FBG Expert Sortable Rankings Critique (1 Viewer)

[LHUCKS]

I will list the top three most overrated and underrated players at each position based on the first edition of the FBG Sortable Rankings.

Assumptions: 12 team league/all teams owners are experts.

Quarterbacks

Overrated

1) Michael Vick #3 - Nobody is doubting his talent, but a new system coupled with a not-so-great professional injury history...I'll pass on Mike and his obvious risk. It is the worst ranking of all the players IMO. He may very well be #3 in QB scoring, but I'd much rather have a solid RB or stud WR than his obvious risk.

Expert Observations:

Nice Job: to Mark Wiimer for playing the odds , it looks like he and I are the only ones in the FBG universe resisting Vick's undeniable potential.

Thumbs down: to all of the sheep.

2) Jeff Garcia #14 - Uh...Cleveland is an unproven offensive passing scheme(and that's being polite) and they certainly don't have Terrel Owens. Furthermore, the fantasy world is about to see just how mediocre Mr. Garcia is.

Expert Observations:

Nice Job: Clayton Gray, 19 is about where I'll have him

Thumbs Down: Chris Smith, 8th???? Uh...I'll take the over.

3) Hasselbeck #4 - Hasselebeck is definitely a top 10 QB...I just don't like him at four. The passing schedule should be tougher this year(-.9 in Gray's SOS for Dif) and with an offense that finished #7 in passing yards with a cake schedule in 2003, don't expect any kind of significant increase just because Koren and D-Jax are maturing...not buying it.

Expert Observations:

Nice Job: Clayton Gray/Will Grant...8 is more like it.

Thumbs Down: Wimer at #3, you can have him there

Underrated

1) Rich Gannon #22 - Mr. Gannon had the 6th most passing yards in NFL history in 2002. So he gets injured and the team falls apart and as a result he falls all the way to #22 in the fantasy world??? Nope. I'll take the guy that passed for 4600-plus way before #22 thank you. I don't care who the O-Coordinator is. Oh did I mention Oakland has a +1.3 in SOS DIF?

Expert Observations:

Nice Job: Dowling/Hayden...Norv Turner isn't a godsend, but the Oak talent coupled with the schedule should justify your rankings.

Thumbs Down: Unranked by Wimer, Smith and Grant...don't tell me you are on the Tuiasosopo bandwagon. You guys must be U-Dub Alum...at least you're Pac-10 I guess.

2) Joey Harrington #21 - Let's see, tons of upgrades on offense...check, maturing QB with plenty of talent...check, and proven offensive system...check. SLEEPER.

Expert Observations:

Nice Job: Wimer how could you be so right on Harrington and so wrong on Gannon?

Thumbs Down: Bob Harris, dude #27?? Do you not see the upside here? And I mean crazy upside.

3) Marc Bulger #8 - St. Louis had the third most passing yards last year, despite a banged up Faulk. Yes the schedule appears to be more difficult, but the young Bulger should improve and Faulk will be back. The composite ranking of 8 is overly conservative for a system that has produced the #1 fantasy QB.

Expert Observations:

Nice Job: Will Grant...Mr. Grant you're the only one with the cajones to put him in the top 4...the next highest ranking for him is 7!!

Thumbs Down: Gray/Shick/Dowling...Question, when is the last time the St. Louis passing attack was #11 in QB scoring...give me a break fellas.

Well there they are. Bring the discussion fellas, I doubt it will change my mind

Runningbacks will be next, followed by Receivers.

 

[Floyd The Barber]

Dude, do us a solid and post the link to the position rankings you're critiquing in your initial post.Onto your thoughts...I agree with your assessment to let other people draft Vick. Aside from his phenominal running skills, he has yet to prove himself as a passer (which I think he eventually will) and is a huge health risk.You contradict yourself on Hasslebeck and Bulger. They play virtually the same schedule, yet by your logic Bulger will overcome this and produce Top 4 numbers while Hasselbeck won't.Bulger throws more picks, less touchdowns, has a weaker ground game, no tight end to throw to, and lesser depth at wide receiver. Plus, Bulger plays in a riskier passing scheme exposing his frail build to more shots increasing the likeliness of injury.Otherwise, your players evaluations aren't out of the realm of reasonableness. But neither are the FBG's consensus rankings.Oh yeah... You can shorten up that War and Peace sig file.Cheers!

 

[David Dodds]

Michael Vick - This game is all about talent. And when he runs as good as he does, he is going to be ranked very high. He is essentially another RB on your team that gets bonus points for passing. If he plays the whol season, he would likey project out to the number 1 slot. I am not suggesting anyone take him there, but he will have a very high Fantasy Points Per Game.Jeff Garcia #14 - He does not have Terrell Owens, but he does have some good WRs on the Browns. The lame combo of Couch and Holcomb put up 3,116 passing yards and 17 passing TDs while only rushing for 19 yards and 1 TD. If that was one player, it would have been good enough for 17th place last season. Surely you think Garcia is better than these two scrubs?Hasselbeck at #4 - I agree that he could be anywhere from #4 to #8. But he is good. He also finished 4th last year.Rich Gannon at #22 - It is not a complete given he will be playing for the Raiders. He wants a raise and they would like to restructure down. If he starts for the Raiders, he will be higher. But at approximately "65 years old", he also is a bit of an injury risk.Joey Harrington at #21 - Read Drinen's piece where Joey has posted two of the three worst passing yards per attempt seasons EVER. He has the tools around him now, but how awful is this guy? The jury is still out whether he is just another Ryan Leaf in my opinion. Marc Bulger at #8 - This probably is a tad low, but his 22 interceptions are definitely a concern. I also could see the Rams running more with the addition of Stephen Jackson to spell Faulk.

