space that could be better spent on a potential asset.

I've gradually dropped Arnaz Battle from the list because he's just not my idea of a bench asset, but I don't really have a problem adding him to the bottom tier where other longshots reside.

Previous members of the Sean Dawkins All-Stars:

James Jett

Shawn Jefferson

Chris Calloway

Wayne Chrebet

Torrance Small

O.J. McDuffie

Jeff Graham

Mike Sherrard

Darnay Scott

Bill Schroeder

James Thrash

Chris Sanders

J.J. Stokes

Courtney Hawkins

Andre Hastings

Willie Davis AND Willie Green (often confused for each other)

Orande Gadsden (I still remember one guy drafting the dreaded QB/WR combo of Fiedler/Gadsden on the heels of other owners collecting Culpepper/Moss & Manning/Harrison...good times in that draft room).

Active members:

Travis Taylor

Arnaz Battle

Ashley Lelie

Antwaan Randle El

Jerry Porter

Eddie Kennison

Ike Hilliard

Bobby Engram

Az-Zahir Hakim

David Givens

Brian Finneran

Troy Brown

Corey Bradford

Todd Pinkston

Marty Booker (post-Chicago version)

And the quintessential current version of Sean Dawkins is...Eric Parker.

Germane to recent conversations here, I'd say Deion Branch may be the new measuring stick if he doesn't break out this year.

Going out on a limb...I think Jerricho Cotchery & Bernard Berrian have major Sean Dawkins potential.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Now that I'm adding Battle to the WR list, I can see your reasoning. Why would I have Lelie, Booker, Kennison, Moulds, Jurevicius, and Drew Carter and NOT have Arnaz Battle? What did he do to piss me off? Oh well, none of them are worth a gatorade flavor to be named later anyway.

 

[gheemony]

In the Shark Pool, there has been some comparison of Santonio Holmes to Bernard Berrian, who you think is a potential "Sean Dawkins All-Star" (great term, BTW). What is Holmes' potential? The hype machine is going.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

In the Shark Pool, there has been some comparison of Santonio Holmes to Bernard Berrian, who you think is a potential "Sean Dawkins All-Star" (great term, BTW). What is Holmes' potential? The hype machine is going.

I like Santonio Holmes out of the two of them, but I do worry a bit about his TD potential as I think Hines Ward, Heath Miller & Nate Washington are all better redzone weapons. Holmes does much of his damage in the open field and will have to break off quite a few long runs after the catch (which is certainly possible) to put up high TD numbers. I don't think he'll pass Hines Ward in production this year, but I do think he'll improve, and I do think he's a better bet for the future than Bernard Berrian. Holmes has a bright future with a good QB in an underrated offense.With Berrian, I worry about his QB situation and question whether he'll ever be a complete WR as opposed to more of a deep threat. He made tremendous strides last season, but I don't see him as a guy who will consistently break the 1,000 yard barrier or score more than a handful of TDs.As impressive as Berrian was at times last season, the rookie Holmes still finished with more yardage despite being worked into the offense very slowly over the first third of the season.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Just looked at the new rankings. I still don't get how Portis is an injury concern, yet Gore is not. Just trying to make a point about how all the Portis stuff is blown out of proportion. He is in no way in jeopardy of losing touches to Betts. Every team needs a solid #2. I guess Turner is going to start taking carries away from Tomlinson this year.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Just looked at the new rankings. I still don't get how Portis is an injury concern, yet Gore is not. Just trying to make a point about how all the Portis stuff is blown out of proportion. He is in no way in jeopardy of losing touches to Betts. Every team needs a solid #2. I guess Turner is going to start taking carries away from Tomlinson this year.

