Go deeps Updated Dynasty Rankings (2 Viewers)

[SSOG]

Or maybe i might be right?Who looked more talented today, Forte or Foster?

I didn't realize we were measuring talent on a game-by-game basis. Okay, if you want to play that game, that sounds like fun.Week 1- Matt Forte averaged 2.9 yards per carry. He had a huge receiving day, but Foster had 240 yards and 3 scores and actually topped 3 ypc, so I'd say Foster looked more talented that week.Week 2- 2.9 ypc for Forte, 3.6 for Foster. Neither RB looked super talented, but Foster more than doubled Forte's yardage total, so let's go with Foster again.Week 3- 2.6 ypc for Forte, 6.2 for Foster. It's hard to look more talented than ANYONE when you're averaging 2.6 ypc. Advantage: Foster.Week 4- 2.2 ypc for Forte, 8.2 for Foster. Advantage: Foster.So, give Forte the advantage in week 5 and we're looking at a 4-1 decision for Arian Foster. You sure you want to do this whole "who looked more talented on any given day" game to justify your Forte-over-Foster ranking?Look, Forte had a great game, and that's great for him, but the simple fact is that it's week 5 and he just topped 3 yards per carry for the first time this entire season. And this isn't a new development, either- prior to this week, Forte failed to reach 3 ypc in 9 of his last 20 games. That's 45%. He'd only topped 4 ypc five times in the last 20 games (and one of those games was a 6/24 rushing line). Even in his magical rookie seasons, he had 4.0 ypc or fewer in 12 of 16 games. He's a garbage runner. We have a massive, crushing, overwhelming sample of evidence bludgeoning us over the head with that simple fact. Garbage. Or, if you think that criticism is too harsh, then he's a piss-poor runner in the most garbage situation in the NFL. It'll take more than a great day against a very good Carolina run defense to change that simple fact. Now, if you'd prefer a piss-poor runner in a garbage situation with a tiny bit of long-term job stability over a non-garbage runner in an amazing job situation with little (in your mind) long-term job stability, then that's your prerogative... but I think you're spectacularly off base.You want to rank Foster low, that's just fine, but I still see absolutely no way to justify anyone ranking Matt Forte or Marshawn Lynch over Arian Foster. There's no way that that's the result of a good process.

 

[Go deep]

Or maybe i might be right?Who looked more talented today, Forte or Foster?

I didn't realize we were measuring talent on a game-by-game basis. Okay, if you want to play that game, that sounds like fun.Week 1- Matt Forte averaged 2.9 yards per carry. He had a huge receiving day, but Foster had 240 yards and 3 scores and actually topped 3 ypc, so I'd say Foster looked more talented that week.Week 2- 2.9 ypc for Forte, 3.6 for Foster. Neither RB looked super talented, but Foster more than doubled Forte's yardage total, so let's go with Foster again.Week 3- 2.6 ypc for Forte, 6.2 for Foster. It's hard to look more talented than ANYONE when you're averaging 2.6 ypc. Advantage: Foster.Week 4- 2.2 ypc for Forte, 8.2 for Foster. Advantage: Foster.So, give Forte the advantage in week 5 and we're looking at a 4-1 decision for Arian Foster. You sure you want to do this whole "who looked more talented on any given day" game to justify your Forte-over-Foster ranking?Look, Forte had a great game, and that's great for him, but the simple fact is that it's week 5 and he just topped 3 yards per carry for the first time this entire season. And this isn't a new development, either- prior to this week, Forte failed to reach 3 ypc in 9 of his last 20 games. That's 45%. He'd only topped 4 ypc five times in the last 20 games (and one of those games was a 6/24 rushing line). Even in his magical rookie seasons, he had 4.0 ypc or fewer in 12 of 16 games. He's a garbage runner. We have a massive, crushing, overwhelming sample of evidence bludgeoning us over the head with that simple fact. Garbage. Or, if you think that criticism is too harsh, then he's a piss-poor runner in the most garbage situation in the NFL. It'll take more than a great day against a very good Carolina run defense to change that simple fact. Now, if you'd prefer a piss-poor runner in a garbage situation with a tiny bit of long-term job stability over a non-garbage runner in an amazing job situation with little (in your mind) long-term job stability, then that's your prerogative... but I think you're spectacularly off base.You want to rank Foster low, that's just fine, but I still see absolutely no way to justify anyone ranking Matt Forte or Marshawn Lynch over Arian Foster. There's no way that that's the result of a good process.

I will admit Forte is only an average NFL runner, but he is one of the best pass catching backs in the NFL. Not to mention his OLine has been one of the worst in the NFL over the last couple years. Even though he is only an average NFL runner, he does everything else well, and has a pretty good hold on that Chicago RB job for the forseeable future. I can understand people not agreeing with my not having Foster in the top 20, but i do not understand why people think i am crazy or being stubborn. The Texans obviously didnt have any faith in him after last season or they wouldnt have drafted Tate. Foster only got the starting job because Tate got hurt. Sure, he has played well, but he had two big games....against maybe the two worst run defenses in the league. So i am suppose to put a player who i dont believe is any better than average in the top 15 based on two games?Could i be wrong about Foster, sure, but right now i feel comfortable with my ranking of him, and todays game did nothing to change my mind.

 

[SSOG]

I will admit Forte is only an average NFL runner, but he is one of the best pass catching backs in the NFL. Not to mention his OLine has been one of the worst in the NFL over the last couple years. Even though he is only an average NFL runner, he does everything else well, and has a pretty good hold on that Chicago RB job for the forseeable future.

I can understand people not agreeing with my not having Foster in the top 20, but i do not understand why people think i am crazy or being stubborn. The Texans obviously didnt have any faith in him after last season or they wouldnt have drafted Tate. Foster only got the starting job because Tate got hurt. Sure, he has played well, but he had two big games....against maybe the two worst run defenses in the league. So i am suppose to put a player who i dont believe is any better than average in the top 15 based on two games?

Could i be wrong about Foster, sure, but right now i feel comfortable with my ranking of him, and todays game did nothing to change my mind.

:( Drafting Tate in the 2nd meant the Texans obviously didn't have any faith in Foster? Well then, the Vikings obviously didn't have any faith in Adrian Peterson after last season or they wouldn't have drafted Toby Gerhart. Also, just because Ben Tate got injured doesn't mean that the only reason Foster got the job is because Ben Tate got injured. It seems like you keep implying that Ben Tate is a much better talent than Foster and would have won the job going away if he was healthy. If that's the case, why is Tate buried all the way down there at RB36? Personally, it looks to me like you made up your mind about Arian Foster months ago (he was an untalented back in a great system), way before players first took the field in anger, and now you're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias. You decided Foster's a scrub, so you see him win the starting job and naturally assume that it's only the result of injuries to his competitors. You ignore his stellar first four weeks completely and then the first time he puts up a bad game, you climb all over it and hold it up as evidence that you were right all along. You're picking and choosing what evidence is meaningful based on how well it supports your preexisting theory.

