Experts rankings are LIVE (1 Viewer)

[Marc Levin]

A couple of things:- I didn't own Johnson in my redraft league last or either of my dynasty leagues, so I have no bias toward him.- My ranking of Johnson indicates that I expect Carr to improve in 04. Truth be told I haven't watched enough of Carr to get a firm grip on him. If Carr can't get his act together, Johnson would be less valuable than I see him.- Johnson was a rookie, and as a rookie was inconsistant. This is true about the way he finished the year. However, in key situations, Johnson was always Carrs first read. Much to my surprise Gaffney and Bradford were often overlooked, even at times Johnson struggled. If he continues to improve, he'll make more of his opporunties.I just think Johnson is one of the most talented WRs to come into the league in awhile and I think he'll blossom in his second year. You may be right about Carr and the Houston offense in general holding him back. I imagine that I'll be eyeing training camp reports this summer out of Houston to see how Carr and the Texans offense looks and adjust my projections accordingly.

I repect everything you said - it just seems that you (and a LOT of folks on the boards) have latched onto his talent and ignored his situation - every successful fantasy situation requires Talent, Opportunity, and Production. AJ has #1 in droves. #2 was limited last year to 7.0 targets a game from a QB who is not particularly good right now, and is running a run heavy offense - this is DOM CAPERS. Even if he is option #1, 2, or 3 in the offense, he has not had a ton of opp., though the opp will be there at times. Finally, he did very little last year to think #3 is "Hines Ward" automatic.Meanwhile, SMoss took 1, 2 and 3 and turned them into a great 2003 fantasy season- with Pennington for 16 games rather than just 10, logic dictates he'll be even better than last year - not something I agree with, thus my dropping of him in the rankings to #11 - and likely drop further if I hear McCariens is coming along.One note, this quote from you:

in key situations, Johnson was always Carrs first read.

can be true as heck and still be incompatible with a succesful fantasy season for a TON of reasons I don't need to fully name - being Carr's first read on every play is irrelevent if Carr throws a pick into double coverage, throws it fifteen feet away from his hands, or only throws it 20 times a game.As for AJ being one of the most talented receiver to come into the league in a while, I actually see a LOT of Torry Holt in him and thi she has talent in droves. That said, I believe he'd have been the 4th or 5th receiver taken in the 2004 draft if he were in it.

 

[turfman]

You got to love KC's wide receivers. Oops, I mean wide receiver. :JoeT: 42 Eddie Kennison, KC * 27 34 * 35 * * * * 34 38 * 29 * 38.12 :JoeT: Only one on the board for KC and Priest probably out produced him in receiving stats.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

I would say that the one player I see noticably undervalued is Kevin Johnson. I'm the only one who ranks him in the top 40 for WRs. I'm sorry, but he's Baltimore's lone WR option.Just to keep some perspective, Travis Taylor ranked 43rd among WRs last year and caught a miserable 39 catches for 632 yards and 3 touchdowns last year.I just don't see how he doesn't rank among the top 30-40 fantasy receivers as the clear cut WR1 for a team.

Woodrow-I'll be very interested to see what your projections are for KJ as the #29 WR. It will be a small miracle if Kevin Johnson finishes the seaon as a top 30 FF WR. Why he won't:1) Jamal Lewis- If it ain't broke don't fix it. This offense was led by Jam...over 400 touches in 2003, with a young QB Lewis will be the workhorse again.2) Baltmore finished 32nd (dead last) in the NFL in passing last year despite Anthony Wright's impersonation of Dan Fouts.3) Kyle Boller averaged 115 passing yards per start. He doesn't have the confidence for Billick to air it out yet.4) Even if KJ is the Ravens #1 option at WR (far from a sure thing) he is still option 2 in the passing game (Todd Heap).5) Only 39% of the Ravens completions last year went to WRs, most of those came when Wright was QB.6) KJ is a possession WR. A big play WR (like Marcus Robinson) would have a chance to get in the top 30 even with limited looks. For a WR like KJ that averages 12 YPC he won't get the opportunities in this O.I just can't see how KJ will finish ahead of WRs like Rod Smith, McCareins, etc. But I like your attempt to find a sleeper.

 

[Jason Wood]

I would say that the one player I see noticably undervalued is Kevin Johnson. I'm the only one who ranks him in the top 40 for WRs. I'm sorry, but he's Baltimore's lone WR option.Just to keep some perspective, Travis Taylor ranked 43rd among WRs last year and caught a miserable 39 catches for 632 yards and 3 touchdowns last year.I just don't see how he doesn't rank among the top 30-40 fantasy receivers as the clear cut WR1 for a team.