 

[warhawk511]

i have to agree and disagree on some aspects. Vick at 3 is a huge risk. he could be that high in theory however he could be in the mid teens very easily. he may be exciting to watch however that doesnt translate into fantasy points. all that razzle dazzle to escape a few defenders gets all the highlights however thats only a handful of plays the game and the other 90% of the game Vick is just average at best in my opinion with his passing game. Garcia falling to 14 seems like agood value. He ended at #4 with my scoring system in 2003. he of course will fall, though more than 10 spots i think is a strech. as for Harrignton at 21. yes i think Lions undgraded however almost ANY team can make the cases they upgraded and if you watch ESPN you have 20 QBS valued in the top 10 or Mel Kiper had about 70 players as "potential" first round draft picks. i thik thats ridiculous. i think you should make a rankings system and just live by it and not call 95% of QB's better than average. sorry just my biggest pet peeve.

 

[LHUCKS]

Otherwise, your players evaluations aren't out of the realm of reasonableness. But neither are the FBG's consensus rankings.

I completely agree. I'm just posting tidbits on the players that will be ranked most differently on my cheatsheets and why.As for contradicting myself on Hasselbeck and Bulger, SOS is just one of many factors I take into account. For starters, I believe the St. Louis system to be much more explosive, thus SOS is less of a factor IMO. And it's not like I have the two guys ranked miles apart...actually 5 apart.

 

[LHUCKS]

Jeff Garcia #14 - He does not have Terrell Owens, but he does have some good WRs on the Browns. The lame combo of Couch and Holcomb put up 3,116 passing yards and 17 passing TDs while only rushing for 19 yards and 1 TD. If that was one player, it would have been good enough for 17th place last season. Surely you think Garcia is better than these two scrubs?Rich Gannon at #22 - It is not a complete given he will be playing for the Raiders. He wants a raise and they would like to restructure down. If he starts for the Raiders, he will be higher. But at approximately "65 years old", he also is a bit of an injury risk.Joey Harrington at #21 - Read Drinen's piece where Joey has posted two of the three worst passing yards per attempt seasons EVER. He has the tools around him now, but how awful is this guy? The jury is still out whether he is just another Ryan Leaf in my opinion.

Garcia - I'm just not a Garcia fan. He did get it done in SF, but every QB that has ever started for a significant amount of time in SF has got it done...I'm saying product of the system. Couch still hasn't reached his potential and I believe given the right system he could still be a late bloomer.Gannon - I guess you're right here- that it isn't a given he'll be in OAK. I can't imagine Oakland doing anything else though. Weirder things have happened.Harrington - I'm higher on Joey than most I will admit, I see flashes of brilliance from this guy and then I see him throw it right at a linebacker. Bottom line, I like his upside and think he'll improve dramatically for all of the previously stated reasons.

 

[Chris Smith]

I love it when a ranking is only a 'nice job' when it goes along with your own thoughts I believe it is impossible to ignore the potential PPG that Vick can put up. Most quarterbacks his age (and with his shortcomings in understanding pass coverages) would have spent a few seasons on the sidelines and NFL Europe before being thrust into the NFL spotlight. Vick not only played but did pretty well. Compare his stats in his first two seasons with those of Steve Young and John Elway to see what I mean.Facts on Vick* He is arriving to the Falcons complex everyday at 7:00am* His teammates believe in his ability and play better when he's out there.* He has one of the strongest arms in the NFL* He is a threat to score a rushing touchdown from anywhere on the field* Rookie WR Jenkins, Peerless Price and Alge Crumpler along with Warrick Dunn and TJ Duckett are good offensive weapons for him to utilize.* You can teach the position of quarterback but you can't teach ability. Vick has athletic ability that is through the roof. He is going to have a 3500 PY / 24 Pass TD / 800 RY / 8 rushing TD season at some point and he'll be ranked up high on my list accordingly. Too bad I generally don't select quarterbacks that early in the draft anyways as I wil rarely end up with a player of his talents.Jeff Garcia...I find it funny we are sheep when we like Michael Vick but I am singled out for liking Garcia's situation I actually like the situation in Cleveland for Mr. Garcia.* He is the guaranteed starter* Underachieving set of receivers but very talented (Morgan and Davis)* A true stud at the tight end position in Winslow Jr.* An improving running game featuring two talented, young running backs in Suggs and Green* He is athletic enough to add a few hundred rushing yards and 3-4 touchdowns on the ground* He is focused on putting the Owens years behind him and proving he is a great NFL quarterback without Owens catching the ball.*** Garcia is healthy for the first time in awhile and has been taking charge on the field during mini-camps. I have passing for 3468 yards, tossing 22 touchdowns and only 13 interceptions and rushing for 302 yards and 3 touchdowns. Those numbers appear to me to be quite reachable.Last season despite horrific quarterbacking play, the Browns threw for 3116 passing yards and 17 touchdowns. In 2002, the Browns managed to throw for 3645 yards and 26 touchdowns with less talent on offense than they have this season (addition of Lee Suggs and Kellen Winslow plus Quincy Morgan and Andre Davis being two years more mature).If anything I believe my projections on Garcia are at the low end. I look at the 2002 statistics for the Browns and I believe the sky is the limit. You, my friend can continue to believe what you want

 

[LHUCKS]

I actually like the situation in Cleveland for Mr. Garcia.* Underachieving set of receivers but very talented (Morgan and Davis)* An improving running game featuring two talented, young running backs in Suggs and Green

The two points above that I quoted are where we most significantly differ. I'm not sold on either of those positions. Winslow Jr. is a stud though.