As for Forte...

Q: What do you call a 2nd round RB who is a terrible runner but a strong blocker and receiver?

A: Brandon Jackson.

 

[Go deep]

I will admit Forte is only an average NFL runner, but he is one of the best pass catching backs in the NFL. Not to mention his OLine has been one of the worst in the NFL over the last couple years. Even though he is only an average NFL runner, he does everything else well, and has a pretty good hold on that Chicago RB job for the forseeable future.

I can understand people not agreeing with my not having Foster in the top 20, but i do not understand why people think i am crazy or being stubborn. The Texans obviously didnt have any faith in him after last season or they wouldnt have drafted Tate. Foster only got the starting job because Tate got hurt. Sure, he has played well, but he had two big games....against maybe the two worst run defenses in the league. So i am suppose to put a player who i dont believe is any better than average in the top 15 based on two games?

Could i be wrong about Foster, sure, but right now i feel comfortable with my ranking of him, and todays game did nothing to change my mind.

Drafting Tate in the 2nd meant the Texans obviously didn't have any faith in Foster? Well then, the Vikings obviously didn't have any faith in Adrian Peterson after last season or they wouldn't have drafted Toby Gerhart. Also, just because Ben Tate got injured doesn't mean that the only reason Foster got the job is because Ben Tate got injured. It seems like you keep implying that Ben Tate is a much better talent than Foster and would have won the job going away if he was healthy. If that's the case, why is Tate buried all the way down there at RB36? Personally, it looks to me like you made up your mind about Arian Foster months ago (he was an untalented back in a great system), way before players first took the field in anger, and now you're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias. You decided Foster's a scrub, so you see him win the starting job and naturally assume that it's only the result of injuries to his competitors. You ignore his stellar first four weeks completely and then the first time he puts up a bad game, you climb all over it and hold it up as evidence that you were right all along. You're picking and choosing what evidence is meaningful based on how well it supports your preexisting theory.

As for Forte...

Q: What do you call a 2nd round RB who is a terrible runner but a strong blocker and receiver?

A: Brandon Jackson.

Not sure what Brandon Jackson being a terrible runner has to do with Forte.

As for Foster, we obviously disagree about his long term value. Could i be wrong, sure, but i feel good about where i have him ranked.

 

[Go deep]

Looks like i might have my rankings right were i went them after week 4. Not many changes this week, so far. Here are some of the adjustments.

QB:

Phillip Rivers - Moved him up a couple points, although he remains the #3 QB. I thought the loss of Jackson would hurt his value, i was wrong. Rivers is clearly one of the best, and most consistent QB's in the league.

Kyle Orton - He has been moving up my rankings since week 1, i am officially sold. His accomplishments are even more impressive when you consider his supporting cast.

RB:

Nothing this week, although i considered moving Foster down...just kidding.

WR:

Mike Williams(TB) - I took some heat a couple weeks ago for having him ahead of Demaryius Thomas(even thogh it was only by a point). I still like Thomas, but Williiams is an absolute monster. I would have him even higher if i was sure he could keep his head on straight. Still good for a bump to WR23.

Malcolm Floyd - Im still not a huge fan of his talent, but as long as he is Rivers #1 WR, he will put up top 20 FF numbers. Guess thats worthy of a move up to WR33.

Brandon Lloyd - Who would have thought? Cant deny his production any longer, gets a bump up to WR34.

Vincent Jackson - Im starting to think Jackson's talent had more to do with Rivers than himself. Between that, and him missing the entire 2010 season, i think i might be being generous with only moving him down to WR15.

Mark Clayton - Down to WR58

TE:

Nothing...yet

Not many changes so far this week, although i am not entirely done going over them.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

No Grant in RB top 50 = FAIL

Grant as a starting RB ever again = FAIL

? He will start for the Packers NEXT season.I wasn't aware that your top 50 are all starters...And even if you are correct that he doesn't "start" again, not top 50? Come on man! He's 27 and one of the best downhill guys in the league...

 

[Go deep]

No Grant in RB top 50 = FAIL

Grant as a starting RB ever again = FAIL

? He will start for the Packers NEXT season.

If there is a next season, i highly doubt Grant will be the starter.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

No Grant in RB top 50 = FAIL

Grant as a starting RB ever again = FAIL

? He will start for the Packers NEXT season.

If there is a next season, i highly doubt Grant will be the starter.

Even if he doesn't, you are predicting him to be virtually out of the league by not ranking him top 50. There is a greater chance he starts, than there is a chance he is not top 50...

 

[Go deep]

No Grant in RB top 50 = FAIL

Grant as a starting RB ever again = FAIL

? He will start for the Packers NEXT season.

I wasn't aware that your top 50 are all starters...

And even if you are correct that he doesn't "start" again, not top 50? Come on man! He's 27 and one of the best downhill guys in the league...

He will be almost 29 by the time next season rolls around, and i am not as high on his ablilites as you are.

 

[humpback]

Foster got banged up in the 2nd qtr. of the game, and the circumstances dictated that he only got 11 carries, so it's not exactly the best game to pound your chest that he isn't talented.

You make claims like "The Texans obviously didnt have any faith in him after last season or they wouldnt have drafted Tate" and "Foster only got the starting job because Tate got hurt" without any actual evidence to back it up, and when SSOG gives you the Minny/Gerhart parallel, you don't even address it. Foster was literally the only healthy RB on their roster before the draft- Slaton wasn't even cleared to practice at the time, they had no idea if he'd be able to play or not. There's no way you can say those things with any certainty, although you try to pass them off as obvious facts.

I hate the excuse that he did it against crappy run D's too- I agree that they aren't good, but how do you explain the fact that he has outperformed every other RB to face those teams so far by a wide margin? CJ, MJD, McFadden, SJax, Mathews, Charles/T. Jones, and Bradshaw/Jacobs aren't exactly slouches either.

 

[Herm23]

No Grant in RB top 50 = FAIL

Grant as a starting RB ever again = FAIL

? He will start for the Packers NEXT season.

If there is a next season, i highly doubt Grant will be the starter.

