FBG WR dynasty rankings (1 Viewer)

[Holy Schneikes]

I know some of these have been discussed before, but I was glancing through them and there are a few I really don't get.

A couple of examples:

Vincent Jackson is listed at 88. Granted he hasn't really done anything yet, but has a ton of raw ability, is still young and has a chance to really be a player at some point. He's listed behind some guys who not only haven't done much, but are MUCH older and have very little chance of doing much in the future.

Compare him to 30 year old Marty Booker, who is ranked higher. The guy had 2 decent years (the latest 4 years ago), but is not a real #1 guy and idn't likely to become one with a younger, better Chris Chambers on his team. Why would you rather have Booker than Jackson in a dynasty?

Bethel Johnson is going into his 4th year after having been traded away by his team. He's fast, but hasn't been able to translate that into production despite being on a great team with a great QB. Better than Jackson?

The #3 and #4 WRs in Oakland (Gabriel and Curry, 5th and 7th round picks) are both listed higher.

Last year's favorite sleeper, Brandon Jones, did about the same as Jackson in 2005 (and at least IMO, didn't look very good doing it), but is listed much higher.

Then we have 33 year old Bobby Engram who in his 10 year career has not had a 1000 yard season or more than 6 TDs. The guy is a very valuable NFL receiver, but he basically worthless as a fantasy receiver and he's OLD. What on Earth is he doing listed 20 slots higher than Vincent Jackson on dynasty list?

How bout Justin McCareins, who's best year was 813 yards (3 years ago). The guy is the definition of a jouneyman. If you need a bye week fill in, sure, he might get you 40 or 50 yards. But 30 spots higher than Jackson? While you are at it, throw Joey J in the same catgory, except he's 40+ slots higher.

Even Maurile (whose opinion on SD guys has been spot-on most of the time) doesn't have Jackson listed in his top 75 so maybe I just think more of Jackson's potential than I really should, but I just don't get a lot of the guys in front of him - the old, #2 type guys who will never be fantasy impacts and bunch of the other young guys as well.

 

[Alluro]

Like Vincent Jackson much?

 

[NattyDread]

Overall I didn't have much of a problem with the rankings, but I did question some of those by Aaron Rudnicki. Brian Westbrook at 35 overall I guess could be debated (not in my mind), but what about Domanick Davis at #57 overall?

I'd really like to see a check box allowing the average to be recomputed based on the rankings of the FBG employees rankings that are checked. With only 6 FBG ranking factoring into the averages, outliers like those indicated above can really skew the result. Another thought would a standard deviation column. I've seen that suggested somewhere else in the Shark Pool.

 

[coolnerd]

Booker is the clear number 2 on a team with a decent NFL number 1 WR. Probably around 50 ish in my book. You need to get over the 30 being old for a WR, btw.

Bethel Johnson- nothing to see here, except for a change of team.

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league. With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Curry- seems to have the talent, but injury history scary. Maybe 75, but has done more than Jackson.

b. Jones- Tenn WR is a big mess past the first two, so I agree there.

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

As for Jackson, he is David Boston body who did not play against a high level of competition and is at best the 5th option in San Deigo's passing game. Ironically, he is playing behind a legitimately old WR, and guy who is a below average number 2, so he will have an opportunity, but has done nothing to prove is in the top half of the NFL number 3 WRs. 2.5 times 32 nfl teams = 80 so in my mind that is the highest to rank until he does something. If you believe in his physical skill, take him stick him on the end of your bench and reap the rewards.

 

[Jackal]

while we are on the subject of skewed results, how about lammey's ranking of maroney at 7, with all the qbs in front of him

 

[EBF]

I don't think they're too bad overall, although I do think some of the staff members are overly forgiving of players who have been in the league for years and have shown little signs of life. There's almost no way I'd take a guy like Cedrick Wilson, Bobby Engram, or Justin McCareins over someone like Derek Hagan or Vincent Jackson in a dynasty league. You pretty much know the former group will never be more than bye week fodder, whereas the untested young guys at least have a chance to emerge and surprise.

 

[EBF]

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league.  With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

I guess that's part of the debate. Does a decent #3 NFL WR really warrant a spot on a dynasty team? I'd argue no unless he clearly has a chance to emerge as more than that in the future (i.e. Kevin Curtis, Reggie Williams, and Chris Henry before all of his crimes).

 

[Bri]

So far, Jackson's better at getting injured than playing football. I'd imagine some consider this is rookie year to a degree.

 

[coolnerd]

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league.  With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

I guess that's part of the debate. Does a decent #3 NFL WR really warrant a spot on a dynasty team? I'd argue no unless he clearly has a chance to emerge as more than that in the future (i.e. Kevin Curtis, Reggie Williams, and Chris Henry before all of his crimes).

The biggest downside to Engram types is the value that others place on them versus the younger Reggie Williams types. Otherwise, I have found that these guys are always available on the waiver except for the week or two where short term injuries/bye weeks have you in bind (when I need them). Also, as many of these guys surprise a tier or two more othen than the athletic studs. Normally, I try to have a Jackson or two on my roster in the hopes that i hit big, but any more than that becomes too much going for the home run when week in week out during most seasons I need the solid base hits more.

 

[-OZ-]

here's the one I don't get:

31 Matt Jones, JAX 14 27 52 21 34 42 31.7

I realize we all have our opinions, but how is he #52? That would make him one of the worst #2 WRs in the NFL. #42 is off too. Jeff's a smart guy, so I figure he has his reasons, but wow.

Seriously, below Moulds? Engram? Chris Henry?

 

[King of the Jungle]

Holy

Great topic! I have always been gunshy to fire at rankings because I realize that I am one of those Dynasty owners who over-value youth (I admit it). I am interested in what others have to say though.

 

[gang-wars]

Vincent Jackson?

Ehhh. Why would he be any higher? Which is his 3 catches did you like?

He was only hurt like 48 times during his first season. But I do see your point, he only had 98 less catches then Boldin's rookie year. If you close your eyes really tight, you can almost confuse the two.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

here's the one I don't get:

31 Matt Jones, JAX 14 27 52 21 34 42 31.7

I realize we all have our opinions, but how is he #52? That would make him one of the worst #2 WRs in the NFL. #42 is off too. Jeff's a smart guy, so I figure he has his reasons, but wow.

Seriously, below Moulds? Engram? Chris Henry?

I've been gone for over a week in Orlando on vacation, and before then I had Jones as the #2 option in Jacksonville behind Wilford. That hasn't been a good spot historically for WR production, especially with Leftwich, and I had the TE doing more than WR2 in Jacksonville.All that said, it is time to move Jones up the scale. Thanks for keeping me honest.

Chris Henry should plummet as well.

 

[-OZ-]

I've been gone for over a week in Orlando on vacation, and before then I had Jones as the #2 option in Jacksonville behind Wilford. That hasn't been a good spot historically for WR production, especially with Leftwich, and I had the TE doing more than WR2 in Jacksonville.

All that said, it is time to move Jones up the scale. Thanks for keeping me honest.

Chris Henry should plummet as well.

Ok, now I'm really confused. The date above your name is yesterday. Did you just update a couple players?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I've been gone for over a week in Orlando on vacation, and before then I had Jones as the #2 option in Jacksonville behind Wilford. That hasn't been a good spot historically for WR production, especially with Leftwich, and I had the TE doing more than WR2 in Jacksonville.

All that said, it is time to move Jones up the scale. Thanks for keeping me honest.

Chris Henry should plummet as well.

Ok, now I'm really confused. The date above your name is yesterday. Did you just update a couple players?

No, when I got back I updated all of my lists so they don't fall off of the 7 days old list.I had not made any changes since I went on vacation.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Updated Jones and Wilford.

I'll investigate it a little further this week.

Discussions for my rankings are always welcome.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

how about lammey's ranking of maroney at 7, with all the qbs in front of him

:fixed:

 

[Bri]

here's the one I don't get:

31 Matt Jones, JAX 14 27 52 21 34 42 31.7

I realize we all have our opinions, but how is he #52? That would make him one of the worst #2 WRs in the NFL. #42 is off too. Jeff's a smart guy, so I figure he has his reasons, but wow.