Portis has knee tendinitis and recently visited the Grim Reaper himself, Dr. James Andrews. It looks like he may come out just fine, but this talk about his knee has been going on for over 3 months, and it just won't go away. And that's on top of the dislocated shoulder which kept him out for the majority of last season. Frank Gore has a broken hand with a finite recovery time. For obvious reasons, I'm much more concerned about a RB's current nebulous knee injury than I am about a RB's current hand injury.Furthmore, despite your contention that he "is in no way in jeopardy of losing touches to Betts", the rest of the football world believes the opposite. It remains to be seen just how many touches he'll lose to Betts, but he will lose some. Many believe he'll lose quite a bit. I don't know how that situation will work itself out, but I don't believe Betts would re-sign, nor do I believe the Redskins would put forth the effort to re-sign him, unless he was going to have a role in the offense. A healthy Portis is the better player, but he never had a stretch as dominant in Washington as Betts’ final 6 games of last season. The Turner/Tomlinson comparison is apples and oranges.Most importantly, Frank Gore is a significantly better player than Clinton Portis. Portis simply hasn't been nearly as productive in Washington as he was in Denver. Even in his best seasons in Denver, he didn't produce like Gore did last season. Throw in the huge advantage in the receiving game, Betts' nagging presence, and Portis' recent knee and shoulder injuries, and I don't think Portis is close to Gore in value.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Just looked at the new rankings. I still don't get how Portis is an injury concern, yet Gore is not. Just trying to make a point about how all the Portis stuff is blown out of proportion. He is in no way in jeopardy of losing touches to Betts. Every team needs a solid #2. I guess Turner is going to start taking carries away from Tomlinson this year.

Portis has knee tendinitis and recently visited the Grim Reaper himself, Dr. James Andrews. It looks like he may come out just fine, but this talk about his knee has been going on for over 3 months, and it just won't go away. And that's on top of the dislocated shoulder which kept him out for the majority of last season. Frank Gore has a broken hand with a finite recovery time. For obvious reasons, I'm much more concerned about a RB's current nebulous knee injury than I am about a RB's current hand injury.Furthmore, despite your contention that he "is in no way in jeopardy of losing touches to Betts", the rest of the football world believes the opposite. It remains to be seen just how many touches he'll lose to Betts, but he will lose some. Many believe he'll lose quite a bit. I don't know how that situation will work itself out, but I don't believe Betts would re-sign, nor do I believe the Redskins would put forth the effort to re-sign him, unless he was going to have a role in the offense. A healthy Portis is the better player, but he never had a stretch as dominant in Washington as Betts’ final 6 games of last season. The Turner/Tomlinson comparison is apples and oranges.

Most importantly, Frank Gore is a significantly better player than Clinton Portis. Portis simply hasn't been nearly as productive in Washington as he was in Denver. Even in his best seasons in Denver, he didn't produce like Gore did last season. Throw in the huge advantage in the receiving game, Betts' nagging presence, and Portis' recent knee and shoulder injuries, and I don't think Portis is close to Gore in value.

Sorry, but this knee stuff is still new and doesn't bother me. The shoulder wasn't the only injury he sustained last season, so that argument doesn't affect my judgement. Gore tore ligaments in both ankles in college, so my point is that he poses more of an injury risk IMO.I could care less about the so-called "rest of the football world" on this board. There is a very limited amount of opinions that I respect on this board. Most of the hate is this board is just people following the masses, who tends to be wrong the majority of the time. Betts is nowhere near the talent Portis is.

It's arguable about who is the better player. Portis is a second round pick, and Gore was a third. Both might have been first rounders if it wasn't for certain issues. Portis had a fumbling problem, and Gore fell to the third because of his prior injuries. Portis has still been a very good fantasy back in Washington. He hasn't been as good as he was in Denver, but still very good. In fact, he has scored more points than Gore did last year. I only went back to Portis's first three years in which he was in the league, but all three years he did better, even his third in which he was in Washington.

 

[valhallan]

Now that I'm adding Battle to the WR list, I can see your reasoning. Why would I have Lelie, Booker, Kennison, Moulds, Jurevicius, and Drew Carter and NOT have Arnaz Battle? What did he do to piss me off?

That's kinda what I was getting at. I don't ever expect to rely on Battle, but he's certainly worth having around on deeper rosters where you start 3WRs.