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. The Packers seem to have a lot of holes to fill on that team. It is far from certain they will spend a high draft pick to bring in a running back. Ted Thompson is notably cheap and rarely makes big splashes in free agency. While I wouldn't bet my house on him returning as the starter next year, I think he has a fair chance. He certainly seems worthy of being moved way, way down in rankings...but I can't picture him not being in the top 50. Essentially every running back outside of roughly the top 35 is a complete lottery ticket. Ryan Grant would be a lottery ticket with a MUCH higher opportunity to actually hit and allow you to cash in for a season. I'm confused on this one.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Ted Thompson is notably cheap and rarely makes big splashes in free agency.

By the same reasoning, why would they pay Grant all that money? He's due about 6 mil next year (if you include all the roster and workout bonuses).

 

[Herm23]

Ted Thompson is notably cheap and rarely makes big splashes in free agency.

By the same reasoning, why would they pay Grant all that money? He's due about 6 mil next year (if you include all the roster and workout bonuses).

I don't disagree with your line of thinking at all. Just not sure there are 50 running backs with a better chance of starting next year.

 

[Go deep]

Foster got banged up in the 2nd qtr. of the game, and the circumstances dictated that he only got 11 carries, so it's not exactly the best game to pound your chest that he isn't talented.You make claims like "The Texans obviously didnt have any faith in him after last season or they wouldnt have drafted Tate" and "Foster only got the starting job because Tate got hurt" without any actual evidence to back it up, and when SSOG gives you the Minny/Gerhart parallel, you don't even address it. Foster was literally the only healthy RB on their roster before the draft- Slaton wasn't even cleared to practice at the time, they had no idea if he'd be able to play or not. There's no way you can say those things with any certainty, although you try to pass them off as obvious facts.I hate the excuse that he did it against crappy run D's too- I agree that they aren't good, but how do you explain the fact that he has outperformed every other RB to face those teams so far by a wide margin? CJ, MJD, McFadden, SJax, Mathews, Charles/T. Jones, and Bradshaw/Jacobs aren't exactly slouches either.

Foster played in the 4th quarter? The circumstances that caused him to only get 11 carries is that he wasnt gaining any yards. Had he beed ripping off 5, 6 ,7 yard gains, the circumstances would have had him getting more carries.I didnt address SSOG points because i am sick of discussing Foster. You guys want to put him in your top 20, thats fine, i dont. I dont think he is talented enough to be the long term answer in Houstons backfield. For the record, the Texans had more holes than the Vikings, and i doubt they would have used a 2nd round pick on a RB if it wasnt to at least compete for the starting job. The Vikings situation is so different its crazy to even compare the two situations. Gerhart was brought in to take some carries from Peterson as they just lost Taylor to the Bears.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Ted Thompson is notably cheap and rarely makes big splashes in free agency.

By the same reasoning, why would they pay Grant all that money? He's due about 6 mil next year (if you include all the roster and workout bonuses).

I don't disagree with your line of thinking at all. Just not sure there are 50 running backs with a better chance of starting next year.

Especially not Fred Jackson, Willis McGahee, Marion Barber, and Brandon Jacobs--the declines of which we can see before our very eyes...As for the salary, it's called restructuring. Not to say they will or won't, but it is a highly probable option given the state of the Packers backfield and the injury...

 

[Go deep]

Ted Thompson is notably cheap and rarely makes big splashes in free agency.

By the same reasoning, why would they pay Grant all that money? He's due about 6 mil next year (if you include all the roster and workout bonuses).

I don't disagree with your line of thinking at all. Just not sure there are 50 running backs with a better chance of starting next year.

I dont base my rankings soley on what is going to happen next year. This year and future years have alot to do with my rankings as well. Grant only has maybe one season of value left, and that is in a season that might not happen.

 

[Go deep]

Ted Thompson is notably cheap and rarely makes big splashes in free agency.

By the same reasoning, why would they pay Grant all that money? He's due about 6 mil next year (if you include all the roster and workout bonuses).

I don't disagree with your line of thinking at all. Just not sure there are 50 running backs with a better chance of starting next year.

Especially not Fred Jackson, Willis McGahee, Marion Barber, and Brandon Jacobs--the declines of which we can see before our very eyes...As for the salary, it's called restructuring. Not to say they will or won't, but it is a highly probable option given the state of the Packers backfield and the injury...

But those guys can help THIS year.

 

[Herm23]

Ted Thompson is notably cheap and rarely makes big splashes in free agency.

By the same reasoning, why would they pay Grant all that money? He's due about 6 mil next year (if you include all the roster and workout bonuses).

I don't disagree with your line of thinking at all. Just not sure there are 50 running backs with a better chance of starting next year.

I dont base my rankings soley on what is going to happen next year. This year and future years have alot to do with my rankings as well. Grant only has maybe one season of value left, and that is in a season that might not happen.

I'm making these statements with a long term view as well. When you are talking about players who are utter and complete lottery tickets, a player with an above average chance to start for a potentially elite offense in the near future is far more valuable than the rest of the slop. Even if it is for only one year, you gain several things- trade ability (by shipping him to a contender, meaning you get MORE in return than any of the other lottery tickets would net you), the stats he actually produces if he starts in case you are a contender, and not having to hold the lottery ticket on your roster and waste a roster space.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Ted Thompson is notably cheap and rarely makes big splashes in free agency.

By the same reasoning, why would they pay Grant all that money? He's due about 6 mil next year (if you include all the roster and workout bonuses).

I don't disagree with your line of thinking at all. Just not sure there are 50 running backs with a better chance of starting next year.

Especially not Fred Jackson, Willis McGahee, Marion Barber, and Brandon Jacobs--the declines of which we can see before our very eyes...As for the salary, it's called restructuring. Not to say they will or won't, but it is a highly probable option given the state of the Packers backfield and the injury...

But those guys can help THIS year.

Not really. All those guys are like 4th RBs this year. It's not like their LT (who by the way should be listed because he actually could help this year and maybe next). If that's the line of reasoning, Jerome Harrison needs to drop a few spots.I kinda disagree that Fred and McGahee are "declining before our very eyes." Obviously their shelf life is limited, but I think they are still solid NFL backs.Jacobs is done. I wish Barber wasn't done but it seems everything he did in order to regain his effectiveness has backfired and made him a detriment to the team.

 

[Go deep]

Ted Thompson is notably cheap and rarely makes big splashes in free agency.

By the same reasoning, why would they pay Grant all that money? He's due about 6 mil next year (if you include all the roster and workout bonuses).

I don't disagree with your line of thinking at all. Just not sure there are 50 running backs with a better chance of starting next year.

