[DYNASTY] The Overrated List (1 Viewer)

[aaronr28]

And were you making that argument at the beginning of 2003 regarding Tomlinson, Holmes, Jamal Lewis?

do you really think Barlow is in the same class as those runners?

 

[chinawildman]

You also have to factor in the other changes to SF's offense, and how it will play on Barlow. Last year, he had Garcia throwing to Owens, making the defenses play more off the line. This year he has Rattay throwing to.... erm, someone...While his carries will certainly increase, I'd expect to see his YPC go down. He'll be a middle of the pack RB.

See THIS THREAD on my opinions regarding this line of thinking...

 

[chinawildman]

do you really think Barlow is in the same class as those runners?

Interesingly enough, here's an INTERVIEW WITH BARLOW where they compare him to Priest Holmes in terms of opportunity and talent.Barlow is only 24 (anthony thomas was 24 his rookie season!) and is still getting better. He has amazing physical skills for a back his size and outside of Fred Taylor, there's really no other back in the NFL with his combo of size, elusiveness, and receiving ability.Bill Walsh had Barlow as the 2nd best RB on SF's board in 2001 (tomlinson, henry, mcallister, bennett, jordan, r. johnson, a thomas) and when u watch him, it's scary how good he can be if he just got a little tougher and more proven.Back in 2001, I (along with others) made comparisons of Tomlinson to the likes of Faulk and Edge and was usually received with ROTFL... In FF and with the high rate of turnover amon top 10 RBs, we always have to keep on the lookout for who's "next", especially in a dynasty league. I agree with EastBay, if you always go for "proven" guys, you'll never get great value... there's little difference between finishing 5th or 12th.

 

[Couch Potato]

do you really think Barlow is in the same class as those runners?

Very likely not. I'd certainly not take Barlow over any of those guys (though we haven't had a full season to find out what he can do). But that wasn't my point; my point was that you can't assume a RB cannot be highly productive because he doesn't have a great QB and/or WRs surrounding him.I'm not going overboard and claiming Barlow is Tomlinson. I haven't changed my original position that he belongs in the late 1st/early 2nd rounds.

 

[cracKer]

do you really think Barlow is in the same class as those runners?

What stands out in those three that makes them special?Holmes = patienceLewis = size/speed combo (young Jerome Bettis, but better)Tomlinson = ability to walk on waterBarlow?

 

[switz]

I would bet you just about anything that Barlow doesnt get over 400 carries next year.

BS, I don't think he'll get 400 carries either. But for the first 6-8 games he will get nearly 25 carries/game. After that he'll likely need surgery to repair one torn ligament or another. Nevertheless, he'll be very valuable the first few games, and a savy FF owner would daft him, ride his hot start, then trade him before he busts up.

 

[switz]

Back in 2001, I (along with others) made comparisons of Tomlinson to the likes of Faulk and Edge and was usually received with ROTFL... In FF and with the high rate of turnover amon top 10 RBs, we always have to keep on the lookout for who's "next", especially in a dynasty league. I agree with EastBay, if you always go for "proven" guys, you'll never get great value... there's little difference between finishing 5th or 12th.

CWM, I was on old yeller touting LT2 loud and clear, but I don't remember you there.Regardless, just because you had LT rated highly does not mean Barlow will be the next great RB. I don't doubt he'll produce due to sheer number of carries, but I do not think he is elite.Think Corey Dillon, not LT.

 

[chinawildman]

CWM, I was on old yeller touting LT2 loud and clear, but I don't remember you there.

Haha... dont' worry buddy, I was buttin' heads with JoeT over tomlinson just like we were over barlow... although that may have been more on FFToday back before they were invaded by teenagers.And being compared to Corey Dillon ain't that bad IMO, it wasn't that long ago that Dillon was considered one of the best pure runners in the NFL.

 

[Los Gigantes]

Eastbayfunk wrote: I actually think Barlow is underrated. I would take (and have taken) him over Shaun Alexander, Edgerrin James, Fred Taylor, and Ricky Williams.

whoops... I usually listen very carefully to what EBF says, i find our thinking very similar sometimes. This is a good cautionary tale...

 

[goonsquad]

Eastbayfunk wrote: I actually think Barlow is underrated. I would take (and have taken) him over Shaun Alexander, Edgerrin James, Fred Taylor, and Ricky Williams.

 

whoops... I usually listen very carefully to what EBF says, i find our thinking very similar sometimes. This is a good cautionary tale...

Ouch.

 

[DoubleG]

Eastbayfunk wrote: I actually think Barlow is underrated. I would take (and have taken) him over Shaun Alexander, Edgerrin James, Fred Taylor, and Ricky Williams.