 

[Ariakis]

Lorenzo Booker-RB- Dolphins Aug. 19 - 2:15 pm et Dolphins coach Cam Cameron says he held Lorenzo Booker out of Friday's exhibition game because Booker's been getting plenty of reps in practice.There was some talk that Booker may have been held out as a disciplinary measure, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Booker is currently Miami's third-string back, and it doesn't appear that he'll pass Jesse Chatman for the job before the season. He's becoming a less-exciting late fantasy pick.Source: Miami Herald

Tough to get a good read on this ... is playing Chatman just a ploy to motivate Lorenzo Booker? Was this just to see what Chatman can do and keep Booker fresh and limit the amount of scouting available for special plays for him during the season. Booker has the talent to be special in a RBBC but Ronnie Brown is also a stud so this situation is going to be different than in Jacksonville.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Sorry, but this knee stuff is still new and doesn't bother me. The shoulder wasn't the only injury he sustained last season, so that argument doesn't affect my judgement. Gore tore ligaments in both ankles in college, so my point is that he poses more of an injury risk IMO.

Still new? It's been going on all off-season. For the most part, Gore's injuries are from several years ago. He actually played through injuries to both shoulders his rookie season. Is he an injury risk? Sure, but I'm more concerned about a player with current leg injuries coming off a major shoulder injury than I am about a player who had injuries several years ago in college. It's debatable which one is the bigger injury risk, and I obviously think Gore is less of a risk over the next couple of seasons.

I could care less about the so-called "rest of the football world" on this board. There is a very limited amount of opinions that I respect on this board. Most of the hate is this board is just people following the masses, who tends to be wrong the majority of the time. Betts is nowhere near the talent Portis is.

You make some very good points here, but the rest of the football world isn't just the FBG message boards. Betts is not the talent that Portis is, but he is coming off a more productive stretch of games than Portis has ever had with Washington. At the very least, Betts is going to be the passing down back in this offense...as indicated by the Redskins' coaching staff. Doubtlessly, he will be playing more this year than he did 2 years ago if only to keep Portis fresh and decrease the chances of further injury. Despite your zealous insistence, I believe Betts will have a definitive impact on Portis' value going forward. That explains why I rank Gore and Portis where I do.

It's arguable about who is the better player. Portis is a second round pick, and Gore was a third. Both might have been first rounders if it wasn't for certain issues. Portis had a fumbling problem, and Gore fell to the third because of his prior injuries. Portis has still been a very good fantasy back in Washington. He hasn't been as good as he was in Denver, but still very good. In fact, he has scored more points than Gore did last year. I only went back to Portis's first three years in which he was in the league, but all three years he did better, even his third in which he was in Washington.

I don't think it's arguable at all. This isn't the Clinton Portis of four years ago. He's a different player now, especially when you factor in the possibility that a percentage of his impressive production in Denver was a product of Denver's offensive system. As we've both noticed, he hasn't been nearly as productive in Washington. Frank Gore is one of the top handful of RBs in the league. Considering NFL production, only Tomlinson and Steven Jackson were better last season -- and the last one is debatable.Gore rushed for just shy of 1700 yards last season and added 485 yards receiving on 61 receptions for nearly 2200 total yards. If you take the best marks of Portis' career in those categories, he comes up short in all of them. Considering that Gore is just hitting his prime while Portis is just passing his prime, I don't see a reason to rank Portis close to Gore in value. Throw in Gore's monumental advantage in the receiving game, and it's a landslide in PPR leagues.

 

[Whiplash Inc.]

What made you rank Fitzgerald ahead of Chad Johnson, TO, Holt and Harrison (among others)?

Not critisizing, just wondering. Nice job overall, btw.

 

[Whiplash Inc.]