I dont base my rankings soley on what is going to happen next year. This year and future years have alot to do with my rankings as well. Grant only has maybe one season of value left, and that is in a season that might not happen.

I'm making these statements with a long term view as well. When you are talking about players who are utter and complete lottery tickets, a player with an above average chance to start for a potentially elite offense in the near future is far more valuable than the rest of the slop. Even if it is for only one year, you gain several things- trade ability (by shipping him to a contender, meaning you get MORE in return than any of the other lottery tickets would net you), the stats he actually produces if he starts in case you are a contender, and not having to hold the lottery ticket on your roster and waste a roster space.

I tend to agree, i just dont think Grant is going to be the starter in GB next year. My list only goes to 50, but if it makes you guys feel any better, he would be on my list if it went to 60. If i was sure there was going to be a 2010 season, he would have likely remained in my top 50. Either way, the only way i would keep Grant on my roster is if my league had deep rosters or IR spots.

 

[Go deep]

Not really. All those guys are like 4th RBs this year. It's not like their LT (who by the way should be listed because he actually could help this year and maybe next). If that's the line of reasoning, Jerome Harrison needs to drop a few spots.

I kinda disagree that Fred and McGahee are "declining before our very eyes." Obviously their shelf life is limited, but I think they are still solid NFL backs.

Jacobs is done.

I wish Barber wasn't done but it seems everything he did in order to regain his effectiveness has backfired and made him a detriment to the team.

I thought he was, i will fix it.

 

[Herm23]

I tend to agree, i just dont think Grant is going to be the starter in GB next year. My list only goes to 50, but if it makes you guys feel any better, he would be on my list if it went to 60. If i was sure there was going to be a 2010 season, he would have likely remained in my top 50. Either way, the only way i would keep Grant on my roster is if my league had deep rosters or IR spots.

Fair enough. On the plus side, since you seem to be getting bashed too much in this thread, your IDP rankings appear pretty much spot on and I agree with just about everything you have there.

 

[Go deep]

I tend to agree, i just dont think Grant is going to be the starter in GB next year. My list only goes to 50, but if it makes you guys feel any better, he would be on my list if it went to 60. If i was sure there was going to be a 2010 season, he would have likely remained in my top 50. Either way, the only way i would keep Grant on my roster is if my league had deep rosters or IR spots.

Fair enough. On the plus side, since you seem to be getting bashed too much in this thread, your IDP rankings appear pretty much spot on and I agree with just about everything you have there.

Thanks

 

[humpback]

Foster got banged up in the 2nd qtr. of the game, and the circumstances dictated that he only got 11 carries, so it's not exactly the best game to pound your chest that he isn't talented.You make claims like "The Texans obviously didnt have any faith in him after last season or they wouldnt have drafted Tate" and "Foster only got the starting job because Tate got hurt" without any actual evidence to back it up, and when SSOG gives you the Minny/Gerhart parallel, you don't even address it. Foster was literally the only healthy RB on their roster before the draft- Slaton wasn't even cleared to practice at the time, they had no idea if he'd be able to play or not. There's no way you can say those things with any certainty, although you try to pass them off as obvious facts.I hate the excuse that he did it against crappy run D's too- I agree that they aren't good, but how do you explain the fact that he has outperformed every other RB to face those teams so far by a wide margin? CJ, MJD, McFadden, SJax, Mathews, Charles/T. Jones, and Bradshaw/Jacobs aren't exactly slouches either.

Foster played in the 4th quarter? The circumstances that caused him to only get 11 carries is that he wasnt gaining any yards. Had he beed ripping off 5, 6 ,7 yard gains, the circumstances would have had him getting more carries.I didnt address SSOG points because i am sick of discussing Foster. You guys want to put him in your top 20, thats fine, i dont. I dont think he is talented enough to be the long term answer in Houstons backfield. For the record, the Texans had more holes than the Vikings, and i doubt they would have used a 2nd round pick on a RB if it wasnt to at least compete for the starting job. The Vikings situation is so different its crazy to even compare the two situations. Gerhart was brought in to take some carries from Peterson as they just lost Taylor to the Bears.

Yes, he came back in and played, but he wasn't 100% (their starting G got hurt as well by the way):Texans coach Gary Kubiak revealed in his post-game press conference that Arian Foster "banged up" his knee just before halftime of Sunday's blowout loss to the Giants.Kubiak said Foster "banged up his knee a little bit," but they're "hoping" he'll be OK. Still, this sounds like something that could threaten Foster's practice time, and potentially his playing status if the knee swells up. Foster had just one carry in the second half. The Texans' bye is in Week 7, so it's possible that they'll consider holding Foster out of Week 6 in order to give him two weeks of healing time. Stay tuned.Source: Nick Scurfield on Twitter If the circumstances were due to his lack of production, don't you think they would have given carries to another RB? They had 14 RB carries in the entire game, it seems much more plausable that they didn't run a lot because they were way behind the entire game. They were trailing 21-0 a few minutes into the 2nd qtr. Sure, if he would've ripped off a couple of long TD runs, things could've been different, but you can't blame the circumstances all on him.The fact that Minny used a higher draft pick on Gerhart than Houston used on Tate clearly shows that mearly drafting a RB where Houston did does not automatically mean that he was drafted to be the starter. Yes they just lost Taylor, but Houston thought they may have lost Slaton (and/or didn't have any confidence in him). You were so sure that he was complete garbage that you're finding it hard to admit how wrong you were. No one has a crystal ball, but he is much more talented that you thought no matter what happens from here on out.

 

[Go deep]

Foster got banged up in the 2nd qtr. of the game, and the circumstances dictated that he only got 11 carries, so it's not exactly the best game to pound your chest that he isn't talented.You make claims like "The Texans obviously didnt have any faith in him after last season or they wouldnt have drafted Tate" and "Foster only got the starting job because Tate got hurt" without any actual evidence to back it up, and when SSOG gives you the Minny/Gerhart parallel, you don't even address it. Foster was literally the only healthy RB on their roster before the draft- Slaton wasn't even cleared to practice at the time, they had no idea if he'd be able to play or not. There's no way you can say those things with any certainty, although you try to pass them off as obvious facts.I hate the excuse that he did it against crappy run D's too- I agree that they aren't good, but how do you explain the fact that he has outperformed every other RB to face those teams so far by a wide margin? CJ, MJD, McFadden, SJax, Mathews, Charles/T. Jones, and Bradshaw/Jacobs aren't exactly slouches either.