Seriously, below Moulds? Engram? Chris Henry?

why are you listing him as Jax's #2?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

here's the one I don't get:

31 Matt Jones, JAX 14 27 52 21 34 42 31.7

I realize we all have our opinions, but how is he #52? That would make him one of the worst #2 WRs in the NFL. #42 is off too. Jeff's a smart guy, so I figure he has his reasons, but wow.

Seriously, below Moulds? Engram? Chris Henry?

why are you listing him as Jax's #2?

Bri,I had him as the 2 before this week's info that he was lining up as the 1.

 

[Bri]

here's the one I don't get:

31  Matt Jones, JAX  14  27  52  21  34  42  31.7

I realize we all have our opinions, but how is he #52? That would make him one of the worst #2 WRs in the NFL. #42 is off too.  Jeff's a smart guy, so I figure he has his reasons, but wow.

Seriously, below Moulds? Engram? Chris Henry? 

why are you listing him as Jax's #2?

Bri,I had him as the 2 before this week's info that he was lining up as the 1.

was askin' Oz, sorry to confuse ya.As mentioned in the Wilford Williams thread nothing is settled at WR for the Jags(according to DelRio)yet so any ranking would be reasonable. I had no probs with the rankings

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league.  With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

I guess that's part of the debate. Does a decent #3 NFL WR really warrant a spot on a dynasty team? I'd argue no unless he clearly has a chance to emerge as more than that in the future (i.e. Kevin Curtis, Reggie Williams, and Chris Henry before all of his crimes).

That IS the biggest part of my point. Has Jackson done anything in the NFL? NO. Might he be a complete bust? YES. But he at least has a SHOT to be a good fantasy player, unlike about 30 guys in front of him on the dynasty list. Engram is the perfect example. If I had to bet who'd put up better numbers in 2006, I might go for Engram over Jackson. But if I had to pick a guy who has the best chance to be a top 10 WR at some point in his career, Engram wouldn't even be on the radar while Jackson (and guys like him) would. Sure, in a league that starts 4 WRs or something a guy like Engram could come in handy, but in the vast majority of dynasty leagues, he will NEVER be a regular starter. To me, that's what dynasty is about - finding guys who might actually be able to start for you at some point.

 

[fruity pebbles]

He had as many tackles as he had catches last year.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Vincent Jackson?

Ehhh. Why would he be any higher? Which is his 3 catches did you like?

He was only hurt like 48 times during his first season. But I do see your point, he only had 98 less catches then Boldin's rookie year. If you close your eyes really tight, you can almost confuse the two.

It wasn't really about Jackson in particular - it was about ranking guys who we KNOW are never going to be fantasy starters over guys who we just don't know about yet.Yes, Jackson was hurt a lot, but that is the point - we don't really know what he can do, and he has a better opportunity than most.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

He had as many tackles as he had catches last year.

Chad Johnson had 28 catches his rookie year. Steve Smith had 10. Regiie Wayne had 27. Hines Ward had 15. Javaon Walker had 23. Etc. Etc. Etc.You have to give guys a chance to adapt to the NFL. Again, I'm not saying Jackson should be top 10, I'm saying I'd rather have him than a lot of guys above him that we KNOW aren't ever going to contribute much to a fantasy team.

 

[Football Jones]

I have to agree with Holy Schneikes. I'd take many a young player ahead of some of the higher-ranked veterans (at all positions). I assume it's simply because I value youth much more than the five staffers who do the dynasty rankings (not saying my way is better, just different).

 

[Mapmaker]

Making a case for Vince Jackson not being ranked high enough based on future potential is one thing ... but there's also another Jackson, rookie Chad Jackson that is ranked way too high in my estimation ... how in the world is a rookie WR that has 0 professional catches ranked above guys like Joe Horn, Keyshawn Johnson, Rod Smith, Eric Moulds .. sure these guys are vetrans and have slowed a step or two .. but it's going to be a few years before Jackson will ever be contributing more in the passing game than these fella's ... youth plays a part in percieved value for Dynasty players ... but ranking any NE rookie WR over the likes of these solid vet's is absolute folly!

 

[-OZ-]

here's the one I don't get:

31 Matt Jones, JAX 14 27 52 21 34 42 31.7

I realize we all have our opinions, but how is he #52? That would make him one of the worst #2 WRs in the NFL. #42 is off too. Jeff's a smart guy, so I figure he has his reasons, but wow.

Seriously, below Moulds? Engram? Chris Henry?

why are you listing him as Jax's #2?

I'm not. I have him as their #1, if not in 2006, then in 2007 and beyond.

 

[-OZ-]

As mentioned in the Wilford Williams thread nothing is settled at WR for the Jags(according to DelRio)yet so any ranking would be reasonable. I had no probs with the rankings

I know it isn't settled, it's June.But, no. Not "any" ranking is reasonable. Reasonable would imply that more than a very small minority would trade the lower ranked player for the higher, or at the least, that the staff member would. I'd love to hear how Jones for Engram or Moulds or Henry (among others) would be a good trade in a dynasty league.

 

[Bri]

As mentioned in the Wilford Williams thread nothing is settled at WR for the Jags(according to DelRio)yet so any ranking would be reasonable. I had no probs with the rankings

I know it isn't settled, it's June.But, no. Not "any" ranking is reasonable. Reasonable would imply that more than a very small minority would trade the lower ranked player for the higher, or at the least, that the staff member would. I'd love to hear how Jones for Engram or Moulds or Henry (among others) would be a good trade in a dynasty league.

EBF? Someone above thought the 3rd in Jax was useless(for FF more or less) so if someone thinks Jones will wind up the #3 well....

 

[Beaumont]

As mentioned in the Wilford Williams thread nothing is settled at WR for the Jags(according to DelRio)yet so any ranking would be reasonable. I had no probs with the rankings

I know it isn't settled, it's June.But, no. Not "any" ranking is reasonable. Reasonable would imply that more than a very small minority would trade the lower ranked player for the higher, or at the least, that the staff member would. I'd love to hear how Jones for Engram or Moulds or Henry (among others) would be a good trade in a dynasty league.

Bobby Engram ranked twenty some points higher than Roddy White? That is badly skewed ...

 

[snarfsnarf]

I've been gone for over a week in Orlando on vacation, and before then I had Jones as the #2 option in Jacksonville behind Wilford.  That hasn't been a good spot historically for WR production, especially with Leftwich, and I had the TE doing more than WR2 in Jacksonville.

All that said, it is time to move Jones up the scale.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

Chris Henry should plummet as well.

Ok, now I'm really confused. The date above your name is yesterday. Did you just update a couple players?

No, when I got back I updated all of my lists so they don't fall off of the 7 days old list.I had not made any changes since I went on vacation.

Jeff, doesn't that defeat the purpose "updating" a list but not changing anything. When I sort by 4 days or less I really want the lists that have updated in the last 4 days. McNair unranked in Dynasty?

 

[snarfsnarf]

I've been gone for over a week in Orlando on vacation, and before then I had Jones as the #2 option in Jacksonville behind Wilford.  That hasn't been a good spot historically for WR production, especially with Leftwich, and I had the TE doing more than WR2 in Jacksonville.

All that said, it is time to move Jones up the scale.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

Chris Henry should plummet as well.

Ok, now I'm really confused. The date above your name is yesterday. Did you just update a couple players?

No, when I got back I updated all of my lists so they don't fall off of the 7 days old list.I had not made any changes since I went on vacation.

Jeff, doesn't that defeat the purpose "updating" a list but not changing anything. When I sort by 4 days or less I really want the lists that have updated in the last 4 days.

 

[coolnerd]

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league.  With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

I guess that's part of the debate. Does a decent #3 NFL WR really warrant a spot on a dynasty team? I'd argue no unless he clearly has a chance to emerge as more than that in the future (i.e. Kevin Curtis, Reggie Williams, and Chris Henry before all of his crimes).