Furthmore, despite your contention that he "is in no way in jeopardy of losing touches to Betts", the rest of the football world believes the opposite. It remains to be seen just how many touches he'll lose to Betts, but he will lose some. Many believe he'll lose quite a bit. I don't know how that situation will work itself out, but I don't believe Betts would re-sign, nor do I believe the Redskins would put forth the effort to re-sign him, unless he was going to have a role in the offense. A healthy Portis is the better player, but he never had a stretch as dominant in Washington as Betts’ final 6 games of last season. The Turner/Tomlinson comparison is apples and oranges.

I don't know if you've seen this yet, but just in case;Don Banks, reporting from Redskins camp

1. Make no mistake, even though the Redskins found out that they had two No. 1-caliber running backs last season with the breakthrough year turned in by Ladell Betts, there's no confusion about Clinton Portis being the starter if he's healthy in 2007.Gibbs and associate head coach/offense Al Saunders were very clear in telling me that Betts is the backup, even if he did run for 1,154 yards in nine starts last season, including a team-record tying five consecutive 100-yard rushing games (all after Thanksgiving).

The playoffs were filled last year with teams that featured a two-back approach to their running game, and the Redskins see the value in making sure Betts regularly spells Portis, who endured an injury-shortened season in 2006 (he hurt his shoulder in the preseason and broke a hand in Week 9). But while Washington plans on re-dedicating itself to the power running game that Gibbs loves this season, in order to take some of the load off young quarterback Jason Campbell, no one within the organization is expecting the Redskins to wind up with a pair of 1,000-yard rushers.

The scenario Washington would like to see is Portis finishing in the 1,500-yard range, with Betts totaling between 600-700 yards. The Redskins awarded Betts a five-year, $11 million contract extension in December, and that's a sizable deal for a No. 2 back. Washington just hopes it's an insurance policy it doesn't need like it did last year. But stay tuned, because Portis is currently sidelined with tendinitis in his right knee, the same injury that kept him out of a mid-June minicamp.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

What made you rank Fitzgerald ahead of Chad Johnson, TO, Holt and Harrison (among others)?Not critisizing, just wondering. Nice job overall, btw.

1. He's younger than all of them and in some cases way younger. In dynasty leagues, I don't think there's any question you have to factor in age for TO & Harrison. I also believe there's a bit of a decline in store for Holt. Chad Johnson is close in value, but I think Fitzgerald may be more consistent going forward. The two are close, but I prefer Fitzgerald.2. Talent-wise, they're all very good. I've had only Randy Moss and Calvin Johnson as better WRs coming out of college in the past 10 years. Fitzgerald doesn't have a weakness as a WR and may be the best in the league at going up in traffic and coming down with the ball, which serves him very well in the redzone. He's an impressive combination of big play ability, possibly the best redzone WR in the league, and possession WR skills.They're all very good WRs, but I think Fitzgerald's youth and talent give him an edge.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Furthmore, despite your contention that he "is in no way in jeopardy of losing touches to Betts", the rest of the football world believes the opposite. It remains to be seen just how many touches he'll lose to Betts, but he will lose some. Many believe he'll lose quite a bit. I don't know how that situation will work itself out, but I don't believe Betts would re-sign, nor do I believe the Redskins would put forth the effort to re-sign him, unless he was going to have a role in the offense. A healthy Portis is the better player, but he never had a stretch as dominant in Washington as Betts’ final 6 games of last season. The Turner/Tomlinson comparison is apples and oranges.

I don't know if you've seen this yet, but just in case;Don Banks, reporting from Redskins camp

1. Make no mistake, even though the Redskins found out that they had two No. 1-caliber running backs last season with the breakthrough year turned in by Ladell Betts, there's no confusion about Clinton Portis being the starter if he's healthy in 2007.Gibbs and associate head coach/offense Al Saunders were very clear in telling me that Betts is the backup, even if he did run for 1,154 yards in nine starts last season, including a team-record tying five consecutive 100-yard rushing games (all after Thanksgiving).

The playoffs were filled last year with teams that featured a two-back approach to their running game, and the Redskins see the value in making sure Betts regularly spells Portis, who endured an injury-shortened season in 2006 (he hurt his shoulder in the preseason and broke a hand in Week 9). But while Washington plans on re-dedicating itself to the power running game that Gibbs loves this season, in order to take some of the load off young quarterback Jason Campbell, no one within the organization is expecting the Redskins to wind up with a pair of 1,000-yard rushers.