Foster played in the 4th quarter? The circumstances that caused him to only get 11 carries is that he wasnt gaining any yards. Had he beed ripping off 5, 6 ,7 yard gains, the circumstances would have had him getting more carries.I didnt address SSOG points because i am sick of discussing Foster. You guys want to put him in your top 20, thats fine, i dont. I dont think he is talented enough to be the long term answer in Houstons backfield. For the record, the Texans had more holes than the Vikings, and i doubt they would have used a 2nd round pick on a RB if it wasnt to at least compete for the starting job. The Vikings situation is so different its crazy to even compare the two situations. Gerhart was brought in to take some carries from Peterson as they just lost Taylor to the Bears.

Yes, he came back in and played, but he wasn't 100% (their starting G got hurt as well by the way):Texans coach Gary Kubiak revealed in his post-game press conference that Arian Foster "banged up" his knee just before halftime of Sunday's blowout loss to the Giants.Kubiak said Foster "banged up his knee a little bit," but they're "hoping" he'll be OK. Still, this sounds like something that could threaten Foster's practice time, and potentially his playing status if the knee swells up. Foster had just one carry in the second half. The Texans' bye is in Week 7, so it's possible that they'll consider holding Foster out of Week 6 in order to give him two weeks of healing time. Stay tuned.Source: Nick Scurfield on Twitter If the circumstances were due to his lack of production, don't you think they would have given carries to another RB? They had 14 RB carries in the entire game, it seems much more plausable that they didn't run a lot because they were way behind the entire game. They were trailing 21-0 a few minutes into the 2nd qtr. Sure, if he would've ripped off a couple of long TD runs, things could've been different, but you can't blame the circumstances all on him.The fact that Minny used a higher draft pick on Gerhart than Houston used on Tate clearly shows that mearly drafting a RB where Houston did does not automatically mean that he was drafted to be the starter. Yes they just lost Taylor, but Houston thought they may have lost Slaton (and/or didn't have any confidence in him). You were so sure that he was complete garbage that you're finding it hard to admit how wrong you were. No one has a crystal ball, but he is much more talented that you thought no matter what happens from here on out.

I have Foster at RB 22, and i think he is a top 10 redraft RB. He is not complete garbage, he is an average back. Why wouldnt what happens from here on out matter? It is the only thing that matters when it comes time to see who was right. If Foster goes on to finish with a top 10 finish this year, but the Texans end up with a different starting RB in the next year or two, then i will be right. If he goes on to have a long successful career in Houston(or somewhere else) i will have been wrong. Also, you can go on making excuses of why he had a bad game, but i didnt even mention that as a part of why i dont like him as much as everyone else. Im sure Foster will have some more good games this year, and also have some bad games. Alot depends on how the rest of the Houston offesne plays and the defenses they play against. I just dont think he is good enough to make things happen on his own, hence his #22 ranking.

 

[Go deep]

Looks like i might have my rankings right were i went them after week 4. Not many changes this week, so far. Here are some of the adjustments.QBhillip Rivers - Moved him up a couple points, although he remains the #3 QB. I thought the loss of Jackson would hurt his value, i was wrong. Rivers is clearly one of the best, and most consistent QB's in the league.Kyle Orton - He has been moving up my rankings since week 1, i am officially sold. His accomplishments are even more impressive when you consider his supporting cast.RB:Nothing this week, although i considered moving Foster down...just kidding. WR:Mike Williams(TB) - I took some heat a couple weeks ago for having him ahead of Demaryius Thomas(even thogh it was only by a point). I still like Thomas, but Williiams is an absolute monster. I would have him even higher if i was sure he could keep his head on straight. Still good for a bump to WR23.Malcolm Floyd - Im still not a huge fan of his talent, but as long as he is Rivers #1 WR, he will put up top 20 FF numbers. Guess thats worthy of a move up to WR33.Brandon Lloyd - Who would have thought? Cant deny his production any longer, gets a bump up to WR34.Vincent Jackson - Im starting to think Jackson's talent had more to do with Rivers than himself. Between that, and him missing the entire 2010 season, i think i might be being generous with only moving him down to WR15.Mark Clayton - Down to WR58TE:Nothing...yetNot many changes so far this week, although i am not entirely done going over them.

Couple more moves from this week:Felix Jones - He gets a 2 point boost which puts him in the top 10 RB's. What do you get when you give a RB who averages over 6 YPC twenty touches a game in a potent offense? Thats right, a top 5-10 RB, get him now before he ends up in everyone elses top 10.Hakeem Nicks - Also makes his debut in the top 10. Jermichael Finley - Gates takes over as the #1 dynasty TE.

 

[SSOG]

What do you get when you give a RB who averages over 6 YPC twenty touches a game in a potent offense?

Less than 6 YPC.4 players in NFL history have averaged 6+ ypc on 12 or more touches per game. All four of them are in the Hall of Fame. Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, O.J. Simpson, Gale Sayers. No one else has posted even TWELVE touches per game and managed to maintain 6 ypc.Drop the threshold down to 5.5 ypc and 5 RBs have managed to maintain that per-carry average with 20 touches a game. You've got Brown, Sanders (x2), Simpson (x2), Dickerson, and Chris Johnson.

 

[Go deep]

What do you get when you give a RB who averages over 6 YPC twenty touches a game in a potent offense?

Less than 6 YPC.4 players in NFL history have averaged 6+ ypc on 12 or more touches per game. All four of them are in the Hall of Fame. Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, O.J. Simpson, Gale Sayers. No one else has posted even TWELVE touches per game and managed to maintain 6 ypc.

Drop the threshold down to 5.5 ypc and 5 RBs have managed to maintain that per-carry average with 20 touches a game. You've got Brown, Sanders (x2), Simpson (x2), Dickerson, and Chris Johnson.

Jones has actually averaged 6.3 YPC in his career.

Its unlikely he can keep up that pace at 15 carries a game, but between his talent and situation, it could be close. He has as high of an upside as any RB in the league right now.

 

[SSOG]

Jones has actually averaged 6.3 YPC in his career.Its unlikely he can keep up that pace at 15 carries a game, but between his talent and situation, it could be close. He has as high of an upside as any RB in the league right now.