Woodrow-I'll be very interested to see what your projections are for KJ as the #29 WR. It will be a small miracle if Kevin Johnson finishes the seaon as a top 30 FF WR. Why he won't:1) Jamal Lewis- If it ain't broke don't fix it. This offense was led by Jam...over 400 touches in 2003, with a young QB Lewis will be the workhorse again.2) Baltmore finished 32nd (dead last) in the NFL in passing last year despite Anthony Wright's impersonation of Dan Fouts.3) Kyle Boller averaged 115 passing yards per start. He doesn't have the confidence for Billick to air it out yet.4) Even if KJ is the Ravens #1 option at WR (far from a sure thing) he is still option 2 in the passing game (Todd Heap).5) Only 39% of the Ravens completions last year went to WRs, most of those came when Wright was QB.6) KJ is a possession WR. A big play WR (like Marcus Robinson) would have a chance to get in the top 30 even with limited looks. For a WR like KJ that averages 12 YPC he won't get the opportunities in this O.I just can't see how KJ will finish ahead of WRs like Rod Smith, McCareins, etc. But I like your attempt to find a sleeper.

Hey Frency,When all is said and done KJ may find his way a little lower, or not. I don't think you can expect him to be a world beater, but I also don't think you'll see Baltimore net so few passing yards per game this season either. They didn't bring in Jim Fassel for nothing. Part of my initial assumptions on KJ is that Travis Taylor continues to be a complete disappointment, if that's the case I like KJ to finish in as a marginal WR3, decent WR4/Spot Starter for good matchups.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I've made my arguments about Barlow and I'll stand by them. I believe that if he stays healthy he is a lock for the top 15. You can quote me on that and hold me to it.

Allow me to back you up on Barlow. To boil this down to its essence: Barlow is a VERY good back. That alone is ample reason to believe he will finish in the top 15, if healthy. Barlow is a big back, he is quite fast for his size, he has great cutback ability, and can run people over.I believe that if someone is doubting Barlow's potential, then they haven't seen much of his game.

 

[Marc Levin]

I've made my arguments about Barlow and I'll stand by them. I believe that if he stays healthy he is a lock for the top 15. You can quote me on that and hold me to it.

Allow me to back you up on Barlow. To boil this down to its essence: Barlow is a VERY good back. That alone is ample reason to believe he will finish in the top 15, if healthy. Barlow is a big back, he is quite fast for his size, he has great cutback ability, and can run people over.I believe that if someone is doubting Barlow's potential, then they haven't seen much of his game.

There's no real limb there to say he'll be top-15. I am more on a limb by placing him low at #16.IIRC w/o reading back through this thread, this was started as a head to head versus Faulk, who Funk contended should not be ahead of Barlow in the rankings. You take Barlow, I will take the three headed Faulk-Jackson-Gordon monster, and I will use Faulk's numbers plus the starter's numbers for any games where Faulk is not the starter, and we will see who has more points at year's end.I would draft Faulk ahead of Barlow and expect him to put up more points PER GAME. I would likely use Jackson as the handcuff and I would feel perfectly comfortable that I have a better back in that setup than Barlow.Finally, stating that Barlow is a very good back is nothing - analyzing why Barlow, as a good back, will succeed in the situation presented in SF in 2004 is something. Barlow has been a good back for the last three years - why is he suddenly a top-12 back this year? Answer that more than "he has skill" and we have a basis for debate.My reasoning for placing Barlow #16 of the #11 to #16 backs, and the rationale that there is little difference in my rankings between #11 and #16, is clearly indicated in this thread.

 

[EastBayFunk]

Finally, stating that Barlow is a very good back is nothing - analyzing why Barlow, as a good back, will succeed in the situation presented in SF in 2004 is something. Barlow has been a good back for the last three years - why is he suddenly a top-12 back this year? Answer that more than "he has skill" and we have a basis for debate.

The reason is pretty obvious. His number of carries should jump dramatically. Take a back who averages 4.7 yards a pop, give him 300 carries, and watch what happens. Granted, the passing attack will be weaker next year and he'll be facing stacked fronts, but I think it's entirely reasonable to expect him average at least 4.0 YPC based on his career and what he did last year as a starter.