That IS the biggest part of my point. Has Jackson done anything in the NFL? NO. Might he be a complete bust? YES. But he at least has a SHOT to be a good fantasy player, unlike about 30 guys in front of him on the dynasty list. Engram is the perfect example. If I had to bet who'd put up better numbers in 2006, I might go for Engram over Jackson. But if I had to pick a guy who has the best chance to be a top 10 WR at some point in his career, Engram wouldn't even be on the radar while Jackson (and guys like him) would. Sure, in a league that starts 4 WRs or something a guy like Engram could come in handy, but in the vast majority of dynasty leagues, he will NEVER be a regular starter. To me, that's what dynasty is about - finding guys who might actually be able to start for you at some point.

so essentailly, you want Vincent Jackson ranked higher, primarily because he is young? How much has anyone seen of this guy to even give a decent report as to the type of WR he is? It did not happen last year. the vast majority of people did not see him in college. At this point, Jackson is a great body with some opportunity in chargerland. My problem is not with youth, but with valuing him primarily because he is young. I don't have enough information on him to judge whether or not he has potential to an NFL or fantasy starter, much less to have a reasonable guess as whether he can be a top 10 WR.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league.  With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

I guess that's part of the debate. Does a decent #3 NFL WR really warrant a spot on a dynasty team? I'd argue no unless he clearly has a chance to emerge as more than that in the future (i.e. Kevin Curtis, Reggie Williams, and Chris Henry before all of his crimes).

That IS the biggest part of my point. Has Jackson done anything in the NFL? NO. Might he be a complete bust? YES. But he at least has a SHOT to be a good fantasy player, unlike about 30 guys in front of him on the dynasty list. Engram is the perfect example. If I had to bet who'd put up better numbers in 2006, I might go for Engram over Jackson. But if I had to pick a guy who has the best chance to be a top 10 WR at some point in his career, Engram wouldn't even be on the radar while Jackson (and guys like him) would. Sure, in a league that starts 4 WRs or something a guy like Engram could come in handy, but in the vast majority of dynasty leagues, he will NEVER be a regular starter. To me, that's what dynasty is about - finding guys who might actually be able to start for you at some point.

so essentailly, you want Vincent Jackson ranked higher, primarily because he is young? How much has anyone seen of this guy to even give a decent report as to the type of WR he is? It did not happen last year. the vast majority of people did not see him in college. At this point, Jackson is a great body with some opportunity in chargerland. My problem is not with youth, but with valuing him primarily because he is young. I don't have enough information on him to judge whether or not he has potential to an NFL or fantasy starter, much less to have a reasonable guess as whether he can be a top 10 WR.

Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value. Again, no one can be sure he'll be worth anything, but that isn't the point. The point is that he clearly has the potential to be a good WR based on body alone. Then we have the fact that the Chargers liked him enough to draft him in the 2nd in 2005 and DID NOT draft another WR in the 2006 draft at all, despite their #1 WR being 36 years old and losing Caldwell in the off-season. That tells me the Chargers still think Jackson can do something in the NFL. I'm not basing my value of Jackson on my personal scouting of him, but on the Chargers' apparent opinion of him.PLENTY of risk, and I don't think he should be ahead of anyone who has shown he can be (and will be) STARTABLE for fantasy purposes. But Engram? He is ranked 55 by FBG for 2006. He now has a healthy D Jackson in front of him and Burleson to contend with. He's had 1 100 yard game in the last 6 years (when Jackson was hurt). There is very little chance you will EVER start this guy, and he's 20 spots higher than Jackson. Heck, Jeff has him at 41 with Jackson not in the top 75. He has Wes Welker higher. Are you kidding me?

And honestly, this isn't man-love for V Jackson. I think there are several guys that are low relative to a bunch of guys who have had their chance and bombed. For me, a receiver gets three or four years to do their thing. If it hasn't happened by then, it's a very safe bet it'll never happen. Same way if a guy hasn't been productive (fantasy-wise) in three or four years after one or two decent years. Guys like that don't just turn it around, and for dynasty purposes they are essentially worthless.

But 2nd year guys like Jackson, who aren't fresh in everyone's minds based on initial rookie hype, but didn't happen to have great rookie seasons, are consistently undervalued. How much would Steve Smith have cost you in 2002? Nothing. How bout Chad Johnson? NOTHING. Regiie Wayne? A little more, but not much. Santana Moss? Zippy. They are the guys who would have been in the 80s on the 2002 FBG dynasty list below a bunch of guys who are now out of the league. That's my beef.

 

[Jackal]

As mentioned in the Wilford Williams thread nothing is settled at WR for the Jags(according to DelRio)yet so any ranking would be reasonable. I had no probs with the rankings

I know it isn't settled, it's June.But, no. Not "any" ranking is reasonable. Reasonable would imply that more than a very small minority would trade the lower ranked player for the higher, or at the least, that the staff member would. I'd love to hear how Jones for Engram or Moulds or Henry (among others) would be a good trade in a dynasty league.

very, very that i think is the whole point of this thread. to show relative value. someone stated something about having chad jackson aheah of joe horn and eric moulds. damn straight i would give up either of them for chad jackson. the primary reason being age. horn did not look good at all last year and moulds is now playing second fiddle down in houston. even if they have a couple decent years left, i would rather gamble on a wr that the patriots traded up for in a pretty bare wr squad.

 

[Capt Hook]

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league.  With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

I guess that's part of the debate. Does a decent #3 NFL WR really warrant a spot on a dynasty team? I'd argue no unless he clearly has a chance to emerge as more than that in the future (i.e. Kevin Curtis, Reggie Williams, and Chris Henry before all of his crimes).

That IS the biggest part of my point. Has Jackson done anything in the NFL? NO. Might he be a complete bust? YES. But he at least has a SHOT to be a good fantasy player, unlike about 30 guys in front of him on the dynasty list. Engram is the perfect example. If I had to bet who'd put up better numbers in 2006, I might go for Engram over Jackson. But if I had to pick a guy who has the best chance to be a top 10 WR at some point in his career, Engram wouldn't even be on the radar while Jackson (and guys like him) would. Sure, in a league that starts 4 WRs or something a guy like Engram could come in handy, but in the vast majority of dynasty leagues, he will NEVER be a regular starter. To me, that's what dynasty is about - finding guys who might actually be able to start for you at some point.

so essentailly, you want Vincent Jackson ranked higher, primarily because he is young? How much has anyone seen of this guy to even give a decent report as to the type of WR he is? It did not happen last year. the vast majority of people did not see him in college. At this point, Jackson is a great body with some opportunity in chargerland. My problem is not with youth, but with valuing him primarily because he is young. I don't have enough information on him to judge whether or not he has potential to an NFL or fantasy starter, much less to have a reasonable guess as whether he can be a top 10 WR.

Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value. Again, no one can be sure he'll be worth anything, but that isn't the point. The point is that he clearly has the potential to be a good WR based on body alone. Then we have the fact that the Chargers liked him enough to draft him in the 2nd in 2005 and DID NOT draft another WR in the 2006 draft at all, despite their #1 WR being 36 years old and losing Caldwell in the off-season. That tells me the Chargers still think Jackson can do something in the NFL. I'm not basing my value of Jackson on my personal scouting of him, but on the Chargers' apparent opinion of him.PLENTY of risk, and I don't think he should be ahead of anyone who has shown he can be (and will be) STARTABLE for fantasy purposes. But Engram? He is ranked 55 by FBG for 2006. He now has a healthy D Jackson in front of him and Burleson to contend with. He's had 1 100 yard game in the last 6 years (when Jackson was hurt). There is very little chance you will EVER start this guy, and he's 20 spots higher than Jackson. Heck, Jeff has him at 41 with Jackson not in the top 75. He has Wes Welker higher. Are you kidding me?

And honestly, this isn't man-love for V Jackson. I think there are several guys that are low relative to a bunch of guys who have had their chance and bombed. For me, a receiver gets three or four years to do their thing. If it hasn't happened by then, it's a very safe bet it'll never happen. Same way if a guy hasn't been productive (fantasy-wise) in three or four years after one or two decent years. Guys like that don't just turn it around, and for dynasty purposes they are essentially worthless.