 

[Chris Smith]

I actually like the situation in Cleveland for Mr. Garcia.* He is the guaranteed starter* Underachieving set of receivers but very talented (Morgan and Davis)* An improving running game featuring two talented, young running backs in Suggs and Green

The two points above that I quoted are where we most significantly differ. I'm not sold on either of those positions. Winslow Jr. is a stud though.

What about the 2002 statistics from the QB position in Cleveland. Hard to ignore tangible proof that this core of offensive players is capable of elevating the quarterback into the top ten. After all, it happened only 2 short seasons ago.Garcia = value in 2004and I won't be surprised to see him on many of my fantasty rosters this year.

 

[LHUCKS]

I actually like the situation in Cleveland for Mr. Garcia.* He is the guaranteed starter* Underachieving set of receivers but very talented (Morgan and Davis)* An improving running game featuring two talented, young running backs in Suggs and Green

The two points above that I quoted are where we most significantly differ. I'm not sold on either of those positions. Winslow Jr. is a stud though.

What about the 2002 statistics from the QB position in Cleveland. Hard to ignore tangible proof that this core of offensive players is capable of elevating the quarterback into the top ten. After all, it happened only 2 short seasons ago.

That is actually your strongest argument in my opinion and to be honest one that I hadn't considered. On the other hand, another point that I'd like to make is that there is some inherent risk when any QB goes to a new system...a lot of things have to go right.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Overrated

1) Michael Vick #3 - Nobody is doubting his talent, but a new system coupled with a not-so-great professional injury history...I'll pass on Mike and his obvious risk. It is the worst ranking of all the players IMO. He may very well be #3 in QB scoring, but I'd much rather have a solid RB or stud WR than his obvious risk.

It sounds like you're agreeing with his ranking. If you're not agreeing, where would you rank him among QBs?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

After all, it happened only 2 short seasons ago.

Actually, it was two long seasons ago.:chargerfan:

 

[LHUCKS]

Overrated

1) Michael Vick #3 - Nobody is doubting his talent, but a new system coupled with a not-so-great professional injury history...I'll pass on Mike and his obvious risk.  It is the worst ranking of all the players IMO.  He may very well be #3 in QB scoring, but I'd much rather have a solid RB or stud WR than his obvious risk.

It sounds like you're agreeing with his ranking. If you're not agreeing, where would you rank him among QBs?

I compete directly with many of the FBGs/Sharks so I don't like to post my rankings, but for you Mr. Tremblay....I have Vick at #8.

 

[Federal]

Overrated

1) Michael Vick #3 - Nobody is doubting his talent, but a new system coupled with a not-so-great professional injury history...I'll pass on Mike and his obvious risk. It is the worst ranking of all the players IMO. He may very well be #3 in QB scoring, but I'd much rather have a solid RB or stud WR than his obvious risk.

It sounds like you're agreeing with his ranking. If you're not agreeing, where would you rank him among QBs?

It sounds to me like the argument is between high-risk and high(er) reward vs. low-risk and high reward. If that is the case, I am going to invest one of my top picks in a lower risk player, like the solid RB/WR or more predictible QB. Gambling at the top of the draft can ruin a season. I agree here, let someone else gamble on Vick this high.That being sqid, If Vick finished #1 I wouldn't be surprised, but at the same time, if he finished #12, that would not be a shock either. As a result, I think #3 is too risky for me, and not the right ranking, but for those of you who enjoy the risk, have at it.

-FEDERAL

 

[LHUCKS]

Overrated

1) Michael Vick #3 - Nobody is doubting his talent, but a new system coupled with a not-so-great professional injury history...I'll pass on Mike and his obvious risk.  It is the worst ranking of all the players IMO.  He may very well be #3 in QB scoring, but I'd much rather have a solid RB or stud WR than his obvious risk.

It sounds like you're agreeing with his ranking. If you're not agreeing, where would you rank him among QBs?

It sounds to me like the argument is between high-risk and high(er) reward vs. low-risk and high reward. If that is the case, I am going to invest one of my top picks in a lower risk player, like the solid RB/WR or more predictible QB. Gambling at the top of the draft can ruin a season. I agree here, let someone else gamble on Vick this high.-FEDERAL

You hit the nail on the head Jeff.

 

[joffer]

Overrated

1) Michael Vick #3 - Nobody is doubting his talent, but a new system coupled with a not-so-great professional injury history...I'll pass on Mike and his obvious risk.  It is the worst ranking of all the players IMO.  He may very well be #3 in QB scoring, but I'd much rather have a solid RB or stud WR than his obvious risk.

It sounds like you're agreeing with his ranking. If you're not agreeing, where would you rank him among QBs?

It sounds to me like the argument is between high-risk and high(er) reward vs. low-risk and high reward. If that is the case, I am going to invest one of my top picks in a lower risk player, like the solid RB/WR or more predictible QB. Gambling at the top of the draft can ruin a season. I agree here, let someone else gamble on Vick this high.-FEDERAL

I agree he's high risk. However, saying you'd rather draft a RB/WR where you would have to draft Vick doesn't necessarily have anything to do with him being overrated strictly within the QB ranking. He may be overrated in an overall player ranking.