IIRC w/o reading back through this thread, this was started as a head to head versus Faulk, who Funk contended should not be ahead of Barlow in the rankings. You take Barlow, I will take the three headed Faulk-Jackson-Gordon monster, and I will use Faulk's numbers plus the starter's numbers for any games where Faulk is not the starter, and we will see who has more points at year's end.I would draft Faulk ahead of Barlow and expect him to put up more points PER GAME. I would likely use Jackson as the handcuff and I would feel perfectly comfortable that I have a better back in that setup than Barlow

It doesn't work that way. You don't just get two backups for free. You'd have to draft both of those guys and use up two valuable roster spots. That makes the price of carrying Faulk all the much steeper. Granted, Jackson won't go until the later rounds, but you'd be missing a chance on a sleeper WR, QB, or TE there for the sake of drafting someone who will only play for you in the event of an injury.In my leagues Faulk barely outscored Barlow last year. I don't expect him to maintain that slim advantage now that Steven Jackson is in the picture and now that Barlow should receive about 100 more carries than he had last year. Faulk is a great player. He used to be a fantasy dynamo. Unfortunately for him, those days are over. If you really feel a pressing urge to draft a 31 year old back with declining skills and a backup poised to steal touches then by all means do so. It's your choice, but I think you'd be making a big mistake passing up an emerging workhorse for a guy whose best football is the rearview mirror.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

In a fantasy playoff game when both are healthy, I'd rather count on Faulk then Barlow.Faulk is a definite injury risk, but in terms of points per game, he can still put up stud numbers.The Jackson pick may drop him a little in my next ranking though b/c it is entirely possible if not likely that Jackson will steal some goalline touches. Factor in Martz's unwillingness to run the ball very often and I can see Faulk having a disappointing season.I have nothing against Barlow...as I've said before, I rank him right in the same tier with Faulk, Henry, DDavis, and Rudi Johnson.

 

[Will Grant]

Barlow is 11th-16th on everyone else's list and Will Grant has him 30th? I'd be interested to hear the rationale behind that one...

Beer, draft parties and projections don't seem to mix very well... :wacko: Truth be told, I have never been a big Barlow fan. I think that he's had plenty of opportunity to be the 16 game starter in SF now, and has just not established himself as that guy yet. I also think he puts the ball on the carpet too much. I see stats like these from last year against Arizona:Week 8 9-19, 4-26, 1 fumble, 0 TDWeek 14 18-154, 3-23, 1 fumble, 1 TDAnd I wonder which is the real Barlow?I see him average 5 ypc against Tampa (109.8), and 2.9 against Seattle (109.9 ypg)And I think why such a big difference?He averaged 5.1 ypc last year, yet only had 1 game with more than 18 carries. Finally, I don't see SF using Barlow to grind out the clock to protect a big lead very often next year. That being said, My rank of 30 was a bit harsh. Given the fact that he IS the SF starter now, he should do at LEAST as well as he did last year.. which would put him in the top 20 as everyone else has him. A little too much personal bias here I'm afraid... :JoeT:

 

[Oscar]

I asked this in another thread but how is Patrick Kerney not rated in any of your top-50 DLs?

 

[Will Grant]

I asked this in another thread but how is Patrick Kerney not rated in any of your top-50 DLs?

I think Kerney is missing from the FBG database..I had him listed as 17.If you sort by individual expert, you will see that some numbers are missing.Rudnicki had him 19 I believe. Culcasi had him at 14.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I asked this in another thread but how is Patrick Kerney not rated in any of your top-50 DLs?

I think Kerney is missing from the FBG database..I had him listed as 17.If you sort by individual expert, you will see that some numbers are missing.Rudnicki had him 19 I believe. Culcasi had him at 14.

ahhh...that would make sense.I thought maybe I had forgotten him, but when you sort by my rankings, #19 is missing and #14 is missing for Cracker. I don't have the rankings I submitted with me right now, but that seems like a good place for Kerney to go. Weird that he's not listed.

 

[Marc Levin]

Finally, stating that Barlow is a very good back is nothing - analyzing why Barlow, as a good back, will succeed in the situation presented in SF in 2004 is something. Barlow has been a good back for the last three years - why is he suddenly a top-12 back this year? Answer that more than "he has skill" and we have a basis for debate.

The reason is pretty obvious. His number of carries should jump dramatically. Take a back who averages 4.7 yards a pop, give him 300 carries, and watch what happens. Granted, the passing attack will be weaker next year and he'll be facing stacked fronts, but I think it's entirely reasonable to expect him average at least 4.0 YPC based on his career and what he did last year as a starter.