My point is not that Felix Jones hasn't averaged 6+ ypc so far, nor is it that it's unheard of for an RB to average 6+ yards per carry in a limited CoP role. My point is that once all of those CoP backs with 6+ yards per carry start getting a featured workload, they always see their efficiency stats drop. Always. Unless you're Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, or O.J. Simpson, you will not average 6 yards per carry on a featured workload. Unless you're one of those guys, Eric Dickerson, or Chris Johnson, you won't even average 5.5 yards per carry on a featured workload.Michael Turner averaged 6.0 ypc over his first three seasons in the league (157 carries- roughly identical to Felix's career-to-date workload). Then he got a featured job, and his ypc dropped to 4.6 in Atlanta. Didn't mean Turner was bad or anything- he was awesome, and 4.6 ypc is a very, very strong figure for a featured runner. It just means that nobody averages as much as a workhorse as they do as a CoP back. Part of it is because they get a little worn down. A larger part of it is that they get asked to make a lot of average-killing carries (e.g. short yardage) that they never had dragging their averages down back when they were a CoP back.The whole thing's moot, though, because I still don't buy this idea that Felix Jones is going to get a featured workload.Edit: After re-reading your response, I think you misunderstood me and thought I was trying to correct you and say that Jones averaged less than 6 yards per carry. I wasn't correcting you, I was answering your question. Question: what do you get when you give a back with 6 ypc more carries? Answer: a back with less than 6 ypc.

 

[Go deep]

Jones has actually averaged 6.3 YPC in his career.Its unlikely he can keep up that pace at 15 carries a game, but between his talent and situation, it could be close. He has as high of an upside as any RB in the league right now.

My point is not that Felix Jones hasn't averaged 6+ ypc so far, nor is it that it's unheard of for an RB to average 6+ yards per carry in a limited CoP role. My point is that once all of those CoP backs with 6+ yards per carry start getting a featured workload, they always see their efficiency stats drop. Always. Unless you're Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, or O.J. Simpson, you will not average 6 yards per carry on a featured workload. Unless you're one of those guys, Eric Dickerson, or Chris Johnson, you won't even average 5.5 yards per carry on a featured workload.Michael Turner averaged 6.0 ypc over his first three seasons in the league (157 carries- roughly identical to Felix's career-to-date workload). Then he got a featured job, and his ypc dropped to 4.6 in Atlanta. Didn't mean Turner was bad or anything- he was awesome, and 4.6 ypc is a very, very strong figure for a featured runner. It just means that nobody averages as much as a workhorse as they do as a CoP back. Part of it is because they get a little worn down. A larger part of it is that they get asked to make a lot of average-killing carries (e.g. short yardage) that they never had dragging their averages down back when they were a CoP back.The whole thing's moot, though, because I still don't buy this idea that Felix Jones is going to get a featured workload.

I never suggested he would average over 6 ypc as a featured back. I also dont think Felix should be given 20+ carries a game. I do think however that he can average in the 5.5+ range with 15 carries a game. Throw in 4-5 receptions a game, and he has top 5 upside. Jones is one of the best combos of talent/situation in the league.

 

[Go deep]

Jones has actually averaged 6.3 YPC in his career.

Its unlikely he can keep up that pace at 15 carries a game, but between his talent and situation, it could be close. He has as high of an upside as any RB in the league right now.

My point is not that Felix Jones hasn't averaged 6+ ypc so far, nor is it that it's unheard of for an RB to average 6+ yards per carry in a limited CoP role. My point is that once all of those CoP backs with 6+ yards per carry start getting a featured workload, they always see their efficiency stats drop. Always. Unless you're Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, or O.J. Simpson, you will not average 6 yards per carry on a featured workload. Unless you're one of those guys, Eric Dickerson, or Chris Johnson, you won't even average 5.5 yards per carry on a featured workload.Michael Turner averaged 6.0 ypc over his first three seasons in the league (157 carries- roughly identical to Felix's career-to-date workload). Then he got a featured job, and his ypc dropped to 4.6 in Atlanta. Didn't mean Turner was bad or anything- he was awesome, and 4.6 ypc is a very, very strong figure for a featured runner. It just means that nobody averages as much as a workhorse as they do as a CoP back. Part of it is because they get a little worn down. A larger part of it is that they get asked to make a lot of average-killing carries (e.g. short yardage) that they never had dragging their averages down back when they were a CoP back.

The whole thing's moot, though, because I still don't buy this idea that Felix Jones is going to get a featured workload.

Edit: After re-reading your response, I think you misunderstood me and thought I was trying to correct you and say that Jones averaged less than 6 yards per carry. I wasn't correcting you, I was answering your question. Question: what do you get when you give a back with 6 ypc more carries? Answer: a back with less than 6 ypc.

Yeah, i thought you were correcting me, in turn, i was correcting you.I also think it depends on how many more carries. Sure, give him the carries Michael Turner got, and he wouldnt average 6 YPC. Keep him in the 15 carry range, and i think it is quite possible for him to finish in the 5.5-6 area...when you consider his situation. Dallas is a passing team, and Jones will rarely ever see 8 in the box.

 

[george]

 

[Go deep]

no i get the facts about DT and own him too, wasn't dismissing him in any way just i also see Williams as a perennial top15watch his youtube vid from syracuse, sick stuff in therewhat i was referring too is you using MWilliams as the "Really?" comparison with folk like Maclin at #22 and Bowe at #16 and i was wondering if i had drunk too much koolaid on Williams and was not seeing something (although i was grabbing him in may drafts pre-hype so not really caught up in this latest tidal wave)so i'm saying i woulda been with ya if it read something like this ..."Dwayne Bowe: Over Demaryius Thomas? Really?" or"Jerome Maclin: Over Demaryius Thomas? Really?"but you saying you like MW too just not as much makes me feel better LOL

While Bowe has fell a few points in my rankings since this(mostly due to Cassel) its starting to look like this wasnt so crazy after all. Dont get me wrong, i like Thomas, and think he has a chance to be a good player, but i liked Bowe and Maclins as much, if not more than Thomas coming out of the draft. After getting to watch Bowe and Maclin in the pros i feel even more confident in both players.

 

[Go deep]

The offense is updated, minus a few tweaks. The defense is not other than a few tweaks.Notable changes:QB:Vick added #22Eli Manning moves up to #9Cutler up to #7Freeman up to #16Orton up to #23Kolb down to #20Campbell down to #32RB:Best moves up to #6Mccoy up to #13Bradshaw up to #17Mcfadden up to #21Deangelo Williams down to #11Shonn Greene down to #23Jacobs down to #45WR:Sidney Rice up to #8Nicks up to #13Mike Williams up to #25Eddie Royal up to #31Michale Crabtree down to #15Pierre Garcon down to #40Robert Meachum down to #55TEWitten and Clark change places from #4 to 5Moeaki and Hernandez up to #19 and 20Scheffler down to #22You shouldnt need permission to view anymore, thoughts welcome.

