[DYNASTY] Staff Rankings (1 Viewer)

[Sanboy]

more reason C.Nall should have been on the " expert" list and not J.White .. LOL

Craig Nall - QB - Bills

QB Craig Nall is "very confident" he'll start this year.

He doesn't lack the arm for the job and he's going against two uninspiring competitors. Marv Levy and **** Jauron seem to love him. Nall's got a real good chance if he performs well in the preseason. Apr. 8 - 11:29 am et

Jeff if your willing to try a DEEP dynasty league .. you said it sounded interesting .. i will keep you in mind if a opening ever comes up

 

[Slinger]

Of course Nall is saying that he's very confident that he'll be the starter this year. Every QB should think that.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think Lamont Jordan is overrated by the judges.

And I'm shocked Jeff has Hasselbeck at 11.  Especially when you consider that he has Bulger at 6.

Mark it down. Lamont Jordan is worth the 4th overall pick. Oakland has changes at QB and at HC. The one stud that entire offense rested upon last year was Lamont Jordan. He'll be the driving force behind that offense yet again as they build the team back up with "the other LJ" as the center of the attack.

As the only person who had Lamont in my top 12 last year and the person who went on record to say FBG had him WAY underrated, I can't see Lamont even close to the top 5. Jeff, 4 is too high IMO. Lamont is not special, but will be used a lot and can be a workhorse. Last year he missed the last 2 games and still was solid. People need to remember that while Lamont has little mileage, he is year older than Deuce. Having him ranked 4th in dynasty is too high. Tenth is about right.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

more reason C.Nall should have been on the " expert" list and not J.White .. LOL

Craig Nall - QB - Bills

QB Craig Nall is "very confident" he'll start this year.

He doesn't lack the arm for the job and he's going against two uninspiring competitors. Marv Levy and **** Jauron seem to love him. Nall's got a real good chance if he performs well in the preseason. Apr. 8 - 11:29 am et

Jeff if your willing to try a DEEP dynasty league .. you said it sounded interesting .. i will keep you in mind if a opening ever comes up

Sounds good. I'm a big fan of the 2QB start format. No hard feelings on the debate. Glad to see passionate FBGs in April.

 

[cstu]

I'm far from the guys biggest fan, but RB24 and 48 overall?

24 Cedric Benson, CHI 20 20 26 32 21 29 23 24.4

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I think Lamont Jordan is overrated by the judges.

And I'm shocked Jeff has Hasselbeck at 11. Especially when you consider that he has Bulger at 6.

Mark it down. Lamont Jordan is worth the 4th overall pick. Oakland has changes at QB and at HC. The one stud that entire offense rested upon last year was Lamont Jordan. He'll be the driving force behind that offense yet again as they build the team back up with "the other LJ" as the center of the attack.

As the only person who had Lamont in my top 12 last year and the person who went on record to say FBG had him WAY underrated, I can't see Lamont even close to the top 5. Jeff, 4 is too high IMO. Lamont is not special, but will be used a lot and can be a workhorse. Last year he missed the last 2 games and still was solid. People need to remember that while Lamont has little mileage, he is year older than Deuce. Having him ranked 4th in dynasty is too high. Tenth is about right.

The only other viable back to put in this list is Portis, so Jordan is at worst the 5th best back. I have him at 4 because Washington has a bigger stable of offensive weapons than just Jordan and Moss. The next 5 backs are flawed in some way, shape or form.6. Rudi Johnson - He has Chris Perry behind him, but he is unbelievably consistent and never seems to get hurt. He has performed well and has not missed a start in nearly 3 years.

7. Ronnie Brown - due to experience and productivity for a season, not to mention Ricky Williams.

8. Cadillac Williams - again with experience and not playing for 16 games.

9. Steven Jackson - new offense being implemented may rise his stock, but just not impressed enough yet.

10. Brian Westbrook - excellent offensive contributor, but without PPR he drops. Also some injury history.

 

[cstu]

I think Lamont Jordan is overrated by the judges.

And I'm shocked Jeff has Hasselbeck at 11. Especially when you consider that he has Bulger at 6.

Mark it down. Lamont Jordan is worth the 4th overall pick. Oakland has changes at QB and at HC. The one stud that entire offense rested upon last year was Lamont Jordan. He'll be the driving force behind that offense yet again as they build the team back up with "the other LJ" as the center of the attack.

As the only person who had Lamont in my top 12 last year and the person who went on record to say FBG had him WAY underrated, I can't see Lamont even close to the top 5. Jeff, 4 is too high IMO. Lamont is not special, but will be used a lot and can be a workhorse. Last year he missed the last 2 games and still was solid. People need to remember that while Lamont has little mileage, he is year older than Deuce. Having him ranked 4th in dynasty is too high. Tenth is about right.

The only other viable back to put in this list is Portis, so Jordan is at worst the 5th best back. I have him at 4 because Washington has a bigger stable of offensive weapons than just Jordan and Moss. The next 5 backs are flawed in some way, shape or form.6. Rudi Johnson - He has Chris Perry behind him, but he is unbelievably consistent and never seems to get hurt. He has performed well and has not missed a start in nearly 3 years.

7. Ronnie Brown - due to experience and productivity for a season, not to mention Ricky Williams.

8. Cadillac Williams - again with experience and not playing for 16 games.

9. Steven Jackson - new offense being implemented may rise his stock, but just not impressed enough yet.

10. Brian Westbrook - excellent offensive contributor, but without PPR he drops. Also some injury history.

Jordan has roughly the same amount of starting experience as Cadillac, Brown and Jackson - all of which are better dynasty picks than Jordan because of his age.

 

[EBF]

Ward at 15 stands out to me as being a very bad ranking. He seems like the next best bet after Chad, Smith, Holt, Boldin, Fitz, and Moss.

Why? He's only had 1000 yards in each of the last 2 years.

He's the unquestioned #1 WR on a team with a good QB, and he's been productive for several years in a row. He may not be the best FF WR in the world, but you know he's going to give you good point totals each season. He's definitely undervalued right now.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I think Lamont Jordan is overrated by the judges.

And I'm shocked Jeff has Hasselbeck at 11. Especially when you consider that he has Bulger at 6.

Mark it down. Lamont Jordan is worth the 4th overall pick. Oakland has changes at QB and at HC. The one stud that entire offense rested upon last year was Lamont Jordan. He'll be the driving force behind that offense yet again as they build the team back up with "the other LJ" as the center of the attack.

As the only person who had Lamont in my top 12 last year and the person who went on record to say FBG had him WAY underrated, I can't see Lamont even close to the top 5. Jeff, 4 is too high IMO. Lamont is not special, but will be used a lot and can be a workhorse. Last year he missed the last 2 games and still was solid. People need to remember that while Lamont has little mileage, he is year older than Deuce. Having him ranked 4th in dynasty is too high. Tenth is about right.