 

whoops... I usually listen very carefully to what EBF says, i find our thinking very similar sometimes. This is a good cautionary tale...

Ouch.

Ummm...guys - check the dates. This post started in 2004 (i.e. last year) Barlow did go high in most drafts - and his advice to take him ahead of Ricky was dead on

 

[coolnerd]

Eastbayfunk wrote: I actually think Barlow is underrated. I would take (and have taken) him over Shaun Alexander, Edgerrin James, Fred Taylor, and Ricky Williams.

 

whoops... I usually listen very carefully to what EBF says, i find our thinking very similar sometimes. This is a good cautionary tale...

Ouch.

Ummm...guys - check the dates. This post started in 2004 (i.e. last year) Barlow did go high in most drafts - and his advice to take him ahead of Ricky was dead on

If you read the first post EastBayFunk nailed 6 of 7 players to avoid overpaying for in 2004...even taking Barlow that is still 6 of 8...not a bad record at all.

 

[Burning Sensation]

I'm concerned over the amount of turnover in the coaching staff, but when Erickson took over some of the playcalling late in the season last year, the SF offense got remarkably better and that was a good sign.

The fact that Barlow is a three down back and the focal point of the offense alone should warrant him being taken in the first 2 rounds. I'm curious to see what RBs you'd take ahead of him...

Actually, i do think Barlow is worthy of a late 2nd round pick in a dynasty draft, and i am not anti Barlow, i would just be nervous if i were a Barlow owner with all the offseason loses. P.S. I would take Rudi Johnson and DDavis over Barlow

 

[realamerican85]

I'm concerned over the amount of turnover in the coaching staff, but when Erickson took over some of the playcalling late in the season last year, the SF offense got remarkably better and that was a good sign.

The fact that Barlow is a three down back and the focal point of the offense alone should warrant him being taken in the first 2 rounds. I'm curious to see what RBs you'd take ahead of him...

Actually, i do think Barlow is worthy of a late 2nd round pick in a dynasty draft, and i am not anti Barlow, i would just be nervous if i were a Barlow owner with all the offseason loses. P.S. I would take Rudi Johnson and DDavis over Barlow

You said you would take SMoss and SSmith over Plax and KRob looks like that was a wash too.

 

[Burning Sensation]

I'm concerned over the amount of turnover in the coaching staff, but when Erickson took over some of the playcalling late in the season last year, the SF offense got remarkably better and that was a good sign.

The fact that Barlow is a three down back and the focal point of the offense alone should warrant him being taken in the first 2 rounds. I'm curious to see what RBs you'd take ahead of him...

Actually, i do think Barlow is worthy of a late 2nd round pick in a dynasty draft, and i am not anti Barlow, i would just be nervous if i were a Barlow owner with all the offseason loses. P.S. I would take Rudi Johnson and DDavis over Barlow

You said you would take SMoss and SSmith over Plax and KRob looks like that was a wash too.

I would rather have Steve Smith and SMoss than Burress and KRob.

 

[jwvdcw]

Back in 2001, I (along with others) made comparisons of Tomlinson to the likes of Faulk and Edge and was usually received with ROTFL... In FF and with the high rate of turnover amon top 10 RBs, we always have to keep on the lookout for who's "next", especially in a dynasty league. I agree with EastBay, if you always go for "proven" guys, you'll never get great value... there's little difference between finishing 5th or 12th.

CWM, I was on old yeller touting LT2 loud and clear, but I don't remember you there.Regardless, just because you had LT rated highly does not mean Barlow will be the next great RB. I don't doubt he'll produce due to sheer number of carries, but I do not think he is elite.

Think Corey Dillon, not LT.

most people followed chinawildman's advice last year and let 'proven' talent like MM and Curtis Martin fall in drafts...I think we've learned our lesson.

 

[jwvdcw]

Eastbayfunk wrote: I actually think Barlow is underrated. I would take (and have taken) him over Shaun Alexander, Edgerrin James, Fred Taylor, and Ricky Williams.

 

whoops... I usually listen very carefully to what EBF says, i find our thinking very similar sometimes. This is a good cautionary tale...

Ouch.

Ummm...guys - check the dates. This post started in 2004 (i.e. last year) Barlow did go high in most drafts - and his advice to take him ahead of Ricky was dead on

If you read the first post EastBayFunk nailed 6 of 7 players to avoid overpaying for in 2004...even taking Barlow that is still 6 of 8...not a bad record at all.

Telling people who not to take is a lot easier than telling them who to take. After all, you don't take 11 players each round, but you only actually take one each round. And he was 0 for 1 telling us who to take here.....not saying that his advice isn't usualy spot on...just saying that he messed up here.