 

[LHUCKS]

Overrated

1) Michael Vick #3 - Nobody is doubting his talent, but a new system coupled with a not-so-great professional injury history...I'll pass on Mike and his obvious risk.  It is the worst ranking of all the players IMO.  He may very well be #3 in QB scoring, but I'd much rather have a solid RB or stud WR than his obvious risk.

It sounds like you're agreeing with his ranking. If you're not agreeing, where would you rank him among QBs?

It sounds to me like the argument is between high-risk and high(er) reward vs. low-risk and high reward. If that is the case, I am going to invest one of my top picks in a lower risk player, like the solid RB/WR or more predictible QB. Gambling at the top of the draft can ruin a season. I agree here, let someone else gamble on Vick this high.-FEDERAL

I agree he's high risk. However, saying you'd rather draft a RB/WR where you would have to draft Vick doesn't necessarily have anything to do with him being overrated strictly within the QB ranking. He may be overrated in an overall player ranking.

I obviously agree, a ranking of #3 though implies no later than the third round in a 12 team draft based on historical precedent...Agreed? I'm making the assumption that there isn't a huge dropoff in value between #2 and #3 in QB.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I obviously agree, a ranking of #3 though implies no later than the third round in a 12 team draft based on historical precedent...Agreed?

It just means he's the third-ranked QB. It doesn't have anything to do with where he ranks against players at other positions. Some QB has to be ranked #3. Are you saying the #3 QB will automatically be overrated among QBs because you'd rather have a RB or WR? So whoever your #3 QB is, you think you're overrating him as well?

 

[scavenger]

Of course there will be disagreement on rankings: That's what helps to make FANTASY FOOTBALL FUN ! I love to read the opinions however; since sometimes there are thoughts that had escaped me in my evaluations enabling me to make corrections before the draft season. Of course by January 2005 we all will know who was right. Point/Counter point is GOOD STUFF IMO.

 

[Chris Smith]

Overrated

1) Michael Vick #3 - Nobody is doubting his talent, but a new system coupled with a not-so-great professional injury history...I'll pass on Mike and his obvious risk.  It is the worst ranking of all the players IMO.  He may very well be #3 in QB scoring, but I'd much rather have a solid RB or stud WR than his obvious risk.

It sounds like you're agreeing with his ranking. If you're not agreeing, where would you rank him among QBs?

It sounds to me like the argument is between high-risk and high(er) reward vs. low-risk and high reward. If that is the case, I am going to invest one of my top picks in a lower risk player, like the solid RB/WR or more predictible QB. Gambling at the top of the draft can ruin a season. I agree here, let someone else gamble on Vick this high.-FEDERAL

You hit the nail on the head Jeff.

Good point here.I actually wouldn't select Vick early on in a draft either.

 

[LHUCKS]

I obviously agree, a ranking of #3 though implies no later than the third round in a 12 team draft based on historical precedent...Agreed?

It just means he's the third-ranked QB. It doesn't have anything to do with where he ranks against players at other positions. Some QB has to be ranked #3. Are you saying the #3 QB will automatically be overrated among QBs because you'd rather have a RB or WR? So whoever your #3 QB is, you think you're overrating him as well?

No. I'm saying that A) Vick is not the #3 QB

B) If he is #3(given normal drafting tendencies and projection tendencies) he would likely be taken ahead of many solid RBs or WRs.

A pretty safe assumption in my opinion.

 

[Federal]

Overrated

1) Michael Vick #3 - Nobody is doubting his talent, but a new system coupled with a not-so-great professional injury history...I'll pass on Mike and his obvious risk. It is the worst ranking of all the players IMO. He may very well be #3 in QB scoring, but I'd much rather have a solid RB or stud WR than his obvious risk.

It sounds like you're agreeing with his ranking. If you're not agreeing, where would you rank him among QBs?

It sounds to me like the argument is between high-risk and high(er) reward vs. low-risk and high reward. If that is the case, I am going to invest one of my top picks in a lower risk player, like the solid RB/WR or more predictible QB. Gambling at the top of the draft can ruin a season. I agree here, let someone else gamble on Vick this high.-FEDERAL

I agree he's high risk. However, saying you'd rather draft a RB/WR where you would have to draft Vick doesn't necessarily have anything to do with him being overrated strictly within the QB ranking. He may be overrated in an overall player ranking.

I think Vick is ranked in the high 20's on the overall board...my point is that I would rather wait another 2+ rounds and grab a more solid but less spectacular QB like Trent Green while capitilizing on the infatuation others have with Vick by bringing in a RB or WR that I have a much better read on and I would miss out on if I wanted to GAMBLE on Vick.

 

[Federal]

I obviously agree, a ranking of #3 though implies no later than the third round in a 12 team draft based on historical precedent...Agreed?

It just means he's the third-ranked QB. It doesn't have anything to do with where he ranks against players at other positions. Some QB has to be ranked #3. Are you saying the #3 QB will automatically be overrated among QBs because you'd rather have a RB or WR? So whoever your #3 QB is, you think you're overrating him as well?