First thoughts:Mike Vick: Way too low. Dude's a perennial lock to finish as a fantasy QB1, frequently a high-end QB1. I've got him at 16, and even that's a bit too low- I'll be bumping him up later this week.Eli Manning: Way too high. Michael Vick has produced more VBD than Eli Manning over the last 4 years... and Vick was a backup or out of football entirely for three of those four years! In fact, Mike Vick had more VBD in 2006 than Eli Manning has for his entire career, and it's not even particularly close.

Doesnt look like Vick is a lock to finish as a QB one this year, while its looking pretty good that Eli will. This is why you have to look a little deeper than a players PPG or his VBD.

 

[Go deep]

For the 2nd week in a row, not alot of big adjusments this week. While im sure i will be doing some tweeking, there shouldnt be many big moves in any given week going forward. Here are a few notable changes this week:

QB's

Nothing major, although Bradford moved up and Brady moved down to the Flacco, Ryan, Eli range. Even though each only moved a point, it left Bradford at 9 and Brady at 13.

RB's

Peirre Thomas moves down 2 points down to #25. This might be the start of his freefall down my rankings.

Ryan Torain moves up a few spots to #32, although his '11 score stays. His value comes almost entirely from this season.

Steve Slaton down a few spots to #42

Chris Ivory debuts on the list at #45

WR's

Jeremy Maclin moves up 2 points to #17. Desean is still the man there, but he should put up WR1 numbers while he is out, and earn him self more looks even when Jackson comes back.

Marques Colston down 2 points to #18.

Mike Wallace and Kenny Britt up only 1 point, but a couple spots to #26 and 27.

Devin Hester down 2 points to #55. his #1 Wr days are over and he is only rosterable in deep leagues and/or return yardage leagues.

Deion Branch debuts at #56

TE's

Jimmy Graham up 2 points to #22. This is just the first step in his march up my rankings, get him now in your dynasty leagues.

Any thoughts welcome, and not restricted to the recent adjustments. I would like to hear thoughts on a player i may have ranked too high or low, im always open to changing my mind with a good argument.

edit spelling

 

[thriftyrocker]

You have to have an opinion on Danario if you are doing dynasty rankings. He doesn't break your top 60? I now have Tate, Tate, McCluster, Murphy, and Danario in a shallow league, and I think Danario is the one I want to cut least.

Brady as a QB2 is pretty much unAmerican. I know he lost Moss. But he will still pass a lot. He will still score a lot. Why not put Orton ahead of him too?

I agree Pierre's value is in jeopardy right now.

Rather have LT than Torain. Both this year and next. Torain seems right, maybe LT needs a little more bump.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Now that Meachem and Garcon are healthy and delivering they need to start climbing back up.

 

[SSOG]

Doesnt look like Vick is a lock to finish as a QB one this year, while its looking pretty good that Eli will. This is why you have to look a little deeper than a players PPG or his VBD.

Processes vs. Outcomes? Does this ring any bells? Vick was a top-5 QB who got hurt (but whose coach has repeatedly insisted still has the starting job when healthy). Eli Manning is currently 12th in PPG, scoring on par with Jay Cutler, Carson Palmer, and Shaun Hill, and getting trounced by guys like Kyle Orton and Ryan Fitzpatrick. Both guys are exactly who I thought they were.In fact, fun fact: when Michael Vick is injured, his owners are not required to keep starting him. They're allowed to start their backup, instead. If they had even the most garbage backup in the entire NFL, they'd still be outscoring the Eli Manning owner. Michael Vick + Jason Campbell's week 5 and 6 scores comes out to 110.6 points. Eli Manning this season has scored 109.3 points. And this is JASON CAMPBELL we're talking about- give the Vick owner Shaun Hill and he's outscoring the Manning owner 131.5 to 109.3. That's a bloodbath.

That's why you have to look a little bit deeper than a player's total points.

 

[lynx4ben]

Doesnt look like Vick is a lock to finish as a QB one this year, while its looking pretty good that Eli will. This is why you have to look a little deeper than a players PPG or his VBD.

Processes vs. Outcomes? Does this ring any bells? Vick was a top-5 QB who got hurt (but whose coach has repeatedly insisted still has the starting job when healthy). Eli Manning is currently 12th in PPG, scoring on par with Jay Cutler, Carson Palmer, and Shaun Hill, and getting trounced by guys like Kyle Orton and Ryan Fitzpatrick. Both guys are exactly who I thought they were.In fact, fun fact: when Michael Vick is injured, his owners are not required to keep starting him. They're allowed to start their backup, instead. If they had even the most garbage backup in the entire NFL, they'd still be outscoring the Eli Manning owner. Michael Vick + Jason Campbell's week 5 and 6 scores comes out to 110.6 points. Eli Manning this season has scored 109.3 points. And this is JASON CAMPBELL we're talking about- give the Vick owner Shaun Hill and he's outscoring the Manning owner 131.5 to 109.3. That's a bloodbath.

That's why you have to look a little bit deeper than a player's total points.

What are you talking about here? Was this an article?

 

[Concept Coop]

Doesnt look like Vick is a lock to finish as a QB one this year, while its looking pretty good that Eli will. This is why you have to look a little deeper than a players PPG or his VBD.

Processes vs. Outcomes? Does this ring any bells? Vick was a top-5 QB who got hurt (but whose coach has repeatedly insisted still has the starting job when healthy). Eli Manning is currently 12th in PPG, scoring on par with Jay Cutler, Carson Palmer, and Shaun Hill, and getting trounced by guys like Kyle Orton and Ryan Fitzpatrick. Both guys are exactly who I thought they were.In fact, fun fact: when Michael Vick is injured, his owners are not required to keep starting him. They're allowed to start their backup, instead. If they had even the most garbage backup in the entire NFL, they'd still be outscoring the Eli Manning owner. Michael Vick + Jason Campbell's week 5 and 6 scores comes out to 110.6 points. Eli Manning this season has scored 109.3 points. And this is JASON CAMPBELL we're talking about- give the Vick owner Shaun Hill and he's outscoring the Manning owner 131.5 to 109.3. That's a bloodbath.

That's why you have to look a little bit deeper than a player's total points.

Instead of using guys to make your point, why not give the full picture? Why not state how he compares to players like Schaub and Brady, who you have MUCH higher. Vick+backup outscores them too. Do they need to drop down your rankings, close to Mr. Manning, maybe?

 

[SSOG]

What are you talking about here? Was this an article?

It's a series of posts that I've made on the forums (primary in the big Dynasty Rankings thread) about the difference between processes and outcomes. Coincidentally enough, though, I did turn it into an article a month or two ago.

Instead of using guys to make your point, why not give the full picture? Why not state how he compares to players like Schaub and Brady, who you have MUCH higher. Vick+backup outscores them too. Do they need to drop down your rankings, close to Mr. Manning, maybe?