The only other viable back to put in this list is Portis, so Jordan is at worst the 5th best back. I have him at 4 because Washington has a bigger stable of offensive weapons than just Jordan and Moss. The next 5 backs are flawed in some way, shape or form.6. Rudi Johnson - He has Chris Perry behind him, but he is unbelievably consistent and never seems to get hurt. He has performed well and has not missed a start in nearly 3 years.

7. Ronnie Brown - due to experience and productivity for a season, not to mention Ricky Williams.

8. Cadillac Williams - again with experience and not playing for 16 games.

9. Steven Jackson - new offense being implemented may rise his stock, but just not impressed enough yet.

10. Brian Westbrook - excellent offensive contributor, but without PPR he drops. Also some injury history.

Jordan has roughly the same amount of starting experience as Cadillac, Brown and Jackson - all of which are better dynasty picks than Jordan because of his age.

Larry Johnson - 11/19/79LaMont Jordan - 11/11/78

I don't hold LJ's age against him vs. the others. Age is one of the criteria. For the sophomore backs, show me that they can produce for a full season.

RB age doesn't matter nearly as much as mileage / hits / touches.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I think Lamont Jordan is overrated by the judges.

And I'm shocked Jeff has Hasselbeck at 11.  Especially when you consider that he has Bulger at 6.

Mark it down. Lamont Jordan is worth the 4th overall pick. Oakland has changes at QB and at HC. The one stud that entire offense rested upon last year was Lamont Jordan. He'll be the driving force behind that offense yet again as they build the team back up with "the other LJ" as the center of the attack.

As the only person who had Lamont in my top 12 last year and the person who went on record to say FBG had him WAY underrated, I can't see Lamont even close to the top 5. Jeff, 4 is too high IMO. Lamont is not special, but will be used a lot and can be a workhorse. Last year he missed the last 2 games and still was solid. People need to remember that while Lamont has little mileage, he is year older than Deuce. Having him ranked 4th in dynasty is too high. Tenth is about right.

The only other viable back to put in this list is Portis, so Jordan is at worst the 5th best back. I have him at 4 because Washington has a bigger stable of offensive weapons than just Jordan and Moss. The next 5 backs are flawed in some way, shape or form.6. Rudi Johnson - He has Chris Perry behind him, but he is unbelievably consistent and never seems to get hurt. He has performed well and has not missed a start in nearly 3 years.

7. Ronnie Brown - due to experience and productivity for a season, not to mention Ricky Williams.

8. Cadillac Williams - again with experience and not playing for 16 games.

9. Steven Jackson - new offense being implemented may rise his stock, but just not impressed enough yet.

10. Brian Westbrook - excellent offensive contributor, but without PPR he drops. Also some injury history.

Jordan has roughly the same amount of starting experience as Cadillac, Brown and Jackson - all of which are better dynasty picks than Jordan because of his age.

Larry Johnson - 11/19/79LaMont Jordan - 11/11/78

I don't hold LJ's age against him vs. the others. Age is one of the criteria. For the sophomore backs, show me that they can produce for a full season.

RB age doesn't matter nearly as much as mileage / hits / touches.

Disagree there. I think there's much more of a direct link with RB age and a decline in production than there is mileage/touches. That same argument was made with Priest and he fell off at the same age most others do.

 

[cstu]

I think Lamont Jordan is overrated by the judges.

And I'm shocked Jeff has Hasselbeck at 11. Especially when you consider that he has Bulger at 6.

Mark it down. Lamont Jordan is worth the 4th overall pick. Oakland has changes at QB and at HC. The one stud that entire offense rested upon last year was Lamont Jordan. He'll be the driving force behind that offense yet again as they build the team back up with "the other LJ" as the center of the attack.

As the only person who had Lamont in my top 12 last year and the person who went on record to say FBG had him WAY underrated, I can't see Lamont even close to the top 5. Jeff, 4 is too high IMO. Lamont is not special, but will be used a lot and can be a workhorse. Last year he missed the last 2 games and still was solid. People need to remember that while Lamont has little mileage, he is year older than Deuce. Having him ranked 4th in dynasty is too high. Tenth is about right.

The only other viable back to put in this list is Portis, so Jordan is at worst the 5th best back. I have him at 4 because Washington has a bigger stable of offensive weapons than just Jordan and Moss. The next 5 backs are flawed in some way, shape or form.6. Rudi Johnson - He has Chris Perry behind him, but he is unbelievably consistent and never seems to get hurt. He has performed well and has not missed a start in nearly 3 years.

7. Ronnie Brown - due to experience and productivity for a season, not to mention Ricky Williams.

8. Cadillac Williams - again with experience and not playing for 16 games.

9. Steven Jackson - new offense being implemented may rise his stock, but just not impressed enough yet.

10. Brian Westbrook - excellent offensive contributor, but without PPR he drops. Also some injury history.

Jordan has roughly the same amount of starting experience as Cadillac, Brown and Jackson - all of which are better dynasty picks than Jordan because of his age.

Larry Johnson - 11/19/79LaMont Jordan - 11/11/78

I don't hold LJ's age against him vs. the others. Age is one of the criteria. For the sophomore backs, show me that they can produce for a full season.

RB age doesn't matter nearly as much as mileage / hits / touches.

Disagree there. I think there's much more of a direct link with RB age and a decline in production than there is mileage/touches. That same argument was made with Priest and he fell off at the same age most others do.

I agree, even with better training and less wear and tear, 32 is still the cut off for RB's.I didn't mean to imply that Jordan is too old at 28, I just like the odds better with Cadillac (24), Brown (25) and Jackson (23).

 

[Snotbubbles]

LJ has far less mileage that LT2, and LT2 has broken down 2 of the last 3 seasons in December (fantasy playoffs, a big no-no). I've been an advocate of trading LT2 in November last season, and I would say the same this year.

Is this guy a staff member?LTs last 5 weeks in 2003:Week 13: 123 yds, 1 TDWeek 14: 236 yds, 2 TDsWeek 15: 195 yds, 2 TDsWeek 16: 099 yds, 2 TDsWeek 17: 260 yds, 2 TDsLast 5 weeks in 2004:Week 13: 120 yds, 2 TDsWeek 14: 150 yds, 1 TDWeek 15: 106 yds, 2 TDsWeek 16: 176 yds, 2 TDsWeek 17: Sat out because San Diego clinched playoff spot2005: Admittedly did not play well down the stretch last year. What two years are you talking about that LT broke down in?

 

[cstu]

I do agree that there should be no way Rudi Johnson with Chris Perry stealing touches should go before Jordan.

 

[cstu]

My top 10:

1. LT - still young, doesn't take a long of hits and put up numbers regardless of the team around him.

2. LJ - Should be the #1 fantasy player this year and has an elite OL

3. Portis - gets the nod over SA although he probably won't put up better numbers this year. He should easily have another 5 years good seasons.