I think what is being said is that if you are asking Vick To be your #1 QB you are asking for potential trouble. If you put Green/Hasslebeck/Mcnabb/Bulger in that spot, you know what you are going to get. Now Vick may well be the best performer when it is all said and done, but the teams that draft Vick in the 2-3 round could very well be the teams that come to you asking to trade for one of your more solid QB's. I think Vick should be the 7th or 8th QB taken... IF you know there is a solid player availiable to back him up for insurance. But the fact you need to spend a pick on an insurance QB mid draft lowers his value even more IMO.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A) Vick is not the #3 QB

I know, you've got him at #8, so you think we're overrating him by putting him at #3. That makes sense. I disagree with it, but it makes sense.What doesn't make sense, and what I originally thought you were saying, is that Vick is overrated as a QB because you'd rather draft a RB or WR instead. I tried to put some RBs and WRs ahead of Vick in my QB rankings, but Dodds wouldn't let me.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I actually think Vick is a fairly low-risk fantasy QB. There's pretty much no way he'll be shut down except by injury. Passing QBs sometimes go from having great years to terrible years suddenly (like Bledsoe in 2003), but Vick is going to get so many fantasy points on the ground that even if he has a terrible year as a passer, he'll still be a good fantasy QB. As long as he plays, there's very little risk that he'll stink.I know Vick got hurt last year, but I don't think he's more of an injury risk than most other RBs, which is really what he is.

 

[David Dodds]

I tried to put some RBs and WRs ahead of Vick in my QB rankings, but Dodds wouldn't let me.

LOL. We are a stickler to keep the positions together.Overall thoughts:Most of us advise not to even look at QBs in the first two rounds. I agree Vick is likely a distant third in the ranking (behind Culpepper and Manning). To say he positively will go in the third (on the overall) though is up to debate. I think even the people that have him at QB3-QB5 would not take him in the third. See my perfect draft article.But someone has to be QB3. And Vick is probably the most likely of all that's left of achieving that rank or better in my opinion.

 

[Me & My Uncle]

A) Vick is not the #3 QB

I know, you've got him at #8, so you think we're overrating him by putting him at #3. That makes sense. I disagree with it, but it makes sense.What doesn't make sense, and what I originally thought you were saying, is that Vick is overrated as a QB because you'd rather draft a RB or WR instead. I tried to put some RBs and WRs ahead of Vick in my QB rankings, but Dodds wouldn't let me.

Do you seriously think that is what Lhucks meant? He has already explained otherwise, and it was obvious he didn't mean it the way you imply from the start anyway.Very good critique in my opinion. Vick IS the most obviously overrated player here. He may run all over the place, but it is possible those numbers won't be the same as 2002 due to injury worries/coaching. But will his passing numbers go up? That is the real question? They could. Vick could easily be #3. He could even be #1. But he is a huge dropoff from Manning/Culpy because those guys have done it every year! You must understand that the odds of a guy coming from Vick's track record is far less likely to have a huge season than 2 guys who have been doing it consistently.Now, who is ahead of VIck? I'm not sure there is any obvious #3. It could even be Vick at #3. But when you look at the voting, Vick was easily #3, so the voting was clearly too pro-Vick. I could make a case for almost anyone in the top 10 belonging at #3. That says to me...draft a QB in the middle rounds, or get CUlpy or Manning. Great job Lhucks.

 

[JLChestnut]

Bulger throws more picks, less touchdowns, has a weaker ground game, no tight end to throw to, and lesser depth at wide receiver. Plus, Bulger plays in a riskier passing scheme exposing his frail build to more shots increasing the likeliness of injury.

I could be wrong here, I don't know for certain, but don't the Rams have one of the best Offensive lines in the league? I thought that they did, but like I say.... I don't know. Would be curious as to how many Sacks the Rams O-line allowed last season. I remember it was quite a few in that first game. That's how Warner got his Concussion. But for the entire season, I thought that they were one of the better O-lines.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Do you seriously think that is what Lhucks meant?

Until he said he had Vick ranked #8 instead of #3, yes.

But he is a huge dropoff from Manning/Culpy because those guys have done it every year! You must understand that the odds of a guy coming from Vick's track record is far less likely to have a huge season than 2 guys who have been doing it consistently.

This is true, and it's a very good point. But nobody ranked him ahead of Manning/Culpy.

 

[Federal]

The question:

What QB's should be ranked ahead of Vick?

The Answer:

McNabb-Hasslebeck-Bulger-McNair-Green

Why?

Vick has not yet established himself as a proven player.

Vick is an exceptional injury canidate.

Vick is playing under new coach/offense.

Why is Vick rated ahead of proven/stable QB's?

Vick had a great 2002 season when healthy.

Vick has the ability to rack up the rushing yards.

Vick is the most exciting player in the NFL.

Now I know McNair has been injured and Hasslebeck may not yet be "proven", but no other QB mentioned is heading into a new offense with a new coach, no other is exposed to big hits as much, and no other QB has less than two solid seasons under his belt.

What about Vicks potential?

Well it is undeniably great. But should that vault him ahead of the known commodities? NO

No, unless you are willing to put the fortune of your fanatsy season into a high risk player, or spend an adittional mid round pick on a Tom Brady or Chad Pennington at the cost of upgrades at other positions.

 

[derek316]

Bulger throws more picks, less touchdowns, has a weaker ground game, no tight end to throw to, and lesser depth at wide receiver. Plus, Bulger plays in a riskier passing scheme exposing his frail build to more shots increasing the likeliness of injury.

I don't understand how St. Louis has "lesser depth" at WR than Seattle? Bruce and Robinson right now are actually quite equal. Look at their numbers from last year. Koren has never lived up to his potential. Tory Holt is also light years ahead of Daryl Jackson. Dane Looker and Bobby Engram are basically a wash. I'd take the St. Louis WR over the Seattle WR ANY DAY.