But 2nd year guys like Jackson, who aren't fresh in everyone's minds based on initial rookie hype, but didn't happen to have great rookie seasons, are consistently undervalued. How much would Steve Smith have cost you in 2002? Nothing. How bout Chad Johnson? NOTHING. Regiie Wayne? A little more, but not much. Santana Moss? Zippy. They are the guys who would have been in the 80s on the 2002 FBG dynasty list below a bunch of guys who are now out of the league. That's my beef.

If there is not demonstrated skill & potential, the young part doesn't mean crap.I don't understand the "youth at all cost" attitude. Dynasty or not, you still have to win this year, so while you think Engram is just bye week filler, he will likely play and produce better for some needed weeks than Vincent Jackson.

I rank several of this years rookie class ahead of Jackson because of the skills they showed in college AND the situations they are headed to - Chad Jackson>New England; Santonio Holmes>Pittsburgh. If VJax actually catches a few passes this year then maybe you would have someone you want to draft.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league.  With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

I guess that's part of the debate. Does a decent #3 NFL WR really warrant a spot on a dynasty team? I'd argue no unless he clearly has a chance to emerge as more than that in the future (i.e. Kevin Curtis, Reggie Williams, and Chris Henry before all of his crimes).

That IS the biggest part of my point. Has Jackson done anything in the NFL? NO. Might he be a complete bust? YES. But he at least has a SHOT to be a good fantasy player, unlike about 30 guys in front of him on the dynasty list. Engram is the perfect example. If I had to bet who'd put up better numbers in 2006, I might go for Engram over Jackson. But if I had to pick a guy who has the best chance to be a top 10 WR at some point in his career, Engram wouldn't even be on the radar while Jackson (and guys like him) would. Sure, in a league that starts 4 WRs or something a guy like Engram could come in handy, but in the vast majority of dynasty leagues, he will NEVER be a regular starter. To me, that's what dynasty is about - finding guys who might actually be able to start for you at some point.

so essentailly, you want Vincent Jackson ranked higher, primarily because he is young? How much has anyone seen of this guy to even give a decent report as to the type of WR he is? It did not happen last year. the vast majority of people did not see him in college. At this point, Jackson is a great body with some opportunity in chargerland. My problem is not with youth, but with valuing him primarily because he is young. I don't have enough information on him to judge whether or not he has potential to an NFL or fantasy starter, much less to have a reasonable guess as whether he can be a top 10 WR.

Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value. Again, no one can be sure he'll be worth anything, but that isn't the point. The point is that he clearly has the potential to be a good WR based on body alone. Then we have the fact that the Chargers liked him enough to draft him in the 2nd in 2005 and DID NOT draft another WR in the 2006 draft at all, despite their #1 WR being 36 years old and losing Caldwell in the off-season. That tells me the Chargers still think Jackson can do something in the NFL. I'm not basing my value of Jackson on my personal scouting of him, but on the Chargers' apparent opinion of him.PLENTY of risk, and I don't think he should be ahead of anyone who has shown he can be (and will be) STARTABLE for fantasy purposes. But Engram? He is ranked 55 by FBG for 2006. He now has a healthy D Jackson in front of him and Burleson to contend with. He's had 1 100 yard game in the last 6 years (when Jackson was hurt). There is very little chance you will EVER start this guy, and he's 20 spots higher than Jackson. Heck, Jeff has him at 41 with Jackson not in the top 75. He has Wes Welker higher. Are you kidding me?

And honestly, this isn't man-love for V Jackson. I think there are several guys that are low relative to a bunch of guys who have had their chance and bombed. For me, a receiver gets three or four years to do their thing. If it hasn't happened by then, it's a very safe bet it'll never happen. Same way if a guy hasn't been productive (fantasy-wise) in three or four years after one or two decent years. Guys like that don't just turn it around, and for dynasty purposes they are essentially worthless.

But 2nd year guys like Jackson, who aren't fresh in everyone's minds based on initial rookie hype, but didn't happen to have great rookie seasons, are consistently undervalued. How much would Steve Smith have cost you in 2002? Nothing. How bout Chad Johnson? NOTHING. Regiie Wayne? A little more, but not much. Santana Moss? Zippy. They are the guys who would have been in the 80s on the 2002 FBG dynasty list below a bunch of guys who are now out of the league. That's my beef.

If there is not demonstrated skill & potential, the young part doesn't mean crap.I don't understand the "youth at all cost" attitude. Dynasty or not, you still have to win this year, so while you think Engram is just bye week filler, he will likely play and produce better for some needed weeks than Vincent Jackson.

I rank several of this years rookie class ahead of Jackson because of the skills they showed in college AND the situations they are headed to - Chad Jackson>New England; Santonio Holmes>Pittsburgh. If VJax actually catches a few passes this year then maybe you would have someone you want to draft.

Wow. I don't think we are on the same page here. How does "Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value" equate to "youth at all costs". It doesn't, and I've made it pretty clear that youth isn't everything.As for no "demonstrated skill & potential", again you aren't making sense. You can't "demonstrate" potential. If you did, it wouldn't be potential anymore. For demonstrating "skill", I think setting NCAA records and getting drafted in the 2nd round of the NFL draft demonstrates some skill. I hate to keep repeating myself, but you refuse to acknowledge the point: Johnson, Smith, Moss etc didn't demonstrate much of anything in their rookie years either. I'm not willing to drop guys like that to very bottom of a dynasty ranking because they didn't rock the world in their rookie years.

I've got no problem with your 1st round rookies being higher than Jackson you could debate any of those guys having better potential than Jackson (and guys like him). But your journeymen are a different story.

On Engram, you keep talking like he is going to save someone's season this year. FBG ranks him at 55 which puts him as a WR5 give or take. If your WR5 is seeing significant time, you ain't going to the playoffs my friend. In a redraft, he MIGHT be worth rostering. In a dynasty, keep a young guy with potential until you NEED a WR5 type, and then pick one up from the waiver wire. And that COMPLETELY ignores the fact that he is ancient and won't be worth anything at all in another year or two.

If you get ONE 2nd round from Oregen State, 28 catch in his rookie year Chad Johnson, or ONE 3rd round from Utah, 10 catches in his rookie year Steve Smith - he is worth a 1000 Bobby Engrams in FF, even if you have to cycle through a bunch of guys like Terrell, Kelley Washington, Ferguson, etc along the way.

 

[Jackal]

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league.  With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

I guess that's part of the debate. Does a decent #3 NFL WR really warrant a spot on a dynasty team? I'd argue no unless he clearly has a chance to emerge as more than that in the future (i.e. Kevin Curtis, Reggie Williams, and Chris Henry before all of his crimes).

That IS the biggest part of my point. Has Jackson done anything in the NFL? NO. Might he be a complete bust? YES. But he at least has a SHOT to be a good fantasy player, unlike about 30 guys in front of him on the dynasty list. Engram is the perfect example. If I had to bet who'd put up better numbers in 2006, I might go for Engram over Jackson. But if I had to pick a guy who has the best chance to be a top 10 WR at some point in his career, Engram wouldn't even be on the radar while Jackson (and guys like him) would. Sure, in a league that starts 4 WRs or something a guy like Engram could come in handy, but in the vast majority of dynasty leagues, he will NEVER be a regular starter. To me, that's what dynasty is about - finding guys who might actually be able to start for you at some point.

so essentailly, you want Vincent Jackson ranked higher, primarily because he is young? How much has anyone seen of this guy to even give a decent report as to the type of WR he is? It did not happen last year. the vast majority of people did not see him in college. At this point, Jackson is a great body with some opportunity in chargerland. My problem is not with youth, but with valuing him primarily because he is young. I don't have enough information on him to judge whether or not he has potential to an NFL or fantasy starter, much less to have a reasonable guess as whether he can be a top 10 WR.

Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value. Again, no one can be sure he'll be worth anything, but that isn't the point. The point is that he clearly has the potential to be a good WR based on body alone. Then we have the fact that the Chargers liked him enough to draft him in the 2nd in 2005 and DID NOT draft another WR in the 2006 draft at all, despite their #1 WR being 36 years old and losing Caldwell in the off-season. That tells me the Chargers still think Jackson can do something in the NFL. I'm not basing my value of Jackson on my personal scouting of him, but on the Chargers' apparent opinion of him.PLENTY of risk, and I don't think he should be ahead of anyone who has shown he can be (and will be) STARTABLE for fantasy purposes. But Engram? He is ranked 55 by FBG for 2006. He now has a healthy D Jackson in front of him and Burleson to contend with. He's had 1 100 yard game in the last 6 years (when Jackson was hurt). There is very little chance you will EVER start this guy, and he's 20 spots higher than Jackson. Heck, Jeff has him at 41 with Jackson not in the top 75. He has Wes Welker higher. Are you kidding me?

And honestly, this isn't man-love for V Jackson. I think there are several guys that are low relative to a bunch of guys who have had their chance and bombed. For me, a receiver gets three or four years to do their thing. If it hasn't happened by then, it's a very safe bet it'll never happen. Same way if a guy hasn't been productive (fantasy-wise) in three or four years after one or two decent years. Guys like that don't just turn it around, and for dynasty purposes they are essentially worthless.

But 2nd year guys like Jackson, who aren't fresh in everyone's minds based on initial rookie hype, but didn't happen to have great rookie seasons, are consistently undervalued. How much would Steve Smith have cost you in 2002? Nothing. How bout Chad Johnson? NOTHING. Regiie Wayne? A little more, but not much. Santana Moss? Zippy. They are the guys who would have been in the 80s on the 2002 FBG dynasty list below a bunch of guys who are now out of the league. That's my beef.

If there is not demonstrated skill & potential, the young part doesn't mean crap.I don't understand the "youth at all cost" attitude. Dynasty or not, you still have to win this year, so while you think Engram is just bye week filler, he will likely play and produce better for some needed weeks than Vincent Jackson.

I rank several of this years rookie class ahead of Jackson because of the skills they showed in college AND the situations they are headed to - Chad Jackson>New England; Santonio Holmes>Pittsburgh. If VJax actually catches a few passes this year then maybe you would have someone you want to draft.

Wow. I don't think we are on the same page here. How does "Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value" equate to "youth at all costs". It doesn't, and I've made it pretty clear that youth isn't everything.As for no "demonstrated skill & potential", again you aren't making sense. You can't "demonstrate" potential. If you did, it wouldn't be potential anymore. For demonstrating "skill", I think setting NCAA records and getting drafted in the 2nd round of the NFL draft demonstrates some skill. I hate to keep repeating myself, but you refuse to acknowledge the point: Johnson, Smith, Moss etc didn't demonstrate much of anything in their rookie years either. I'm not willing to drop guys like that to very bottom of a dynasty ranking because they didn't rock the world in their rookie years.

I've got no problem with your 1st round rookies being higher than Jackson you could debate any of those guys having better potential than Jackson (and guys like him). But your journeymen are a different story.

On Engram, you keep talking like he is going to save someone's season this year. FBG ranks him at 55 which puts him as a WR5 give or take. If your WR5 is seeing significant time, you ain't going to the playoffs my friend. In a redraft, he MIGHT be worth rostering. In a dynasty, keep a young guy with potential until you NEED a WR5 type, and then pick one up from the waiver wire. And that COMPLETELY ignores the fact that he is ancient and won't be worth anything at all in another year or two.

If you get ONE 2nd round from Oregen State, 28 catch in his rookie year Chad Johnson, or ONE 3rd round from Utah, 10 catches in his rookie year Steve Smith - he is worth a 1000 Bobby Engrams in FF, even if you have to cycle through a bunch of guys like Terrell, Kelley Washington, Ferguson, etc along the way.

agree wholeheartedly

 

[EBF]

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league.  With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

I guess that's part of the debate. Does a decent #3 NFL WR really warrant a spot on a dynasty team? I'd argue no unless he clearly has a chance to emerge as more than that in the future (i.e. Kevin Curtis, Reggie Williams, and Chris Henry before all of his crimes).

That IS the biggest part of my point. Has Jackson done anything in the NFL? NO. Might he be a complete bust? YES. But he at least has a SHOT to be a good fantasy player, unlike about 30 guys in front of him on the dynasty list. Engram is the perfect example. If I had to bet who'd put up better numbers in 2006, I might go for Engram over Jackson. But if I had to pick a guy who has the best chance to be a top 10 WR at some point in his career, Engram wouldn't even be on the radar while Jackson (and guys like him) would. Sure, in a league that starts 4 WRs or something a guy like Engram could come in handy, but in the vast majority of dynasty leagues, he will NEVER be a regular starter. To me, that's what dynasty is about - finding guys who might actually be able to start for you at some point.

so essentailly, you want Vincent Jackson ranked higher, primarily because he is young? How much has anyone seen of this guy to even give a decent report as to the type of WR he is? It did not happen last year. the vast majority of people did not see him in college. At this point, Jackson is a great body with some opportunity in chargerland. My problem is not with youth, but with valuing him primarily because he is young. I don't have enough information on him to judge whether or not he has potential to an NFL or fantasy starter, much less to have a reasonable guess as whether he can be a top 10 WR.

Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value. Again, no one can be sure he'll be worth anything, but that isn't the point. The point is that he clearly has the potential to be a good WR based on body alone. Then we have the fact that the Chargers liked him enough to draft him in the 2nd in 2005 and DID NOT draft another WR in the 2006 draft at all, despite their #1 WR being 36 years old and losing Caldwell in the off-season. That tells me the Chargers still think Jackson can do something in the NFL. I'm not basing my value of Jackson on my personal scouting of him, but on the Chargers' apparent opinion of him.PLENTY of risk, and I don't think he should be ahead of anyone who has shown he can be (and will be) STARTABLE for fantasy purposes. But Engram? He is ranked 55 by FBG for 2006. He now has a healthy D Jackson in front of him and Burleson to contend with. He's had 1 100 yard game in the last 6 years (when Jackson was hurt). There is very little chance you will EVER start this guy, and he's 20 spots higher than Jackson. Heck, Jeff has him at 41 with Jackson not in the top 75. He has Wes Welker higher. Are you kidding me?

And honestly, this isn't man-love for V Jackson. I think there are several guys that are low relative to a bunch of guys who have had their chance and bombed. For me, a receiver gets three or four years to do their thing. If it hasn't happened by then, it's a very safe bet it'll never happen. Same way if a guy hasn't been productive (fantasy-wise) in three or four years after one or two decent years. Guys like that don't just turn it around, and for dynasty purposes they are essentially worthless.

But 2nd year guys like Jackson, who aren't fresh in everyone's minds based on initial rookie hype, but didn't happen to have great rookie seasons, are consistently undervalued. How much would Steve Smith have cost you in 2002? Nothing. How bout Chad Johnson? NOTHING. Regiie Wayne? A little more, but not much. Santana Moss? Zippy. They are the guys who would have been in the 80s on the 2002 FBG dynasty list below a bunch of guys who are now out of the league. That's my beef.

If there is not demonstrated skill & potential, the young part doesn't mean crap.I don't understand the "youth at all cost" attitude. Dynasty or not, you still have to win this year, so while you think Engram is just bye week filler, he will likely play and produce better for some needed weeks than Vincent Jackson.

I rank several of this years rookie class ahead of Jackson because of the skills they showed in college AND the situations they are headed to - Chad Jackson>New England; Santonio Holmes>Pittsburgh. If VJax actually catches a few passes this year then maybe you would have someone you want to draft.