4. SA - He's in a great system but he is 29 and lost a Pro Bowl guard.

5. Cadillac - Has a coach that likes to run the ball and not afraid to use him. If he can hold up he'll put up great numbers for many more years.

6. SJax - big back who can catch and plays on a offense with a lot of weapons. Very young. Has knee issues but the FieldTurf should help him stay healthy.

7. Brown - tough to not have him higher since he's on an up and coming team and has shown that he can do it all.

8. McGahee - I hesitate to put him here with all the problems surrounding the Bills but he has the talent and I'm assuming that the Bills draft Justice. If not, McGahee goes much lower.

9. Edge - I hate putting him this low but the uncertainty around the Cards running game forces my hand. There are a lot of weapons in AZ so even a decent OL would put him in the top 10, but it's hard to put him higher with the OL questions and his past knee injury.

10. Bush - My second choice was KJ since I have faith in Martz to turn things around in Detroit, but Bush gets the nod because of his talent. If he goes to Houston, I'm not expecting much his year but I like his future. It's a risky pick but his kind of talent doesn't come around often. Tiki is the safe pick here and will help you win this year, but it comes at the cost of setting you back in a couple seasons.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think Lamont Jordan is overrated by the judges.

And I'm shocked Jeff has Hasselbeck at 11. Especially when you consider that he has Bulger at 6.

Mark it down. Lamont Jordan is worth the 4th overall pick. Oakland has changes at QB and at HC. The one stud that entire offense rested upon last year was Lamont Jordan. He'll be the driving force behind that offense yet again as they build the team back up with "the other LJ" as the center of the attack.

As the only person who had Lamont in my top 12 last year and the person who went on record to say FBG had him WAY underrated, I can't see Lamont even close to the top 5. Jeff, 4 is too high IMO. Lamont is not special, but will be used a lot and can be a workhorse. Last year he missed the last 2 games and still was solid. People need to remember that while Lamont has little mileage, he is year older than Deuce. Having him ranked 4th in dynasty is too high. Tenth is about right.

Why on Earth would you think the change at HC is anything but a bad thing for Jordan? Norv Turner is a FF RB maker because he force-feeds the ball to his RBs. Losing Norv hurts Jordan a huge amount this year, because almost no other active coach likes to feature their RB more than Norv does, and LaMont got his value last year because he got force-fed so many touches.There is plenty of talent around Jordan (uh....Randy Moss anyone?) that was ignored by the RB loving Norv last year. I think we start to see that talent become more featured this year and LaMont's touches go down at which point his 3.8ypc may not add up to what it did this past year.

The HC change in Oaktown has me putting Jordan on my list of guys likely to fall out of the top 10 this year especially since almost half of the preseason top 10 guys inevitably do.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

LJ has far less mileage that LT2, and LT2 has broken down 2 of the last 3 seasons in December (fantasy playoffs, a big no-no). I've been an advocate of trading LT2 in November last season, and I would say the same this year.

Is this guy a staff member?LTs last 5 weeks in 2003:

Week 13: 123 yds, 1 TD

Week 14: 236 yds, 2 TDs

Week 15: 195 yds, 2 TDs

Week 16: 099 yds, 2 TDs

Week 17: 260 yds, 2 TDs

Last 5 weeks in 2004:

Week 13: 120 yds, 2 TDs

Week 14: 150 yds, 1 TD

Week 15: 106 yds, 2 TDs

Week 16: 176 yds, 2 TDs

Week 17: Sat out because San Diego clinched playoff spot

2005: Admittedly did not play well down the stretch last year.

What two years are you talking about that LT broke down in?

Since we're on the same page about 2005, I'll address the injury in 2004.He played through a leg injury that kept him out of practice most of November, 2004, but was still able to perform as a top flight RB. I give you credit for pointing that out. I remember weekly lineup decisions late in the season over the past few years, but that doesn't show up on the stat line.

My point is that his legs have shown signs of wear and tear, beneath the surface of the production.

By no means do I state that he is not a Top 2 dynasty RB. I'm just pointing out all the possible nicks and cuts he has suffered as Mr. Charger over the past seasons.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

My top 10:

1. LT - still young, doesn't take a long of hits and put up numbers regardless of the team around him.

2. LJ - Should be the #1 fantasy player this year and has an elite OL

3. Portis - gets the nod over SA although he probably won't put up better numbers this year. He should easily have another 5 years good seasons.

4. SA - He's in a great system but he is 29 and lost a Pro Bowl guard.

5. Cadillac - Has a coach that likes to run the ball and not afraid to use him. If he can hold up he'll put up great numbers for many more years.

6. SJax - big back who can catch and plays on a offense with a lot of weapons. Very young. Has knee issues but the FieldTurf should help him stay healthy.

7. Brown - tough to not have him higher since he's on an up and coming team and has shown that he can do it all.

8. McGahee - I hesitate to put him here with all the problems surrounding the Bills but he has the talent and I'm assuming that the Bills draft Justice. If not, McGahee goes much lower.

9. Edge - I hate putting him this low but the uncertainty around the Cards running game forces my hand. There are a lot of weapons in AZ so even a decent OL would put him in the top 10, but it's hard to put him higher with the OL questions and his past knee injury.

10. Bush - My second choice was KJ since I have faith in Martz to turn things around in Detroit, but Bush gets the nod because of his talent. If he goes to Houston, I'm not expecting much his year but I like his future. It's a risky pick but his kind of talent doesn't come around often. Tiki is the safe pick here and will help you win this year, but it comes at the cost of setting you back in a couple seasons.

This is bold on many levels. I see you're putting a lot of faith in first year vets in Brown and Cadillac, and have McGahee higher than many I have seen. I cannot agree with this list, especially by Jordan's noticeable absence.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I think Lamont Jordan is overrated by the judges.

And I'm shocked Jeff has Hasselbeck at 11. Especially when you consider that he has Bulger at 6.

Mark it down. Lamont Jordan is worth the 4th overall pick. Oakland has changes at QB and at HC. The one stud that entire offense rested upon last year was Lamont Jordan. He'll be the driving force behind that offense yet again as they build the team back up with "the other LJ" as the center of the attack.

As the only person who had Lamont in my top 12 last year and the person who went on record to say FBG had him WAY underrated, I can't see Lamont even close to the top 5. Jeff, 4 is too high IMO. Lamont is not special, but will be used a lot and can be a workhorse. Last year he missed the last 2 games and still was solid. People need to remember that while Lamont has little mileage, he is year older than Deuce. Having him ranked 4th in dynasty is too high. Tenth is about right.

Why on Earth would you think the change at HC is anything but a bad thing for Jordan? Norv Turner is a FF RB maker because he force-feeds the ball to his RBs. Losing Norv hurts Jordan a huge amount this year, because almost no other active coach likes to feature their RB more than Norv does, and LaMont got his value last year because he got force-fed so many touches.There is plenty of talent around Jordan (uh....Randy Moss anyone?) that was ignored by the RB loving Norv last year. I think we start to see that talent become more featured this year and LaMont's touches go down at which point his 3.8ypc may not add up to what it did this past year.