The scenario Washington would like to see is Portis finishing in the 1,500-yard range, with Betts totaling between 600-700 yards. The Redskins awarded Betts a five-year, $11 million contract extension in December, and that's a sizable deal for a No. 2 back. Washington just hopes it's an insurance policy it doesn't need like it did last year. But stay tuned, because Portis is currently sidelined with tendinitis in his right knee, the same injury that kept him out of a mid-June minicamp.

Regarding your bolded items:- I'm not confused about Portis being the starter if he's healthy in 2007. I fully expect him to be the starter if he's healthy. I also expect Betts to eat into his production at least on passing downs if not more often than that. Furthermore, I will not be surprised by any in-season Portis injuries, nor will I be surprised when the Washington Portis shows up rather than the Denver Portis.

- I'm not expecting them to end up with a pair of 1,000 yard rushers either. I expect Portis, if healthy, to outproduce Betts fairly handily. A back-up RB with a not insignificant role in the offense doesn't have to break 1,000 yards to negatively impact the starter's production.

- I'm sure that's the scenario Washington would like to see. I'm sure Miami would like to see Ronnie Brown in the 1,500-yard range with Chatman/Booker totaling between 600-700 yards. Ditto New England with Maroney and Morris/Evans. You can add Indy with Addai and Dorsey/Dawson/Keith. And again in Chicago with Cedric Benson and Peterson/Wolfe. What a team would like to see and what actually happens rarely coincide. Chances are, the division of production in Washington will look quite different than what they are hoping to see.

This is what I believe:

- Clinton Portis has not been and will not be as productive in Washington as he was in Denver. I would rank him on expected production rather than "name." What's important to me in dynasty leagues is that I believe the most productive years of his career are very likely in the rear view mirror.

- Clinton Portis has reached the injury-prone portion of his career. I would be concerned about his knee, shoulder and future debilitated body parts if I had him on my roster...especially now that the 'Skins know they have an extremely capable back-up.

- If Portis stays healthy all year, Ladell Betts will not have as big of a role in the offense as he did last season. Betts won't even sniff last year's production. However, he will have more of a role than he did 2 years ago.

 

[AC05]

Is this list for non-PPR leagues?

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Is this list for non-PPR leagues?

No. As a general rule, I factor in PPR.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Lorenzo Booker-RB- Dolphins Aug. 19 - 2:15 pm et

Dolphins coach Cam Cameron says he held Lorenzo Booker out of Friday's exhibition game because Booker's been getting plenty of reps in practice.

There was some talk that Booker may have been held out as a disciplinary measure, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Booker is currently Miami's third-string back, and it doesn't appear that he'll pass Jesse Chatman for the job before the season. He's becoming a less-exciting late fantasy pick.

Source: Miami Herald

Tough to get a good read on this ... is playing Chatman just a ploy to motivate Lorenzo Booker? Was this just to see what Chatman can do and keep Booker fresh and limit the amount of scouting available for special plays for him during the season. Booker has the talent to be special in a RBBC but Ronnie Brown is also a stud so this situation is going to be different than in Jacksonville.

Ariakis,I missed this one because we posted at the same time this morning. This Ronnie Brown/Chatman nonsense reeks of pre-season bluster/light a fire under the young starter's ace to me. Maybe he should be trying to light a fire under his O-Line's ace instead. Either way, I think the real story in the Miami backfield is more about Ronnie Brown than Lorenzo Booker.

Gregg Rosenthal has a very good take on this situation in his blog today:

The Ronnie Brown dilemma

Monday was not a good morning for Ronnie Brown supporters, owners, and relatives. The Miami Herald said the starting job in Miami was an "unexpectedly open competition" between Ronnie Brown and ... Jesse freaking Chatman. Dolphins coach Cam Cameron cited Brown's relative inexperience in career carries, going back to Auburn.