Wow. I don't think we are on the same page here. How does "Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value" equate to "youth at all costs". It doesn't, and I've made it pretty clear that youth isn't everything.As for no "demonstrated skill & potential", again you aren't making sense. You can't "demonstrate" potential. If you did, it wouldn't be potential anymore. For demonstrating "skill", I think setting NCAA records and getting drafted in the 2nd round of the NFL draft demonstrates some skill. I hate to keep repeating myself, but you refuse to acknowledge the point: Johnson, Smith, Moss etc didn't demonstrate much of anything in their rookie years either. I'm not willing to drop guys like that to very bottom of a dynasty ranking because they didn't rock the world in their rookie years.

I've got no problem with your 1st round rookies being higher than Jackson you could debate any of those guys having better potential than Jackson (and guys like him). But your journeymen are a different story.

On Engram, you keep talking like he is going to save someone's season this year. FBG ranks him at 55 which puts him as a WR5 give or take. If your WR5 is seeing significant time, you ain't going to the playoffs my friend. In a redraft, he MIGHT be worth rostering. In a dynasty, keep a young guy with potential until you NEED a WR5 type, and then pick one up from the waiver wire. And that COMPLETELY ignores the fact that he is ancient and won't be worth anything at all in another year or two.

If you get ONE 2nd round from Oregen State, 28 catch in his rookie year Chad Johnson, or ONE 3rd round from Utah, 10 catches in his rookie year Steve Smith - he is worth a 1000 Bobby Engrams in FF, even if you have to cycle through a bunch of guys like Terrell, Kelley Washington, Ferguson, etc along the way.

I love to use my late dynasty picks on untested young players with a good pedigree. Last year in an IDP dynasty draft, I got Kevin Curtis in the 17th round and Michael Turner in the 30th round. A few years earlier, I got Anquan Boldin in the 19th round.

People act like these are unique cases, but it happens almost every year. Guys like Nate Burleson, Antonio Bryant, Steve Smith, Deion Branch, Chad Johnson, and Chris Chambers seem to come along every season.

 

[Tick]

I don't think they're too bad overall, although I do think some of the staff members are overly forgiving of players who have been in the league for years and have shown little signs of life. There's almost no way I'd take a guy like Cedrick Wilson, Bobby Engram, or Justin McCareins over someone like Derek Hagan or Vincent Jackson in a dynasty league. You pretty much know the former group will never be more than bye week fodder, whereas the untested young guys at least have a chance to emerge and surprise.

Really? I picked Hagan up in a rookie draft this year, but I'd trade him for McCareins easily. McCareins has had a lot of Brooks Bollinger to deal with since his breakout season in Tennessee. If he got into a better QB situation, I think he'd take off.

 

[Donnybrook]

Updated Jones and Wilford.

I'll investigate it a little further this week.

Discussions for my rankings are always welcome.

Hey Jeff,I know your an Eagles fan but ranking Reggie Brown at 21 over players like Javon Walker and Braylon Edwards seems silly IMO. There I said it.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I don't think they're too bad overall, although I do think some of the staff members are overly forgiving of players who have been in the league for years and have shown little signs of life. There's almost no way I'd take a guy like Cedrick Wilson, Bobby Engram, or Justin McCareins over someone like Derek Hagan or Vincent Jackson in a dynasty league. You pretty much know the former group will never be more than bye week fodder, whereas the untested young guys at least have a chance to emerge and surprise.

Really? I picked Hagan up in a rookie draft this year, but I'd trade him for McCareins easily. McCareins has had a lot of Brooks Bollinger to deal with since his breakout season in Tennessee. If he got into a better QB situation, I think he'd take off.

Quick, name 3 receivers who went 5 years without breaking 1000 yards and then went on to be a guy anyone would want to start in a fantasy league.I can think of a few rare cases where a guy finally put it together in their 5th year (Horn, Mason [had 900 in year 4 as well]), but I didn't find ANYONE in the current list of startable WRs who was first startable in their 6th year or later.

Edit: I just found one. Eddie Kennison barely fits the profile. He had 924 yards and 9 TDs in his rookie year, barely missing the threshold of a 1000 yard season (which is admittedly somewhat arbitrary).

 

[coolnerd]

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league.  With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

I guess that's part of the debate. Does a decent #3 NFL WR really warrant a spot on a dynasty team? I'd argue no unless he clearly has a chance to emerge as more than that in the future (i.e. Kevin Curtis, Reggie Williams, and Chris Henry before all of his crimes).

That IS the biggest part of my point. Has Jackson done anything in the NFL? NO. Might he be a complete bust? YES. But he at least has a SHOT to be a good fantasy player, unlike about 30 guys in front of him on the dynasty list. Engram is the perfect example. If I had to bet who'd put up better numbers in 2006, I might go for Engram over Jackson. But if I had to pick a guy who has the best chance to be a top 10 WR at some point in his career, Engram wouldn't even be on the radar while Jackson (and guys like him) would. Sure, in a league that starts 4 WRs or something a guy like Engram could come in handy, but in the vast majority of dynasty leagues, he will NEVER be a regular starter. To me, that's what dynasty is about - finding guys who might actually be able to start for you at some point.

so essentailly, you want Vincent Jackson ranked higher, primarily because he is young? How much has anyone seen of this guy to even give a decent report as to the type of WR he is? It did not happen last year. the vast majority of people did not see him in college. At this point, Jackson is a great body with some opportunity in chargerland. My problem is not with youth, but with valuing him primarily because he is young. I don't have enough information on him to judge whether or not he has potential to an NFL or fantasy starter, much less to have a reasonable guess as whether he can be a top 10 WR.

Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value. Again, no one can be sure he'll be worth anything, but that isn't the point. The point is that he clearly has the potential to be a good WR based on body alone. Then we have the fact that the Chargers liked him enough to draft him in the 2nd in 2005 and DID NOT draft another WR in the 2006 draft at all, despite their #1 WR being 36 years old and losing Caldwell in the off-season. That tells me the Chargers still think Jackson can do something in the NFL. I'm not basing my value of Jackson on my personal scouting of him, but on the Chargers' apparent opinion of him.PLENTY of risk, and I don't think he should be ahead of anyone who has shown he can be (and will be) STARTABLE for fantasy purposes. But Engram? He is ranked 55 by FBG for 2006. He now has a healthy D Jackson in front of him and Burleson to contend with. He's had 1 100 yard game in the last 6 years (when Jackson was hurt). There is very little chance you will EVER start this guy, and he's 20 spots higher than Jackson. Heck, Jeff has him at 41 with Jackson not in the top 75. He has Wes Welker higher. Are you kidding me?

And honestly, this isn't man-love for V Jackson. I think there are several guys that are low relative to a bunch of guys who have had their chance and bombed. For me, a receiver gets three or four years to do their thing. If it hasn't happened by then, it's a very safe bet it'll never happen. Same way if a guy hasn't been productive (fantasy-wise) in three or four years after one or two decent years. Guys like that don't just turn it around, and for dynasty purposes they are essentially worthless.

But 2nd year guys like Jackson, who aren't fresh in everyone's minds based on initial rookie hype, but didn't happen to have great rookie seasons, are consistently undervalued. How much would Steve Smith have cost you in 2002? Nothing. How bout Chad Johnson? NOTHING. Regiie Wayne? A little more, but not much. Santana Moss? Zippy. They are the guys who would have been in the 80s on the 2002 FBG dynasty list below a bunch of guys who are now out of the league. That's my beef.

If there is not demonstrated skill & potential, the young part doesn't mean crap.I don't understand the "youth at all cost" attitude. Dynasty or not, you still have to win this year, so while you think Engram is just bye week filler, he will likely play and produce better for some needed weeks than Vincent Jackson.

I rank several of this years rookie class ahead of Jackson because of the skills they showed in college AND the situations they are headed to - Chad Jackson>New England; Santonio Holmes>Pittsburgh. If VJax actually catches a few passes this year then maybe you would have someone you want to draft.

Wow. I don't think we are on the same page here. How does "Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value" equate to "youth at all costs". It doesn't, and I've made it pretty clear that youth isn't everything.As for no "demonstrated skill & potential", again you aren't making sense. You can't "demonstrate" potential. If you did, it wouldn't be potential anymore. For demonstrating "skill", I think setting NCAA records and getting drafted in the 2nd round of the NFL draft demonstrates some skill. I hate to keep repeating myself, but you refuse to acknowledge the point: Johnson, Smith, Moss etc didn't demonstrate much of anything in their rookie years either. I'm not willing to drop guys like that to very bottom of a dynasty ranking because they didn't rock the world in their rookie years.