The HC change in Oaktown has me putting Jordan on my list of guys likely to fall out of the top 10 this year especially since almost half of the preseason top 10 guys inevitably do.

Moss was not "ignored" last year - he was playing through an injury that should have sidelined him. Also, somehow Kerry Collins was second overall in passing yardage at over 4,000 yards passing with a run-happy offense.Jordan is more than just a ballcarrier as I mentioned before. He led the team over the first 15 games in receptions. I would not be surprised by 1,600+ all purpose yards for Jordan this season.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think Lamont Jordan is overrated by the judges.

And I'm shocked Jeff has Hasselbeck at 11. Especially when you consider that he has Bulger at 6.

Mark it down. Lamont Jordan is worth the 4th overall pick. Oakland has changes at QB and at HC. The one stud that entire offense rested upon last year was Lamont Jordan. He'll be the driving force behind that offense yet again as they build the team back up with "the other LJ" as the center of the attack.

As the only person who had Lamont in my top 12 last year and the person who went on record to say FBG had him WAY underrated, I can't see Lamont even close to the top 5. Jeff, 4 is too high IMO. Lamont is not special, but will be used a lot and can be a workhorse. Last year he missed the last 2 games and still was solid. People need to remember that while Lamont has little mileage, he is year older than Deuce. Having him ranked 4th in dynasty is too high. Tenth is about right.

Why on Earth would you think the change at HC is anything but a bad thing for Jordan? Norv Turner is a FF RB maker because he force-feeds the ball to his RBs. Losing Norv hurts Jordan a huge amount this year, because almost no other active coach likes to feature their RB more than Norv does, and LaMont got his value last year because he got force-fed so many touches.There is plenty of talent around Jordan (uh....Randy Moss anyone?) that was ignored by the RB loving Norv last year. I think we start to see that talent become more featured this year and LaMont's touches go down at which point his 3.8ypc may not add up to what it did this past year.

The HC change in Oaktown has me putting Jordan on my list of guys likely to fall out of the top 10 this year especially since almost half of the preseason top 10 guys inevitably do.

Moss was not "ignored" last year - he was playing through an injury that should have sidelined him. Also, somehow Kerry Collins was second overall in passing yardage at over 4,000 yards passing with a run-happy offense.Jordan is more than just a ballcarrier as I mentioned before. He led the team over the first 15 games in receptions. I would not be surprised by 1,600+ all purpose yards for Jordan this season.

Even before and after Moss' injury there were grumblings that he wasn't being targetted enough. Counting on Jordan to see the ball as much as he did last year (especially inside the 10) with a coach not named Norv Turner is a reach.Low ypc RB that relied on a RB loving HC and more receptions than he had previously had in his entire career losing said RB-friendly HC just has bust written all over it IMO.

This is bold on many levels. I see you're putting a lot of faith in first year vets in Brown and Cadillac, and have McGahee higher than many I have seen.

While it's not my list, most dynasty rankings I've seen have both Brown and Caddy top 10 and Mcgahee is usually a bit lower, but not a whole lot. Let's not forget Mcgahee is a guy who was a top 3 dynasty pick in last years initial dynasty drafts (whether we agree with it or not).

 

[Snotbubbles]

Since we're on the same page about 2005, I'll address the injury in 2004.He played through a leg injury that kept him out of practice most of November, 2004, but was still able to perform as a top flight RB. I give you credit for pointing that out. I remember weekly lineup decisions late in the season over the past few years, but that doesn't show up on the stat line.My point is that his legs have shown signs of wear and tear, beneath the surface of the production.By no means do I state that he is not a Top 2 dynasty RB. I'm just pointing out all the possible nicks and cuts he has suffered as Mr. Charger over the past seasons.

I never said we were on the same page with 2005, I just said he didn't play well which was due to injury. But the injury had nothing to do with wear and tear on his legs. He is listed on the 2005 injury reports with a CHEST injury. You could see it in his play...every time he took a hit it was painful. Makes you a little tenative. But it has nothing to do with wear and tear on your legs. If you can analyze the how a chest injury is due to wear and tear on your legs...please...i'd like to hear it.

 

[Buckna]

Since we're on the same page about 2005, I'll address the injury in 2004.

He played through a leg injury that kept him out of practice most of November, 2004, but was still able to perform as a top flight RB. I give you credit for pointing that out. I remember weekly lineup decisions late in the season over the past few years, but that doesn't show up on the stat line.

My point is that his legs have shown signs of wear and tear, beneath the surface of the production.

By no means do I state that he is not a Top 2 dynasty RB. I'm just pointing out all the possible nicks and cuts he has suffered as Mr. Charger over the past seasons.

I never said we were on the same page with 2005, I just said he didn't play well which was due to injury. But the injury had nothing to do with wear and tear on his legs. He is listed on the 2005 injury reports with a CHEST injury. You could see it in his play...every time he took a hit it was painful. Makes you a little tenative. But it has nothing to do with wear and tear on your legs. If you can analyze the how a chest injury is due to wear and tear on your legs...please...i'd like to hear it.

Not to mention that in 2004 it was a minor groin pull in the FIRST part of the season that hurt LT. Chatman came in and got a number of carries in October and early November. After their Bye in week 10, LT was fully healed and never looked back.

 

[Buckna]

My minor quibble over LT aside, thanks to the staff for putting together something a lot of us posters have been clamoring for the last two years.

I wonder why a 5 year horizon was chosen though? Seems a 3 year horizon would be much better, afterall most RB's last what 3 years in the league? I imagine half the guys on these lists will be out of the league in 5 years to be honest.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

My minor quibble over LT aside, thanks to the staff for putting together something a lot of us posters have been clamoring for the last two years.

I wonder why a 5 year horizon was chosen though? Seems a 3 year horizon would be much better, afterall most RB's last what 3 years in the league? I imagine half the guys on these lists will be out of the league in 5 years to be honest.

Regarding RBs, I think you are 100% correct in that any dynasty rankings will hardly resemble those 5 years from now for the position.QB/WR/TE, 5 years could be the right timeline. That's the number we chose and we ran with it.

I think you'd be safe in assuming a shorter timeframe for the RB list (3-4 yrs).

 

[Mike Anderson]

My minor quibble over LT aside, thanks to the staff for putting together something a lot of us posters have been clamoring for the last two years.

I wonder why a 5 year horizon was chosen though? Seems a 3 year horizon would be much better, afterall most RB's last what 3 years in the league? I imagine half the guys on these lists will be out of the league in 5 years to be honest.

I would actually say it is a Mixture of both. Originally when the email went around at how many years we were looking at, my response on the group send was 5 years. Some rankings were done, and Will Grant (Heads up the Dynasty team) changed it to 3 years.I would think that right now some staff is operating under the 5 year time line, while some are operating under a 3 year time line.