IIRC w/o reading back through this thread, this was started as a head to head versus Faulk, who Funk contended should not be ahead of Barlow in the rankings. You take Barlow, I will take the three headed Faulk-Jackson-Gordon monster, and I will use Faulk's numbers plus the starter's numbers for any games where Faulk is not the starter, and we will see who has more points at year's end.I would draft Faulk ahead of Barlow and expect him to put up more points PER GAME. I would likely use Jackson as the handcuff and I would feel perfectly comfortable that I have a better back in that setup than Barlow

It doesn't work that way. You don't just get two backups for free. You'd have to draft both of those guys and use up two valuable roster spots. That makes the price of carrying Faulk all the much steeper. Granted, Jackson won't go until the later rounds, but you'd be missing a chance on a sleeper WR, QB, or TE there for the sake of drafting someone who will only play for you in the event of an injury.In my leagues Faulk barely outscored Barlow last year. I don't expect him to maintain that slim advantage now that Steven Jackson is in the picture and now that Barlow should receive about 100 more carries than he had last year. Faulk is a great player. He used to be a fantasy dynamo. Unfortunately for him, those days are over. If you really feel a pressing urge to draft a 31 year old back with declining skills and a backup poised to steal touches then by all means do so. It's your choice, but I think you'd be making a big mistake passing up an emerging workhorse for a guy whose best football is the rearview mirror.

I understand what you are saying about multiple roster spots, but your response is kind of beside the point. I understand your argument re: a "potential" workhorse. But, Faulk showed me last year that he is still capable of being a 20+ pt/game scorer while he's playing, and actually will be used as such by Martz. Pick his right backup - IMO that is Jackson to displace Gordon - and you "waste" only one spot you would waste on a RB5 anyway. I, personally, carry 5 RBs all year long on any roster of 16 spots or bigger, and I'll take Faulk's likely 12+ games of 20+ points per game and allow his backup to put up whatever he can in the same system if (when) Faulk misses time.Anyway, the question marks I have about Barlow's potential to be that workhorse back and score in the 17+ pts/game range are well documented - including a long injury history, never having had the job handed to him before, a history of bad work habits, and facing 8 men in the box consistently with the alternative fopr defenses being Ratty to Lloyd and a rookie, rather than Garcia to Owens and Streets.Take away Trent Green, Kenninson and Gonzales from the Chiefs in favor of their backup QB, Dunn, and Morton, and I will bet anything even Priest Holmes will have difficulty finding running room. The situation for Barlow makes other options besides Faulk - including Tiki Barber, Domanick Davis, and Stephen Davis - more attractive to me than Barlow. It is true that all have some inherent problems, but their problems seem more "surmountable" than Barlow's problems which are inherent in the SF system. I may elevate Barlow over the course of the summer as things shake out with Rattay and the receivers, but for now, he stays under those players on my rankings lists because he, and the SF situation, have done nothing to warrant elevation above the other players.My last point is that ranking one or the other of Barlow or Faulk ahead of each other is not significant when you consider that the #11 through #16 backs ALL have some types of problems - Barlow included. It just seems that there is a large contingency of Shark Pool members that not only overlook Barlow's inherent problems for 2004, but also overrate the ceiling he could reach this year. A 2G total yardage and 10 TD season for Barlow would be ENORMOUS given the situation with SF's offense and Barlow's history on the squad - those numbers assume everything clicks, he misses no time, and the SF offense just hums along w/o Garcia and Owens. As good as Barlow was over the last 8 or 9 games as the full time starter, he still was only the 11th rated back over that stretch and averaged 16.1 pts/game - compare that to Faulk's #5 ranking over that same stretch and 20+ pts/game. If you normalize both players to their mean - giving Barlow an uptick and Faulk a down tick for this year, they normalize to around the same level of player and the same level of risk.I like enthusiasm, but there are a few hot button players this year that are being significantly overvalued despite inherent infirmities in their situations - including Rudi Johnson, Andre Johnson, Ashley Lelie, Charles Rogers, and, yes, Kevan Barlow. These players are being value in such a way that they are not mild "sleepers' with potential to be big, but are going to be valued in such a way that they become high risk-high reward selections - in other words, overpaid for.

 

[JLChestnut]

First I want to thank FBG for all you do! Fantastic job guys! IMO though, I forsee Brad Johnson and Charlie Garner doing exceptionally well this season behind that revamped O-line. I could also say the same for Ricky Williams and Thomas Jones, and I will always choose Priest over LT, until the Priest shows me otherwise. I think Mark Brunell is going to put up some good numbers for Gibbs 'skins', and with Eli Manning at QB, I would say Shockey is set for a stellar year.