I've got no problem with your 1st round rookies being higher than Jackson you could debate any of those guys having better potential than Jackson (and guys like him). But your journeymen are a different story.

On Engram, you keep talking like he is going to save someone's season this year. FBG ranks him at 55 which puts him as a WR5 give or take. If your WR5 is seeing significant time, you ain't going to the playoffs my friend. In a redraft, he MIGHT be worth rostering. In a dynasty, keep a young guy with potential until you NEED a WR5 type, and then pick one up from the waiver wire. And that COMPLETELY ignores the fact that he is ancient and won't be worth anything at all in another year or two.

If you get ONE 2nd round from Oregen State, 28 catch in his rookie year Chad Johnson, or ONE 3rd round from Utah, 10 catches in his rookie year Steve Smith - he is worth a 1000 Bobby Engrams in FF, even if you have to cycle through a bunch of guys like Terrell, Kelley Washington, Ferguson, etc along the way.

I love to use my late dynasty picks on untested young players with a good pedigree. Last year in an IDP dynasty draft, I got Kevin Curtis in the 17th round and Michael Turner in the 30th round. A few years earlier, I got Anquan Boldin in the 19th round.

People act like these are unique cases, but it happens almost every year. Guys like Nate Burleson, Antonio Bryant, Steve Smith, Deion Branch, Chad Johnson, and Chris Chambers seem to come along every season.

In my zealots draft you could have had Mike Anderson in the 42nd round (mine) and Joey Galloway in the 25th round (another team). I believe that the myth is that "breakout" players only come from youth. Every year there are as many if not more players who go from boring fill-in guy to fantasy starter as the youngsters who breakout. In other words, there will be a Ferguson, Gaffney, wilson, McCareins, Booker etc. who jump up to 35 or higher overall. Every year there are written off players who provide the difference for many teams bewteen winning or not.The question for me is not that there is not value in taking the Vincent Jackson's of the world, but how do we become more efficient in determining if Vincent Jackson is Tyrone Calico or Anquan Boldin. In analyzing Jackson there was nothing but an athletic body drafted in the 2nd round. Other 2nd rounders like Mark Bradley, even though injuried, have provided me with at least a spark of NFL production to argue for a higher ranking. Personally, I am not interested in throwing endless darts at the board in then bragging when one of them finally hits bulleye.

 

[Donnybrook]

Quick, name 3 receivers who went 5 years without breaking 1000 yards and then went on to be a guy anyone would want to start in a fantasy league.

Keenan McCardellT.J. Houshmandzadeh

Brandon Stokley (You may not want to start him now but 2004 he was a must start)

What do I win?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Quick, name 3 receivers who went 5 years without breaking 1000 yards and then went on to be a guy anyone would want to start in a fantasy league.

Keenan McCardellT.J. Houshmandzadeh

Brandon Stokley (You may not want to start him now but 2004 he was a must start)

What do I win?

You win nothing except a pat on the back because 2 of 3 didn't go 5 years without a 1000 yard season and the third is a bit iffy in terms of "startable".McCardell first had 1000 yards in his 5th year (therefore, he did not "go 5 years without breaking 1000). A late bloomer for sure, but even he broke out within 5.

TJ has only been in the league 4 years. This will be his 5th. He was a solid starter last year but he was also a marginal starter in his 3rd year, when he truly "broke out".

Stokely did indeed go 5 years and then "break out". But come on, the guy was just the dude no one covered because of Harrison and Wayne and Edge on a team going through a record-breaking offensive season. He's a great feel-good story, but where is his dynasty value now?

Point is with guys like McCairens, it is very very unlikely that after 5 years in the league with very mediocre performance he's going to turn into fantasy gold - history shows us it doesn't really happen. But hey, if McCairens happens to find himself as the 3rd receiver on one of the best offenses in NFL history some year, he could pull a Stokely and be a very nice fantasy option. Of course you could say that about a LOT of receivers.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Gabriel- is one of the better number 3 WRs in the league.  With Moss' recent history of injury and Porter history of disapearing. Probably worth a fill-in, pick up role at some point. 50-60 overall

Engram- top 3 WR with one of the better passing games in the league...Not special but rather trust him to fill in a week than Jackson over the next couple of years.

I guess that's part of the debate. Does a decent #3 NFL WR really warrant a spot on a dynasty team? I'd argue no unless he clearly has a chance to emerge as more than that in the future (i.e. Kevin Curtis, Reggie Williams, and Chris Henry before all of his crimes).

That IS the biggest part of my point. Has Jackson done anything in the NFL? NO. Might he be a complete bust? YES. But he at least has a SHOT to be a good fantasy player, unlike about 30 guys in front of him on the dynasty list. Engram is the perfect example. If I had to bet who'd put up better numbers in 2006, I might go for Engram over Jackson. But if I had to pick a guy who has the best chance to be a top 10 WR at some point in his career, Engram wouldn't even be on the radar while Jackson (and guys like him) would. Sure, in a league that starts 4 WRs or something a guy like Engram could come in handy, but in the vast majority of dynasty leagues, he will NEVER be a regular starter. To me, that's what dynasty is about - finding guys who might actually be able to start for you at some point.

so essentailly, you want Vincent Jackson ranked higher, primarily because he is young? How much has anyone seen of this guy to even give a decent report as to the type of WR he is? It did not happen last year. the vast majority of people did not see him in college. At this point, Jackson is a great body with some opportunity in chargerland. My problem is not with youth, but with valuing him primarily because he is young. I don't have enough information on him to judge whether or not he has potential to an NFL or fantasy starter, much less to have a reasonable guess as whether he can be a top 10 WR.

Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value. Again, no one can be sure he'll be worth anything, but that isn't the point. The point is that he clearly has the potential to be a good WR based on body alone. Then we have the fact that the Chargers liked him enough to draft him in the 2nd in 2005 and DID NOT draft another WR in the 2006 draft at all, despite their #1 WR being 36 years old and losing Caldwell in the off-season. That tells me the Chargers still think Jackson can do something in the NFL. I'm not basing my value of Jackson on my personal scouting of him, but on the Chargers' apparent opinion of him.PLENTY of risk, and I don't think he should be ahead of anyone who has shown he can be (and will be) STARTABLE for fantasy purposes. But Engram? He is ranked 55 by FBG for 2006. He now has a healthy D Jackson in front of him and Burleson to contend with. He's had 1 100 yard game in the last 6 years (when Jackson was hurt). There is very little chance you will EVER start this guy, and he's 20 spots higher than Jackson. Heck, Jeff has him at 41 with Jackson not in the top 75. He has Wes Welker higher. Are you kidding me?

And honestly, this isn't man-love for V Jackson. I think there are several guys that are low relative to a bunch of guys who have had their chance and bombed. For me, a receiver gets three or four years to do their thing. If it hasn't happened by then, it's a very safe bet it'll never happen. Same way if a guy hasn't been productive (fantasy-wise) in three or four years after one or two decent years. Guys like that don't just turn it around, and for dynasty purposes they are essentially worthless.

But 2nd year guys like Jackson, who aren't fresh in everyone's minds based on initial rookie hype, but didn't happen to have great rookie seasons, are consistently undervalued. How much would Steve Smith have cost you in 2002? Nothing. How bout Chad Johnson? NOTHING. Regiie Wayne? A little more, but not much. Santana Moss? Zippy. They are the guys who would have been in the 80s on the 2002 FBG dynasty list below a bunch of guys who are now out of the league. That's my beef.

If there is not demonstrated skill & potential, the young part doesn't mean crap.I don't understand the "youth at all cost" attitude. Dynasty or not, you still have to win this year, so while you think Engram is just bye week filler, he will likely play and produce better for some needed weeks than Vincent Jackson.