My ranking are looking at more of a 5 year time line as they sit now, although I did drop a few older players after Will sent out a new directive.

This will be straightened out going forward.

 

[LHUCKS]

My minor quibble over LT aside, thanks to the staff for putting together something a lot of us posters have been clamoring for the last two years.

I wonder why a 5 year horizon was chosen though? Seems a 3 year horizon would be much better, afterall most RB's last what 3 years in the league? I imagine half the guys on these lists will be out of the league in 5 years to be honest.

Some rankings were done, and Will Grant (Heads up the Dynasty team) changed it to 3 years.

Okay...these rankings make bit more sense with that backdrop. I don't really see a "3 year horizon" as a true dynasty format, but to each his own.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

My minor quibble over LT aside, thanks to the staff for putting together something a lot of us posters have been clamoring for the last two years.

I wonder why a 5 year horizon was chosen though? Seems a 3 year horizon would be much better, afterall most RB's last what 3 years in the league? I imagine half the guys on these lists will be out of the league in 5 years to be honest.

Some rankings were done, and Will Grant (Heads up the Dynasty team) changed it to 3 years.

Okay...these rankings make bit more sense with that backdrop. I don't really see a "3 year horizon" as a true dynasty format, but to each his own.

Agree, a 3 year window throws age totally out the window for some guys with 4 or 5 years difference in age (Jordan/Deuce vs. Caddy/Ronnie for instance).

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I don't really see the importance of distinguishing between 3 and 5 year windows. Just evaluate players based on their likelihood of success in the next couple years along with their future career potential. Even if you take a 10-year window, you still have to focus more on the years which are easiest to predict...the ones in the next 2 or 3 years.

These rankings are just a guide and are meant to be useful to all types of keeper and dynasty leagues. It seems unfair to expect them to completely match whatever keeper or dynasty league rules you use. Like I said before, some dynasty owners prefer to win now...while others are more focused on building with youth. There are two viable strategies to use in dynasty leagues and the rankings are going to reflect that as well.

 

[Buckna]

I don't really see the importance of distinguishing between 3 and 5 year windows. Just evaluate players based on their likelihood of success in the next couple years along with their future career potential. Even if you take a 10-year window, you still have to focus more on the years which are easiest to predict...the ones in the next 2 or 3 years.

These rankings are just a guide and are meant to be useful to all types of keeper and dynasty leagues. It seems unfair to expect them to completely match whatever keeper or dynasty league rules you use. Like I said before, some dynasty owners prefer to win now...while others are more focused on building with youth. There are two viable strategies to use in dynasty leagues and the rankings are going to reflect that as well.

Well said. I'm a win now type of guy so I generally use a 3 year window when evaluating players (particularily RB's because they turn over so quickly.) I guess that's why I asked the question.

That being said, I still hold players on my roster that are outside of my 3 year horizon. If I can't trade them for decent value or to upgrade my starters right now, then you might as well hold on to them to see if their value will increase.

 

[cstu]

My minor quibble over LT aside, thanks to the staff for putting together something a lot of us posters have been clamoring for the last two years.

I wonder why a 5 year horizon was chosen though? Seems a 3 year horizon would be much better, afterall most RB's last what 3 years in the league? I imagine half the guys on these lists will be out of the league in 5 years to be honest.

Regarding RBs, I think you are 100% correct in that any dynasty rankings will hardly resemble those 5 years from now for the position.QB/WR/TE, 5 years could be the right timeline. That's the number we chose and we ran with it.

I think you'd be safe in assuming a shorter timeframe for the RB list (3-4 yrs).

It seems to me that you are overlooking some future studs to get short term results by limiting the timeline to 3 years. That short of a timeline makes Tiki look more valuable compared to say Kevin Jones. Even though KJ might also get injured, you are guaranteed to lose Tiki to retirement in 3 years if not sooner to injury. I think Tiki is going to have a big fall off either this year or next based on the history of over 30 RB's. For me there are better choices for a dynasty RB if you are focused on immediate production.

 

[a005511]

The rankings seem to indicate that Benson will be backing up Jones for awhile. Is Lovie just blowing smoke about the RB position being open!!

The rankings indicate the QB situation will be weak the next three years in SF with Bryant rated so low or is it that Bryant will blow up or drop too many critical passes and be relegated to #2 or said good bye to.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I don't really see the importance of distinguishing between 3 and 5 year windows. Just evaluate players based on their likelihood of success in the next couple years along with their future career potential. Even if you take a 10-year window, you still have to focus more on the years which are easiest to predict...the ones in the next 2 or 3 years.

These rankings are just a guide and are meant to be useful to all types of keeper and dynasty leagues. It seems unfair to expect them to completely match whatever keeper or dynasty league rules you use. Like I said before, some dynasty owners prefer to win now...while others are more focused on building with youth. There are two viable strategies to use in dynasty leagues and the rankings are going to reflect that as well.

Yes, very . Ruds nailed it. These are a guideline to help out at this important time of year for dynasty owners.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

My minor quibble over LT aside, thanks to the staff for putting together something a lot of us posters have been clamoring for the last two years.

I wonder why a 5 year horizon was chosen though? Seems a 3 year horizon would be much better, afterall most RB's last what 3 years in the league? I imagine half the guys on these lists will be out of the league in 5 years to be honest.

Regarding RBs, I think you are 100% correct in that any dynasty rankings will hardly resemble those 5 years from now for the position.QB/WR/TE, 5 years could be the right timeline. That's the number we chose and we ran with it.

I think you'd be safe in assuming a shorter timeframe for the RB list (3-4 yrs).

It seems to me that you are overlooking some future studs to get short term results by limiting the timeline to 3 years. That short of a timeline makes Tiki look more valuable compared to say Kevin Jones. Even though KJ might also get injured, you are guaranteed to lose Tiki to retirement in 3 years if not sooner to injury. I think Tiki is going to have a big fall off either this year or next based on the history of over 30 RB's. For me there are better choices for a dynasty RB if you are focused on immediate production.

That's an interesting point, but I don't like the example you give.For me, I'd rank Tiki above KJ because his production now> KJones now. There's no question that KJ has far more upside 3-4 years from now as Tiki ages / retires, but who is more likely to get you a championship over the next 1-2 years? I'd say Tiki.

Put another way, I'd lean towards an A-grade back for 2 years over a B grade for 3-4.

 

[cstu]

My minor quibble over LT aside, thanks to the staff for putting together something a lot of us posters have been clamoring for the last two years.

I wonder why a 5 year horizon was chosen though? Seems a 3 year horizon would be much better, afterall most RB's last what 3 years in the league? I imagine half the guys on these lists will be out of the league in 5 years to be honest.