 

[Northern Voice]

Dane Looker and Bobby Engram are basically a wash. I'd take the St. Louis WR over the Seattle WR ANY DAY.

Bobby Engram is way better than Dane Looker.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Vick not only played but did pretty well.  Compare his stats in his first two seasons with those of Steve Young and John Elway to see what I mean.

Steve Young's 1st 3 years as a Pro
                 +---------------------------------------+-----------------+                  |              Passing                  |     Rushing     |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year  TM |   G |  Comp   Att   PCT    YD   Y/A  TD INT |  Att  Yards  TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1985 tam |   5 |    72   138  52.2   935   6.8   3   8 |    40   233   1 || 1986 tam |  14 |   195   363  53.7  2282   6.3   8  13 |    74   425   5 || 1987 sfo |   8 |    37    69  53.6   570   8.3  10   0 |    26   190   1 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+|  TOTAL   |  27 |   304   570  53.3  3787   6.6  21  16 |   140   848   7 |Michael Vick's 1st 3 years as a Pro

                 +---------------------------------------+-----------------+                  |              Passing                  |     Rushing     |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year  TM |   G |  Comp   Att   PCT    YD   Y/A  TD INT |  Att  Yards  TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 2001 atl |   8 |    50   113  44.2   785   6.9   2   3 |    29   300   1 || 2002 atl |  15 |   231   421  54.9  2936   7.0  16   8 |   112   796   8 || 2003 atl |   5 |    50   100  50.0   585   5.8   4   3 |    40   255   1 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+|  TOTAL   |  28 |   331   634  52.2  4306   6.8  22  14 |   181  1351  10 |

Vick finished as the #2 ranked fantasy QB in 2002. Since then, the team has added weapons in Peerless Price and Michael Jenkins. Unless you are just deathly afraid of him getting injured again, he's clearly got enough upside to warrant being ranked as the #3 QB.Even though some apparently think he is still unproven, his #2 ranking is higher than anyone else ranked just below him has ever finished in their careers.

Donovan McNabb - ranked #5 twice

Steve McNair - ranked #5 twice (2003), ranked #6 twice

Matt Hasselbeck - ranked #6 once (2003)

Trent Green - ranked #4 once (2003)

Marc Bulger - ranked #11 once (2003)

 

[jurb26]

Vick, I agree with you on. He is too high IMO. However, I have to say get use to it. People will always drool at the wonders of a guy such as Vick. He is like the crown jewel of FF players. A guy that can in theory score enough points to warrent 2 positions (QB and RB) all at once. Its not that I don't think this is possible for him, just HIGHLY unlikely. I simply don't see how there is enough scoring on a NFL team now days to realisticly approach that kind of production. Add that with the incressed injury risk *disclamer, I understand that injuries can not be calculated in* due to his style. I think I'll stay away from over paying.Harrigton, agree with as well. Now yes I understand that he may have had his problems thus far. But come on what was he working with? Average WRs if he is lucky, an average Oline, terrible D that didn't help, and no running game with far below average RBs. Every single one of those things haa been upgraded IMO. Rodgers and Williams, another CB and better LB on D, Woody, and a much improved RB in Jones. This should = better production than what I think FFG is projecting him to have.Gannon, disagree with. I don't think he will be playing in Oak. for one. Even if he does, the guy is ancient for crying out loud! New system in Oak or whatever team he lands on will be tough on him, as the old sys. was perfect for him. Basically its time for Gannon to pass the torch IMO and become a backup.

 

[Footballhead]

Overrated

1) Michael Vick #3 - Nobody is doubting his talent, but a new system coupled with a not-so-great professional injury history...I'll pass on Mike and his obvious risk.  It is the worst ranking of all the players IMO.  He may very well be #3 in QB scoring, but I'd much rather have a solid RB or stud WR than his obvious risk.

It sounds like you're agreeing with his ranking. If you're not agreeing, where would you rank him among QBs?

It sounds to me like the argument is between high-risk and high(er) reward vs. low-risk and high reward. If that is the case, I am going to invest one of my top picks in a lower risk player, like the solid RB/WR or more predictible QB. Gambling at the top of the draft can ruin a season. I agree here, let someone else gamble on Vick this high.That being sqid, If Vick finished #1 I wouldn't be surprised, but at the same time, if he finished #12, that would not be a shock either. As a result, I think #3 is too risky for me, and not the right ranking, but for those of you who enjoy the risk, have at it.

-FEDERAL

He's ranked no 3 QB doesn't mean you have to grab him as soon as possible. Use ur VBD. It will stupid to get him if a top RB is available. This season, in a 12 team serpentine redraft, I'll grab him in the 3rd if I've the low pick, that too is a strecth. He's a value at 4th.

 

[Musesboy]

I have Vick at #4, Garcia at #13 and Hasselbeck at #7Gannon #18, Delhomme at #19 and Harrington at #24.I tend to agree with the Garcia comments. The WRs do have plenty of speed and Garcia is a considerable upgrade over last year's QBs.Vick is one that could top the QB standings very easily. The passing game should be in much better shape with Price having had a year to adjust to becoming a #1 receiver in a new offense. Crumpler is a very good TE, the running game is good enough, and Michael Jenkins could become another vital piece of the puzzle.The biggest thing with Vick is his yards per game. Most, if not all, would agree that Vick would be a lock to finish in the Top 5 if he played all 16 games. He scored 321 points in my system in 2002, playing 15 games.The risk is clearly there. His scrambling style does leave him vulnerable to hits. Even if he is only healthy for 10 games, that 21.4 points per game average will help you win a lot of games. Your QB2 will add to that 214 point total and you could still end up with 300 points from the QB position on the year. Better than having steady production the whole year?