I rank several of this years rookie class ahead of Jackson because of the skills they showed in college AND the situations they are headed to - Chad Jackson>New England; Santonio Holmes>Pittsburgh. If VJax actually catches a few passes this year then maybe you would have someone you want to draft.

Wow. I don't think we are on the same page here. How does "Yeah, youth is a (not the, but A) driving force in dynasty league value" equate to "youth at all costs". It doesn't, and I've made it pretty clear that youth isn't everything.As for no "demonstrated skill & potential", again you aren't making sense. You can't "demonstrate" potential. If you did, it wouldn't be potential anymore. For demonstrating "skill", I think setting NCAA records and getting drafted in the 2nd round of the NFL draft demonstrates some skill. I hate to keep repeating myself, but you refuse to acknowledge the point: Johnson, Smith, Moss etc didn't demonstrate much of anything in their rookie years either. I'm not willing to drop guys like that to very bottom of a dynasty ranking because they didn't rock the world in their rookie years.

I've got no problem with your 1st round rookies being higher than Jackson you could debate any of those guys having better potential than Jackson (and guys like him). But your journeymen are a different story.

On Engram, you keep talking like he is going to save someone's season this year. FBG ranks him at 55 which puts him as a WR5 give or take. If your WR5 is seeing significant time, you ain't going to the playoffs my friend. In a redraft, he MIGHT be worth rostering. In a dynasty, keep a young guy with potential until you NEED a WR5 type, and then pick one up from the waiver wire. And that COMPLETELY ignores the fact that he is ancient and won't be worth anything at all in another year or two.

If you get ONE 2nd round from Oregen State, 28 catch in his rookie year Chad Johnson, or ONE 3rd round from Utah, 10 catches in his rookie year Steve Smith - he is worth a 1000 Bobby Engrams in FF, even if you have to cycle through a bunch of guys like Terrell, Kelley Washington, Ferguson, etc along the way.

I love to use my late dynasty picks on untested young players with a good pedigree. Last year in an IDP dynasty draft, I got Kevin Curtis in the 17th round and Michael Turner in the 30th round. A few years earlier, I got Anquan Boldin in the 19th round.

People act like these are unique cases, but it happens almost every year. Guys like Nate Burleson, Antonio Bryant, Steve Smith, Deion Branch, Chad Johnson, and Chris Chambers seem to come along every season.

In my zealots draft you could have had Mike Anderson in the 42nd round (mine) and Joey Galloway in the 25th round (another team). I believe that the myth is that "breakout" players only come from youth. Every year there are as many if not more players who go from boring fill-in guy to fantasy starter as the youngsters who breakout. In other words, there will be a Ferguson, Gaffney, wilson, McCareins, Booker etc. who jump up to 35 or higher overall. Every year there are written off players who provide the difference for many teams bewteen winning or not.The question for me is not that there is not value in taking the Vincent Jackson's of the world, but how do we become more efficient in determining if Vincent Jackson is Tyrone Calico or Anquan Boldin. In analyzing Jackson there was nothing but an athletic body drafted in the 2nd round. Other 2nd rounders like Mark Bradley, even though injuried, have provided me with at least a spark of NFL production to argue for a higher ranking. Personally, I am not interested in throwing endless darts at the board in then bragging when one of them finally hits bulleye.

Sure vets "rebreak" out. I like those guys too. But look at your two examples. One is a RB - which isn't really the same discussion at all. The other is an extremely talented, former high 1st round pick guy who happened to have AVERAGED over a 1000 yard season over his first 4 years in the league. Then he held out for a year, then got a bad injury the following year and then worked his way back. He is the OPPOSITE of the guys I am talking about. It's not like he struggled for many years when he came into the league, he was and is a premier talent.As for Bradley, he is just another example of a "Jackson"-like player in my book. I'd rather have him than Engram in a dynasty league too.

 

[EBF]

I also got Terry Glenn in the 28th round of my Zealots draft last year, but that's a different discussion. We're not talking about proven talents who have been unfairly written off. We're talking about mediocre journeymen like Cedrick Wilson, Justin McCareins, and Bobby Engram. I'd argue that Derek Hagan or Vincent Jackson trumps those guys any day.

 

[Donnybrook]

Quick, name 3 receivers who went 5 years without breaking 1000 yards and then went on to be a guy anyone would want to start in a fantasy league.

Keenan McCardellT.J. Houshmandzadeh

Brandon Stokley (You may not want to start him now but 2004 he was a must start)

What do I win?

You win nothing except a pat on the back because 2 of 3 didn't go 5 years without a 1000 yard season and the third is a bit iffy in terms of "startable".McCardell first had 1000 yards in his 5th year (therefore, he did not "go 5 years without breaking 1000). A late bloomer for sure, but even he broke out within 5.

TJ has only been in the league 4 years. This will be his 5th. He was a solid starter last year but he was also a marginal starter in his 3rd year, when he truly "broke out".

Stokely did indeed go 5 years and then "break out". But come on, the guy was just the dude no one covered because of Harrison and Wayne and Edge on a team going through a record-breaking offensive season. He's a great feel-good story, but where is his dynasty value now?

Point is with guys like McCairens, it is very very unlikely that after 5 years in the league with very mediocre performance he's going to turn into fantasy gold - history shows us it doesn't really happen. But hey, if McCairens happens to find himself as the 3rd receiver on one of the best offenses in NFL history some year, he could pull a Stokely and be a very nice fantasy option. Of course you could say that about a LOT of receivers.

These are the stats I am relying on: Keenan McCardell, T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Brandon StokleyIf a player fails to catch a pass in any given season then you are suggesting that year doesn’t count. I am not sure I agree with you but I will let it slide since it looks like I am not winning anything anyways. :(

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Quick, name 3 receivers who went 5 years without breaking 1000 yards and then went on to be a guy anyone would want to start in a fantasy league.

Keenan McCardellT.J. Houshmandzadeh

Brandon Stokley (You may not want to start him now but 2004 he was a must start)

What do I win?

You win nothing except a pat on the back because 2 of 3 didn't go 5 years without a 1000 yard season and the third is a bit iffy in terms of "startable".McCardell first had 1000 yards in his 5th year (therefore, he did not "go 5 years without breaking 1000). A late bloomer for sure, but even he broke out within 5.

TJ has only been in the league 4 years. This will be his 5th. He was a solid starter last year but he was also a marginal starter in his 3rd year, when he truly "broke out".

Stokely did indeed go 5 years and then "break out". But come on, the guy was just the dude no one covered because of Harrison and Wayne and Edge on a team going through a record-breaking offensive season. He's a great feel-good story, but where is his dynasty value now?

Point is with guys like McCairens, it is very very unlikely that after 5 years in the league with very mediocre performance he's going to turn into fantasy gold - history shows us it doesn't really happen. But hey, if McCairens happens to find himself as the 3rd receiver on one of the best offenses in NFL history some year, he could pull a Stokely and be a very nice fantasy option. Of course you could say that about a LOT of receivers.

These are the stats I am relying on: Keenan McCardell, T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Brandon StokleyIf a player fails to catch a pass in any given season then you are suggesting that year doesn’t count. I am not sure I agree with you but I will let it slide since it looks like I am not winning anything anyways. :(

Fair enough, I conceed. I'm not sure McCardell actually "played" for the Skins in 1991 since he didn't see any game action, but I guess for the purposes of this discussion, he is a good counter. He is one of the rare guys that didn't anything for a long time and then actually became a good (though NEVER really great) fantasy player.I did miss TJ's 2003, but in his first real oppurtunity (now his 4th year) he put up nearly 1000 yards, so I'm not sure he's a good example.

Stokely I've already talked about.

Still, I admit you did find three guy who I guess technically fit the criteria.

 

[Bears_Man2]

No slight to anyone else, but I really only look at Bloom's fantasy rankings there. He seems to do a nice job ranking on potential value w/o overdoing it. (Guys like Schaub, Perry and so forth)

And I agree with the original poster, I'd rather own Vincent Jackson's potential than journeyman WR's.