Regarding RBs, I think you are 100% correct in that any dynasty rankings will hardly resemble those 5 years from now for the position.QB/WR/TE, 5 years could be the right timeline. That's the number we chose and we ran with it.

I think you'd be safe in assuming a shorter timeframe for the RB list (3-4 yrs).

It seems to me that you are overlooking some future studs to get short term results by limiting the timeline to 3 years. That short of a timeline makes Tiki look more valuable compared to say Kevin Jones. Even though KJ might also get injured, you are guaranteed to lose Tiki to retirement in 3 years if not sooner to injury. I think Tiki is going to have a big fall off either this year or next based on the history of over 30 RB's. For me there are better choices for a dynasty RB if you are focused on immediate production.

That's an interesting point, but I don't like the example you give.For me, I'd rank Tiki above KJ because his production now> KJones now. There's no question that KJ has far more upside 3-4 years from now as Tiki ages / retires, but who is more likely to get you a championship over the next 1-2 years? I'd say Tiki.

Put another way, I'd lean towards an A-grade back for 2 years over a B grade for 3-4.

Tiki at 31 scares me off. I think he will have a huge year in 2006, but you're risking a dynasty pick on a guy who may have only one top 5 season left, if that. I think you could win this year with a guy who is going to not have the numbers Tiki will probably have and also have him around for a couple more years. As good as Tiki is, he isn't a TD guy like Priest who help you dominate your league when he's healthy. He's easily in the top 20 for me, but it'll be tough to take him over some younger guys.

 

[nightshift]

To truly understand these rankings, I'd like to hear from each of these 5 staffers as to what their dynasty philosophies are.

Are you projecting based on 1-2 years, 1-3 years, 1 - 5 years, or 1 - ?

What other factors did use to determine your rankings?

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I try to rank with the both the long and short view in mind. I can't say I'm totally consistent in ranking with a specific time frame in mind. Some rankings are based strictly on the value in 2006. Some rankings are based strictly on my feeling that the player is a starting talent and will be a starter eventually despite being currently blocked.

Main factors I look at:

1) Talent

2) Situation (such as: scheme/coaching staff, supporting cast, direction of team in general)

3) Durability

4) Salary/Contract as it relates to stability of situation

5) Intangibles (intelligence/character/work ethic/off the field issues)

6) Age

7) Momentum/Buzz/Latest News

8) Draft Buzz related to their team/position (specifically at this time of year)

and of course

9) Gut feeling

Im sure Im leaving a few out. I can't say which factor I favor the most. For a player like Chris Henry, his off the field issues trump his talent. TO's talent trumps his off the field issues. Talent will generally break ties, but is not the determining factor. Chris Perry is more talented than many RBs above him, but there's an indefinite wait for his full services.

My rankings are very very fluid. My gut feeling about a player always continues to evolve and sometimes will change without a specific piece of news or development to chalk it up to. Ill be the first to admit that I have "my guys" and guys that are dead to me - both being a little too extreme and definitely giving me a skewed filter to view them through. I also want to echo that these rankings are very generic and scoring system/lineup/league size would totally change them. The makeup of your roster should also affect how you value these players. This is a rough guide and a good resource to get an idea of the current perception of a player, but I would not let it make trade decisions for you, or completely determine your draft cheatsheets. Its just a starting point.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I try to rank with the both the long and short view in mind. I can't say I'm totally consistent in ranking with a specific time frame in mind. Some rankings are based strictly on the value in 2006. Some rankings are based strictly on my feeling that the player is a starting talent and will be a starter eventually despite being currently blocked.

Main factors I look at:

1) Talent

2) Situation (such as: scheme/coaching staff, supporting cast, direction of team in general)

3) Durability

4) Salary/Contract as it relates to stability of situation

5) Intangibles (intelligence/character/work ethic/off the field issues)

6) Age

7) Momentum/Buzz/Latest News

8) Draft Buzz related to their team/position (specifically at this time of year)

and of course

9) Gut feeling

Im sure Im leaving a few out. I can't say which factor I favor the most. For a player like Chris Henry, his off the field issues trump his talent. TO's talent trumps his off the field issues. Talent will generally break ties, but is not the determining factor. Chris Perry is more talented than many RBs above him, but there's an indefinite wait for his full services.

My rankings are very very fluid. My gut feeling about a player always continues to evolve and sometimes will change without a specific piece of news or development to chalk it up to. Ill be the first to admit that I have "my guys" and guys that are dead to me - both being a little too extreme and definitely giving me a skewed filter to view them through. I also want to echo that these rankings are very generic and scoring system/lineup/league size would totally change them. The makeup of your roster should also affect how you value these players. This is a rough guide and a good resource to get an idea of the current perception of a player, but I would not let it make trade decisions for you, or completely determine your draft cheatsheets. Its just a starting point.

Could not have said it any better. My timeline was not a rigid 5 year plan. I used age as a discriminating factor more often than not, which led me to have certain players (Reggie Brown, Samie Parker) higher than some others. I had quite a few 30-somethings lower than other ranks for similar reasonings.

 

[BigTex]

LJ over LT in dynasty...interesting

We need you guys to chime in on that Fitz/Boldin which is better thread

LJ has far less mileage that LT2, and LT2 has broken down 2 of the last 3 seasons in December (fantasy playoffs, a big no-no). I've been an advocate of trading LT2 in November last season, and I would say the same this year.

This is not an accurate statement and I don't know why you keep saying that LT2 has broken down 2 of the last 3 seasons in December. If I'm misunderstanding your statement then forgive me but I have LT on my roster and his been on my roster since his rookie season. Since 2002 he only had one bad year "fantasy playoffs" in December and that was in 2005.http://www.pro-football-reference.com/game...mlLa00.htm#2004

The statement should be: "LT2 has been reliable, he's taken teams to the Championship to be victorious 3 of the last 4 years"

 

[Yah_Shoor_Yoobetchya]

LOL .. it was being said tongue in cheek ...mind you .. just was wierd seeing a guy who retired from football being listed in a rankings ..

hey any deep dynasty owners is going to be zeroing in on the bottom guys because those are the guys that might actually either be available or atleast interesting to look at ..

trying to decide between the Cleo Lemons and J.T Osullivans of the world

i just thought possibly

Matt Mauck - Tenn might have been a better guy to rank .. since he is currently the # 3 QB for Tenn.

Timmy Chang wasn't available Frankly if you're digging deeper than 50 you probably have serious issues (or you are in a 32 team league).

I'm not sure I like this response. I am in a 10-team dynasty league with a mandatory 25 roster-spot rule with no positional limits. My current roster has 7 QB's (which is not unusual in this league). I would look first to a list that would go AT LEAST 70 deep in order to monitor whether I should drop 1 or 2 in favor of upgrading another position. Timmy Chang and Matt Mauck are no laughing matters to dynasty players like me.

 

[-OZ-]

Great job guys. Thomas Davis needs to be moved to LB, based on Bob's comments regarding Merriman I think a couple are waiting for that to do his ranking.