 

[Sinrman]

Garcia will do better than you think. The receivers are serviceable (especially if Northcutt sticks around). The RBs have potential (well, Suggs more than Green). And adding Winslow helps a TON. I think having Garcia at #10-12 isn't a stretch. Hasselbeck was one that I never jumped on to before. He did admireably last year. But as high as many are predicting him, I wouldn't take him. I'd say #8-10 this year (better if Jackson and Robinson can work on the "dropsies"). Gannon is through. I wouldn't be shocked to see him get cut by the Raiders, and go back to being a backup somewhere, like he was for most of his career. Vick is an enigma right now. EVERYONE knows he has unbelieveable talent. But the health factor is a concern. Running around like a chicken with his head cut off doesn't help matters. He's a concussion waiting to happen...The surprises I think of '04 will be Harrington, Carr, and McNabb (well, not much of a "surprise," but I think the addition of Owens is all he needed to move him in the top 3 for good).

 

[nerangers]

I know the rankings here are based on the FBG scoring system:Offensive Scoring System1 pt per 20 yards passing4 pts per passing TD1 pt per 10 yards rushing/receiving6 pts per rushing/receiving TD-1 per interception3 pts per FG1 pt per PATWhere Vick lacks so far in passing, many figure he will make up in Rushing. In my Dynasty league where I have him, passing is 1/25 3 TD where Rushing is 1/10 6 TD. This gives Vick some real appeal. I think in a redraft league, Vick would be around #5. I think McNabb now with Owens has just as much Fantasy Potential to be in the Top four with Manning, Culpepper, and McNair this year.I think Garcia could be a steal this year if others let him slide to far (I like Garcia at #12).I keep hearing rumors that Gannon might be going to the Giants, retiring, blah blah blah. So much potential, but I think he will fall about #18. Every year people think it is the year he is done (those that guessed last year congrats) but there is some real potential still there if you can get him late in the draft. Need to see where he lands first.I have Harrington in my dynasty league...I do think this is the make or break year for him. Last year was a tough break with Rogers getting hurt. Could have been a better season for Joey without such a big target getting lost. Because it is t he Lions, I don't see many drafting him top 10...but he could be a real steal in the late teens.

 

[LHUCKS]

Very good critique in my opinion.

Thanks!

 

[Will Grant]

1) Rich Gannon #22 - Mr. Gannon had the 6th most passing yards in NFL history in 2002. So he gets injured and the team falls apart and as a result he falls all the way to #22 in the fantasy world??? Nope. I'll take the guy that passed for 4600-plus way before #22 thank you. I don't care who the O-Coordinator is. Oh did I mention Oakland has a +1.3 in SOS DIF?

Expert Observations:

Nice Job: Dowling/Hayden...Norv Turner isn't a godsend, but the Oak talent coupled with the schedule should justify your rankings.

Thumbs Down: Unranked by Wimer, Smith and Grant...don't tell me you are on the Tuiasosopo bandwagon. You guys must be U-Dub Alum...at least you're Pac-10 I guess.

2) Joey Harrington #21 - Let's see, tons of upgrades on offense...check, maturing QB with plenty of talent...check, and proven offensive system...check. SLEEPER.

Expert Observations:

Nice Job: Wimer how could you be so right on Harrington and so wrong on Gannon?

Thumbs Down: Bob Harris, dude #27?? Do you not see the upside here? And I mean crazy upside.

3) Marc Bulger #8 - St. Louis had the third most passing yards last year, despite a banged up Faulk. Yes the schedule appears to be more difficult, but the young Bulger should improve and Faulk will be back. The composite ranking of 8 is overly conservative for a system that has produced the #1 fantasy QB.

Expert Observations:

Nice Job: Will Grant...Mr. Grant you're the only one with the cajones to put him in the top 4...the next highest ranking for him is 7!!

Gannonac-10.. Nope. MAC actually.

My Ranking of Gannon (or lack thereof) was more of a 'let's see what's going on in Oakland' type of thing. Has Gannon fully recovered from the surgery? Are the Raiders going to release him because his salary cap figure? Will they bring in someone else to be the starting guy?

If Gannon is the starter in Oakland again this year, I'll move him into the top 30. Right now, there are just too many questions.

Bulger: With Warner officially off his back, I think Bulger's got a great chance to light it up this year....

Fear Not... I've made a few RB and WR picks that warrant a 'what were you thinking?' :JoeT:

 

[Colin Dowling]

Thumbs Down: Gray/Shick/Dowling...Question, when is the last time the St. Louis passing attack was #11 in QB scoring...give me a break fellas.

2002. They finished 11th with a mishmash of Warner, Martin, and Bulger. Next time you ask rhetorical questions, make sure you know the answer ahead of time, smart guy. Depending on scoring, Bulger finished between 8th and 10th last season. To see him slide a couple spots, particularly since Vick and PLummer ended up behind him, is not much of a reach. Now, toss in that in the 2nd half of the 2003 season (the final 8 games) he produced a medicore 10TD to 14 INts and 247 yards per game compared to 12 TDs/11 Ints and 275 yards per game the first half of the season, and I'm sure you can understand why I'm skeptical.I think people are figuring the Rams - and Bulger - out. So I dropped him a couple spots.Colin

 

[LHUCKS]

Thumbs Down: Gray/Shick/Dowling...Question, when is the last time the St. Louis passing attack was #11 in QB scoring...give me a break fellas.