Cameron wasn't happy that Brown couldn't score in the open field, a legitimate gripe, saying in another Herald article, "The expectation is when you're in the open field, that better be a house call. Everybody wants that.''

The Herald continued their wall-to-wall coverage of Brown/Chatman '07 with a blog post with more quotes from Cameron. Another post cited Chatman's tackle-breaking ability. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel believes Lorenzo Booker will still play a big role on third downs, and a three-way backfield is brewing. The Sentinel also notes Cameron is clearly sending a message when Cameron said he didn't know who their best running back was.

"On the public calling-out scale, give it 3 1/2 stars. Not exactly five-star, first-degree-burn material you might expect from a protege of Bob Knight and Bo Schembechler. But close enough to feel the singe."

So what do we think here? Is this all just preseason noise to cut through or is Ronnie Brown's number thirteen running back ranking overly optimistic?

Cameron is trying to light a fire under Brown. Phinsider.com agrees. It's the preseason and it's time to send messages through the media. The Dolphins aren't completely sold on Brown yet as a 400-touch, LaDainian Tomlinson-type monster. Chatman has enjoyed a nice preseason, including a 74-yard run, but he only has 79 career carries. He wasn't even in the league last season. Brown has a 4.3 yards-per-carry average on 448 carries behind a terrible offensive line.

Brown will remain Miami's starter, but Chatman's emergence and Booker's ability on passing downs puts a lot of pressure on him early in the year. He needs a fast start or he'll lose just enough touches every week to frustrate owners. Brown has the talent to step up his game, but he may not have the offensive teammates to help him. Sounds a lot like last year.

Chatman is now on the fantasy radar. There is no clear handcuff to Ronnie because Chatman and Booker would probably split touches if Brown gets hurt. Booker may get more consistent touches on third down, but Chatman would start if Brown was hurt. Both players are worth a look in deep leagues, but I'm no longer excited about drafting Booker. I've bumped Ronnie Brown down two spots, below Willis McGahee and Brandon Jacobs, to fifteenth at running back. I have seen these three as nearly interchangeable all offseason, so any edge helps. We already had a low projection of touches compared to the top ten backs, so that doesn't need to change much. You can consider elite wide receivers and Peyton Manning ahead of Brown. Moving him any lower than that would be an overreaction to preseason hype.

I think Rosenthal cuts through all the noise pretty well here. The main points:- Cameron is definitely trying to motivate Ronnie Brown. Your ruse is blatantly transparent, Cam.

- If Brown gets hurt, Chatman and Booker will split the job...but Chatman will be the "official" starter.

- I agree with Gregg Rosenthal: I wasn't all that excited about Lorenzo Booker in the first place, and Chatman's emergence doesn't help matters. I don't see Booker as more than a role player going forward.

- Gregg is moving Brown down 2 spots with this news, behind McGahee & Jacobs. Keep in mind that Gregg Rosenthal loves Brandon Jacobs. There's no way I'd make that move, but I do like McGahee to have a big year in '07.

- Ronnie Brown needs a fast start to the season or he stands to lose some value. I'm not betting against that fast start...

 

[SproutDaddy]

Gore rushed for just shy of 1700 yards last season and added 485 yards receiving on 61 receptions for nearly 2200 total yards. If you take the best marks of Portis' career in those categories, he comes up short in all of them. Considering that Gore is just hitting his prime while Portis is just passing his prime, I don't see a reason to rank Portis close to Gore in value. Throw in Gore's monumental advantage in the receiving game, and it's a landslide in PPR leagues.

According to my leagues scoring Gore hasn't come close to being the stud Portis has been. And as far as value goes, Portis is a much greater value due to the fact that people read what I feel as "junk" views about him that allows him to slip waaaaaaaay down the line. Call me crazy, but I'd draft Portis over Gore any day due to the fact he has been a consistent stud. Gore has only had one good year and has a longer history of injuries. I'm not bashing your rankings, they're yours. I just questioned them and have provided a valid argument for my view.