I was stunned to see Davis listed as the #55 DB. Most rankings I at least understand, but unless the staff knows something we don't, I don't get it. Even if Davis remained at DB, who would really take Baxter, Bullucks, Parrish, Knight, Rolle, Bailey, etc. ahead of him?

If he stayed at S, I'd personally put him in the ballpark of Madieu, Rodney Harrison, etc. top 25 or so.

If, as it seems he will, he switches to WLB, I'd rank him near Trotter, Daryl Smith, Peterson, Merriman (I also disagree with his ranking, but at that point things look murky) top 25-30.

I suppose that's the nature of the beast, while switching positions.

Great job overall, nobody will agree with everything, but Davis is the one that totally looks wrong.

 

[Rozelle]

Great job FBguys! With all the variables to take in consideration it is almost an impossible task. There are alot of knowledgable people on this board, so one should expect the critique...

Thanks for all the work that goes into these rankings and I enjoy reading the spirited debates.

 

[Sanboy]

LOL .. it was being said tongue in cheek ...mind you .. just was wierd seeing a guy who retired from football being listed in a rankings ..

hey any deep dynasty owners is going to be zeroing in on the bottom guys because those are the guys that might actually either be available or atleast interesting to look at ..

trying to decide between the Cleo Lemons and J.T Osullivans of the world

i just thought possibly

Matt Mauck - Tenn might have been a better guy to rank .. since he is currently the # 3 QB for Tenn.

Timmy Chang wasn't available Frankly if you're digging deeper than 50 you probably have serious issues (or you are in a 32 team league).

I'm not sure I like this response. I am in a 10-team dynasty league with a mandatory 25 roster-spot rule with no positional limits. My current roster has 7 QB's (which is not unusual in this league). I would look first to a list that would go AT LEAST 70 deep in order to monitor whether I should drop 1 or 2 in favor of upgrading another position. Timmy Chang and Matt Mauck are no laughing matters to dynasty players like me.

GOOD TO SEE others took the same attitude that i had from the page 2/3 debate that was going on here in regards to DEEEP DEEEP players being listed / ranked correctly ...

 

[Cecil Lammey]

We've been after him on his lack of both Claytons (Michael and Mark). I think he had John Clayton #76.

I ranked them both, I believe.

I had both Clayton's off of my list accidentally, but during the first test of the FBG's podcast this was pointed out to me. I changed them that night and they are both on the rankings that went live.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

Did Cecil Lammey throw his list together in 5 minutes?

WRs Antonio Bryant and David Givens unranked, but guys like Quincy Morgan, Edell Shepherd and Nate Washington are?

At RB, no Greg Jones or Mewelde Moore, but he has LaBrandon Toefield and Moe Williams?

Not to pick on him, but does any of that make sense?

Both Jones and Moore are on there, always have been. Anyone who knows me knows that I dig the #### out of those 2 players. Toe and Moe have limited value and aren't on my list.In regards to the WR's:

I liked what Quincy Morgan showed with Pittsburgh before his injury. Based on the loss of ARE, Pittsburgh will need a WR to step up into that #3 role. Nate Washington is another player from Pitt that I like. He reminds me of a young Rod Smith (unheralded PS WR).

Edell Shepherd is a guy that could develop into a playmaker with the Bucs. Ike Hilliard hasn't shown a lot in his whole career. Joey Galloway has had a fantastic rebirth to his career in TB, but he's long in the tooth. Michael Clayton and Shepherd could very well be the WR tandem of the future for Tampa.

Bryant and Givens will be added to my list. Bryant I like his opportunity in SF, but subpar QB play will hurt his value in a 5-year model. Givens with the Titans should provide them another veteran target.

 

[Donnybrook]

Foster - Man I'm a BIG Foster hater.. but I'm drinking the cool-aid on this one only because I LOVE the Keyshawn signing. I think that's going to open up the running game for them and if Foster can stay healthy (big IF.. HUGE IF.. So big of an IF that..... Ok you get the idea)..

If you hate him some others must absolutely loathe him. I guess I fail to see how Dominick Davis is in a better situation than Foster.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Foster - Man I'm a BIG Foster hater.. but I'm drinking the cool-aid on this one only because I LOVE the Keyshawn signing. I think that's going to open up the running game for them and if Foster can stay healthy (big IF.. HUGE IF.. So big of an IF that..... Ok you get the idea)..

If you hate him some others must absolutely loathe him. I guess I fail to see how Dominick Davis is in a better situation than Foster.

Foster's in a great situation. He's just not all that durable.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think Lamont Jordan is overrated by the judges.

And I'm shocked Jeff has Hasselbeck at 11.  Especially when you consider that he has Bulger at 6.

Mark it down. Lamont Jordan is worth the 4th overall pick. Oakland has changes at QB and at HC. The one stud that entire offense rested upon last year was Lamont Jordan. He'll be the driving force behind that offense yet again as they build the team back up with "the other LJ" as the center of the attack.

As the only person who had Lamont in my top 12 last year and the person who went on record to say FBG had him WAY underrated, I can't see Lamont even close to the top 5. Jeff, 4 is too high IMO. Lamont is not special, but will be used a lot and can be a workhorse. Last year he missed the last 2 games and still was solid. People need to remember that while Lamont has little mileage, he is year older than Deuce. Having him ranked 4th in dynasty is too high. Tenth is about right.

The only other viable back to put in this list is Portis, so Jordan is at worst the 5th best back. I have him at 4 because Washington has a bigger stable of offensive weapons than just Jordan and Moss. The next 5 backs are flawed in some way, shape or form.6. Rudi Johnson - He has Chris Perry behind him, but he is unbelievably consistent and never seems to get hurt. He has performed well and has not missed a start in nearly 3 years.

7. Ronnie Brown - due to experience and productivity for a season, not to mention Ricky Williams.

8. Cadillac Williams - again with experience and not playing for 16 games.

9. Steven Jackson - new offense being implemented may rise his stock, but just not impressed enough yet.

10. Brian Westbrook - excellent offensive contributor, but without PPR he drops. Also some injury history.

Portis should be ranked higher IMO. For the same reason why Steven Jackson and Rudi J is should not be number 5, Lamont shouldn't be either. That is because none are special. That being said jackson and Rudi are younger than Lamont. Caddy should be higher than Lamont and FWIW, Lamont has never been the man for 16 games either. Ronnie Brown should be ranked higher than Lamont in dynasty as well because he does have special skills and is younger. Add in McGahee who I don't expect to be better than Lamont in 06, I expect him to be better from that point on and I have him ranked higher than Lamont. say what you want, Mcgahee is UBER talented. This is the year we will find out about Kevin Jones. That being said he has awesome tools and IF he can put it together this year has the talent to be a legit #5 guy. It takes guts (and maybe stupidity) to put KJ ahead of Lamont, but from a dynasty standpoint it could payoff big if you could trade Lamont for KJ and some value. I have trouble with teh KJ and Lamont part and please remember this is from a guy who touted Lamont last year as the most underrated guy in FF. I think Lamont will do well inn 06, but being 3.5 years older than all these guys mentioned drops him to 10th in my books.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Ward at 15 stands out to me as being a very bad ranking. He seems like the next best bet after Chad, Smith, Holt, Boldin, Fitz, and Moss.