2002. They finished 11th with a mishmash of Warner, Martin, and Bulger. Next time you ask rhetorical questions, make sure you know the answer ahead of time, smart guy. Depending on scoring, Bulger finished between 8th and 10th last season. To see him slide a couple spots, particularly since Vick and PLummer ended up behind him, is not much of a reach. Now, toss in that in the 2nd half of the 2003 season (the final 8 games) he produced a medicore 10TD to 14 INts and 247 yards per game compared to 12 TDs/11 Ints and 275 yards per game the first half of the season, and I'm sure you can understand why I'm skeptical.I think people are figuring the Rams - and Bulger - out. So I dropped him a couple spots.Colin

That's somewhat misleading given the injury situation...agreed? Like I've said before, I'll take the under on your #11 ranking and we'll see who the "smart guy" is.As for people figuring the Rams out, I'm not so sure. It's a lot easier to figure the Rams out when Faulk isn't 100 percent...and now they have a more reliable backup.

 

[Colin Dowling]

As for people figuring the Rams out, I'm not so sure. It's a lot easier to figure the Rams out when Faulk isn't 100 percent...and now they have a more reliable backup.

Funny you mention that, as Bulger's 12/11 and 275 was when Faulk was injured and his 10/14, 250 was when Faulk was healthy.Colin

 

[LHUCKS]

As for people figuring the Rams out, I'm not so sure. It's a lot easier to figure the Rams out when Faulk isn't 100 percent...and now they have a more reliable backup.

Funny you mention that, as Bulger's 12/11 and 275 was when Faulk was injured and his 10/14, 250 was when Faulk was healthy.Colin

OK, so Bulger is not as good with a healthy Faulk?? This is obviously a case where the stats aren't telling the entire story. The point being that this year the Rams:A) have no QB controverseyB) have a healthy, deeper running game-LHUCKS

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

The point being that this year the Rams:A) have no QB controverseyB) have a healthy, deeper running game-LHUCKS

they still have the same coach who settled for a tying FG in the playoffs instead of giving his QB a chance to win the game.they also still have the same turnover-prone QB lining up under center last I checked.I think he's ranked right about where he should be.

 

[Colin Dowling]

OK, so Bulger is not as good with a healthy Faulk?? This is obviously a case where the stats aren't telling the entire story.

How so? Exactly what is misleading about the statement: Bulger's stats are improved when Faulk is hurt, and not as good when Faulk is healthy?Healthy Faulk: 62.5% completion percentage. 10TDs, 14 INTs, 25o yards per gameHurt Faulk: 63.5% completion percentage. 12TDs, 11 INTs, 275 yards per gameColin

 

[LHUCKS]

OK, so Bulger is not as good with a healthy Faulk?? This is obviously a case where the stats aren't telling the entire story.

How so? Exactly what is misleading about the statement: Bulger's stats are improved when Faulk is hurt, and not as good when Faulk is healthy?Healthy Faulk: 62.5% completion percentage. 10TDs, 14 INTs, 25o yards per gameHurt Faulk: 63.5% completion percentage. 12TDs, 11 INTs, 275 yards per gameColin

Misleading in that you picked the year where 3 QBs started because of injury troubles. Given that, I'd say #11 is close to the worse-case scenario for the St. Louis QB situation.As for Faulk continuing to have a negative impact on Bulger I would say you're staring at the numbers too much. I think it is a pretty safe assumption that that trend will not continue. Your sample size is way too small there.

 

[LHUCKS]

The point being that this year the Rams:A) have no QB controverseyB) have a healthy, deeper running game-LHUCKS

they still have the same coach who settled for a tying FG in the playoffs instead of giving his QB a chance to win the game.they also still have the same turnover-prone QB lining up under center last I checked.I think he's ranked right about where he should be.

Neither of which have a significant impact on his fantasy point production.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Vick is quickly becoming UNDER-RATED. If he falls to the late 3rd/early 4th he is a steal.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Misleading in that you picked the year where 3 QBs started because of injury troubles. Given that, I'd say #11 is close to the worse-case scenario for the St. Louis QB situation.

Hang on. You asked a question, I gave you an answer, and you want to invalidate that answer because you call it the "worst case."? Ask a different question next time. The Rams QBs have finished 8th, 11th, 1st, and 7th in the last 4 years. If you want to toss out "these rankings are wrong" threads, please offer some substantial fact instead of presumptions.

As for Faulk continuing to have a negative impact on Bulger I would say it you're staring at the numbers too much. I think it is pretty safe assumption that that trend will not continue. Your sample size is way too small there.

How can you say it is a safe assumption that the trend will not continue? My sample was 8 games, which happens to be 36% of ALL the games that Bulger has ever played in, and their the most recent 36%. I appreciate your input, and this is clearly a constructive discussion, but to say my 36% is too small of a sample, but your 64% is enough of a sample is ludicrous. However, to continue making my point, I'll increase the sample to the most recent 50% of Bulger's career.

First 11 Games: 286 ypg, 24TDs, 13 Ints, 65% competion

Last 11 Games: 258 Ypg, 12 TDs, 18 Ints, 61.3% completion

Big enough sample for you?

Colin