 

[EBF]

Eastbayfunk wrote: I actually think Barlow is underrated. I would take (and have taken) him over Shaun Alexander, Edgerrin James, Fred Taylor, and Ricky Williams.

 

whoops... I usually listen very carefully to what EBF says, i find our thinking very similar sometimes. This is a good cautionary tale...

Ouch.

Ummm...guys - check the dates. This post started in 2004 (i.e. last year) Barlow did go high in most drafts - and his advice to take him ahead of Ricky was dead on

If you read the first post EastBayFunk nailed 6 of 7 players to avoid overpaying for in 2004...even taking Barlow that is still 6 of 8...not a bad record at all.

Telling people who not to take is a lot easier than telling them who to take. After all, you don't take 11 players each round, but you only actually take one each round. And he was 0 for 1 telling us who to take here.....not saying that his advice isn't usualy spot on...just saying that he messed up here.

No one's ever going to be perfect. I liked Barlow quite a bit at this time last year. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I still think he has a lot of talent and that he can succeed if he tries hard and has a decent supporting cast. He didn't try hard last year and he didn't have a good supporting cast. I expect a better 2005, but San Francisco is such a bad team that his stats will probably still be limited.

 

[jwvdcw]

Eastbayfunk wrote: I actually think Barlow is underrated. I would take (and have taken) him over Shaun Alexander, Edgerrin James, Fred Taylor, and Ricky Williams.

 

whoops... I usually listen very carefully to what EBF says, i find our thinking very similar sometimes. This is a good cautionary tale...

Ouch.

Ummm...guys - check the dates. This post started in 2004 (i.e. last year) Barlow did go high in most drafts - and his advice to take him ahead of Ricky was dead on

If you read the first post EastBayFunk nailed 6 of 7 players to avoid overpaying for in 2004...even taking Barlow that is still 6 of 8...not a bad record at all.

Telling people who not to take is a lot easier than telling them who to take. After all, you don't take 11 players each round, but you only actually take one each round. And he was 0 for 1 telling us who to take here.....not saying that his advice isn't usualy spot on...just saying that he messed up here.

No one's ever going to be perfect. I liked Barlow quite a bit at this time last year. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I still think he has a lot of talent and that he can succeed if he tries hard and has a decent supporting cast. He didn't try hard last year and he didn't have a good supporting cast. I expect a better 2005, but San Francisco is such a bad team that his stats will probably still be limited.

If after finally getting his starting job shot, he didn't try hard, then I don't think he'll ever "try hard."

 

[EBF]

Eastbayfunk wrote: I actually think Barlow is underrated. I would take (and have taken) him over Shaun Alexander, Edgerrin James, Fred Taylor, and Ricky Williams.

 

whoops... I usually listen very carefully to what EBF says, i find our thinking very similar sometimes. This is a good cautionary tale...

Ouch.

Ummm...guys - check the dates. This post started in 2004 (i.e. last year) Barlow did go high in most drafts - and his advice to take him ahead of Ricky was dead on

If you read the first post EastBayFunk nailed 6 of 7 players to avoid overpaying for in 2004...even taking Barlow that is still 6 of 8...not a bad record at all.

Telling people who not to take is a lot easier than telling them who to take. After all, you don't take 11 players each round, but you only actually take one each round. And he was 0 for 1 telling us who to take here.....not saying that his advice isn't usualy spot on...just saying that he messed up here.

No one's ever going to be perfect. I liked Barlow quite a bit at this time last year. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I still think he has a lot of talent and that he can succeed if he tries hard and has a decent supporting cast. He didn't try hard last year and he didn't have a good supporting cast. I expect a better 2005, but San Francisco is such a bad team that his stats will probably still be limited.

If after finally getting his starting job shot, he didn't try hard, then I don't think he'll ever "try hard."

You might be right.

 

[jdoggydogg]

No one's ever going to be perfect. I liked Barlow quite a bit at this time last year. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I still think he has a lot of talent and that he can succeed if he tries hard and has a decent supporting cast. He didn't try hard last year and he didn't have a good supporting cast. I expect a better 2005, but San Francisco is such a bad team that his stats will probably still be limited.

I also thought Barlow was in for a good 2004. Barlow has a nice combo of power and cutback ability. Clearly, that didn't pan out. The only thing that annoys me is when I hear "Barlow sucks." He doesn't suck. He just wasn't good enough to carry that nasty team on his back. While I think Barlow could do well on a good team, he will likely continue to struggle until Alex Smith gets comfortable in SF.