Why? He's only had 1000 yards in each of the last 2 years.

He's the unquestioned #1 WR on a team with a good QB, and he's been productive for several years in a row. He may not be the best FF WR in the world, but you know he's going to give you good point totals each season. He's definitely undervalued right now.

Even with some age on Ward, i would take Marvin Harrison over Ward any day.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think Lamont Jordan is overrated by the judges.

And I'm shocked Jeff has Hasselbeck at 11.  Especially when you consider that he has Bulger at 6.

Mark it down. Lamont Jordan is worth the 4th overall pick. Oakland has changes at QB and at HC. The one stud that entire offense rested upon last year was Lamont Jordan. He'll be the driving force behind that offense yet again as they build the team back up with "the other LJ" as the center of the attack.

Lamont hasn't even shown you that as he missed teh last 2 games of the year. You are also forgetting the skill set. Larry Johnson is better than Lamont and in a MUCH better situation so you are not comparing apples to apples. If Lamont were in KC I would have him in fornt of PortisAs the only person who had Lamont in my top 12 last year and the person who went on record to say FBG had him WAY underrated, I can't see Lamont even close to the top 5. Jeff, 4 is too high IMO. Lamont is not special, but will be used a lot and can be a workhorse. Last year he missed the last 2 games and still was solid. People need to remember that while Lamont has little mileage, he is year older than Deuce. Having him ranked 4th in dynasty is too high. Tenth is about right.

The only other viable back to put in this list is Portis, so Jordan is at worst the 5th best back. I have him at 4 because Washington has a bigger stable of offensive weapons than just Jordan and Moss. The next 5 backs are flawed in some way, shape or form.6. Rudi Johnson - He has Chris Perry behind him, but he is unbelievably consistent and never seems to get hurt. He has performed well and has not missed a start in nearly 3 years.

7. Ronnie Brown - due to experience and productivity for a season, not to mention Ricky Williams.

8. Cadillac Williams - again with experience and not playing for 16 games.

9. Steven Jackson - new offense being implemented may rise his stock, but just not impressed enough yet.

10. Brian Westbrook - excellent offensive contributor, but without PPR he drops. Also some injury history.

Jordan has roughly the same amount of starting experience as Cadillac, Brown and Jackson - all of which are better dynasty picks than Jordan because of his age.

Larry Johnson - 11/19/79LaMont Jordan - 11/11/78

I don't hold LJ's age against him vs. the others. Age is one of the criteria. For the sophomore backs, show me that they can produce for a full season.

RB age doesn't matter nearly as much as mileage / hits / touches.

 

[Liquid Tension]

My top 10:

1.  LT - still young, doesn't take a long of hits and put up numbers regardless of the team around him.

2. LJ - Should be the #1 fantasy player this year and has an elite OL

3. Portis - gets the nod over SA although he probably won't put up better numbers this year.  He should easily have another 5 years good seasons.

4. SA - He's in a great system but he is 29 and lost a Pro Bowl guard.

5. Cadillac - Has a coach that likes to run the ball and not afraid to use him.  If he can hold up he'll put up great numbers for many more years.

6. SJax - big back who can catch and plays on a offense with a lot of weapons.  Very young.  Has knee issues but the FieldTurf should help him stay healthy.

7. Brown - tough to not have him higher since he's on an up and coming team and has shown that he can do it all.

8. McGahee - I hesitate to put him here with all the problems surrounding the Bills but he has the talent and I'm assuming that the Bills draft Justice.  If not, McGahee goes much lower.

9.  Edge - I hate putting him this low but the uncertainty around the Cards running game forces my hand.  There are a lot of weapons in AZ so even a decent OL would put him in the top 10, but it's hard to put him higher with the OL questions and his past knee injury.

10.  Bush - My second choice was KJ since I have faith in Martz to turn things around in Detroit, but Bush gets the nod because of his talent.  If he goes to Houston, I'm not expecting much his year but I like his future.  It's a risky pick but his kind of talent doesn't come around often.  Tiki is the safe pick here and will help you win this year, but it comes at the cost of setting you back in a couple seasons.

This is bold on many levels. I see you're putting a lot of faith in first year vets in Brown and Cadillac, and have McGahee higher than many I have seen. I cannot agree with this list, especially by Jordan's noticeable absence.

Maybe I should just shut up and keep the obvious to myself so I can take advantage of owners, but I could care less whether he is on people's lists THIS year. Last year Mcgahee was a top 5 and sometimes top 3 dynasty choice. He was this because he has top shelf talent. One year on a CRAPPY team and he has dropped out of the top 10? He had a noticable lack of TD's and had people in the backfield all day long. If he were in KC, he would be the top ranked back IMO (maybe 2 behind LT). People have such a short memory and the memory is based on last year alone.

 

[Liquid Tension]

My minor quibble over LT aside, thanks to the staff for putting together something a lot of us posters have been clamoring for the last two years.

I wonder why a 5 year horizon was chosen though? Seems a 3 year horizon would be much better, afterall most RB's last what 3 years in the league? I imagine half the guys on these lists will be out of the league in 5 years to be honest.

Regarding RBs, I think you are 100% correct in that any dynasty rankings will hardly resemble those 5 years from now for the position.QB/WR/TE, 5 years could be the right timeline. That's the number we chose and we ran with it.

I think you'd be safe in assuming a shorter timeframe for the RB list (3-4 yrs).

It seems to me that you are overlooking some future studs to get short term results by limiting the timeline to 3 years. That short of a timeline makes Tiki look more valuable compared to say Kevin Jones. Even though KJ might also get injured, you are guaranteed to lose Tiki to retirement in 3 years if not sooner to injury. I think Tiki is going to have a big fall off either this year or next based on the history of over 30 RB's. For me there are better choices for a dynasty RB if you are focused on immediate production.

That's an interesting point, but I don't like the example you give.For me, I'd rank Tiki above KJ because his production now> KJones now. There's no question that KJ has far more upside 3-4 years from now as Tiki ages / retires, but who is more likely to get you a championship over the next 1-2 years? I'd say Tiki.

Put another way, I'd lean towards an A-grade back for 2 years over a B grade for 3-4.

Poor choice in using KJones as a "B" back. He is one of the highest ceilings and lowest floor guys in the league. He is a swing for the fences guy as he clearly has top shelf talent, but could be held back by injuries and possibly attitude. I also would note his vision may not be top shelf, but it was hard to gauge with the poor blocking, team support and coaching.