Why not? Because Go Deep wasn't calling into question my ranking of Vick vs. Schaub, he was calling into question my ranking of Vick vs. Manning and implying that Manning was currently getting the better of the competition.

 

[Go deep]

You have to have an opinion on Danario if you are doing dynasty rankings. He doesn't break your top 60? I now have Tate, Tate, McCluster, Murphy, and Danario in a shallow league, and I think Danario is the one I want to cut least.Brady as a QB2 is pretty much unAmerican. I know he lost Moss. But he will still pass a lot. He will still score a lot. Why not put Orton ahead of him too?I agree Pierre's value is in jeopardy right now.Rather have LT than Torain. Both this year and next. Torain seems right, maybe LT needs a little more bump.

I do have an opinion on Alexander, but its not a very good one. One 4 catch game wasnt going to change my mind. He went undrafted and only get a shot to play after 3 Rams WR's were injured. Thats not to say he may not make it on my WR list at some point, but i am going o have to see alot more out of him first. Dont get rid of Dexter MCcluster, he is a new RB/WR hybrid that will only become more valuable as he learns the offense. Dont let his size fool you, this guy is a football player. He has speed/quickness, toughness and great football instincts, he is going to be a special player. It may be unAmerican to have Brady as a #2, but as you can see over the last few weeks without Moss, thats exactly where he belongs. He is a 33 year old version of Eli Manning except he doesnt have the Weapons Eli has.Pierres value is falling like a rock, he will be taking another fall down my rankings this week.You might be right about LT, i have been wanting to move him up lately, but have had a hard time doing so due to his age. However, i do think he will put up top 25 Rb numbers this year and next, so he will get a bump this week.

 

[Go deep]

Post week 7 updates are finished. Here are some of the notable changes.

QB:

Kyle Orton moves up 2 points to QB13

Jay Cutler drops a point and falls to #8

Tom Brady drops a point to #14

Ryan Fitzpatrick debuts at #25

RB:

The order of the top seven stayed the same, but RB's 3-7 all dropped a few points. The gap between AD and CJ and the next tier is a big one. MJD and Ray Rice are closer to the 3rd tier RB's than the 1st tier at this point.

Darren Mcfadden moves up 4 points to RB10

Amhad Bradshaw moves up 1 point to #12

Lagarette Blount moves up 2 points to #42

Brandon Jackson moves up 3 points to #44

Ryan Mathews drops 2 points to #15

Deangelo Williams drops 1 point to #16

Pierre Thomas drops 4 points to #28

WR:

Hakeem Nicks jumps 4 points to WR6

Dez Bryant moves up 2 points to #10

Percy Harvin up 1 point to #14

Kenny Britt up 2 points to #21

Steve Johnson debuts at #44

TE:

Zach Miller moves up 1 point to TE5

Jimmy Graham up 2 points to #19

Dallas Clark down 3 points to #6

 

[Steed]

Dallas Clark #35 TE? He's out for the year but that doesn't mean he can't comeback next year and be the same differencemaker. He's 1 year older than the best TE in the game.

And Orton over Brady is ludicrous. He's 4-13 over his Denver career and has Tebow nipping at him. Don't get me wrong, Tebow isn't an NFL QB, but his 1st round price will get him on the field and afford him every opportunity to prove so. And McDaniels is officially on the hotseat after the Raiders debacle, if he goes, so does Orton.

 

[moderated]

Dallas Clark #35 TE? He's out for the year but that doesn't mean he can't comeback next year and be the same differencemaker. He's 1 year older than the best TE in the game.And Orton over Brady is ludicrous. He's 4-13 over his Denver career and has Tebow nipping at him. Don't get me wrong, Tebow isn't an NFL QB, but his 1st round price will get him on the field and afford him every opportunity to prove so. And McDaniels is officially on the hotseat after the Raiders debacle, if he goes, so does Orton.

He has dallas clark ranked as the #6 te, where are you seeing him ranked 35?

 

[Go deep]

Dallas Clark #35 TE? He's out for the year but that doesn't mean he can't comeback next year and be the same differencemaker. He's 1 year older than the best TE in the game.And Orton over Brady is ludicrous. He's 4-13 over his Denver career and has Tebow nipping at him. Don't get me wrong, Tebow isn't an NFL QB, but his 1st round price will get him on the field and afford him every opportunity to prove so. And McDaniels is officially on the hotseat after the Raiders debacle, if he goes, so does Orton.

Actually i mistyped on Clark, he is down to #6, not #36.I dont know Ortons record with Denver, but i know its better than 4-13. Either way, if he continues to play like he is, Tebow will continue to ride the bench. Brady is 33, and without Moss is nothing more than an older Eli Manning without the great WR corps(fantasy speaking of course).If i owned both Orton and Brady right now, i would be starting Orton, and i dont see that changing anytime soon.

 

[Go deep]

One more thing before i get scolded for it, even though Fitz is 7th, he is actually tied for 5th.

 

[Steed]

Dallas Clark #35 TE? He's out for the year but that doesn't mean he can't comeback next year and be the same differencemaker. He's 1 year older than the best TE in the game.And Orton over Brady is ludicrous. He's 4-13 over his Denver career and has Tebow nipping at him. Don't get me wrong, Tebow isn't an NFL QB, but his 1st round price will get him on the field and afford him every opportunity to prove so. And McDaniels is officially on the hotseat after the Raiders debacle, if he goes, so does Orton.

I dont know Ortons record with Denver, but i know its better than 4-13. Either way, if he continues to play like he is, Tebow will continue to ride the bench. Brady is 33, and without Moss is nothing more than an older Eli Manning without the great WR corps(fantasy speaking of course).If i owned both Orton and Brady right now, i would be starting Orton, and i dont see that changing anytime soon.

Sorry I read that on OrangeMane. He's actually 8-13. But the fact remains his long term outlook even for this season is tenuous.

 

[thriftyrocker]

It may be unAmerican to have Brady as a #2, but as you can see over the last few weeks without Moss, thats exactly where he belongs. He is a 33 year old version of Eli Manning except he doesnt have the Weapons Eli has.

Except without the massive amount of turnovers and the yearly 2nd half swoon. Eli's Nov/Dec numbers are historically lower. Weapons aren't as good right now. Hernandez this year is sort of like Nicks last year. Tate hasn't peaked. Welker is maybe 80%. And they will be (could be) in the market for some WR in the offseason.

One thing about Orton vs. Brady is losing redzone to Tebow right now. Tebow vultured one TD 2 weeks ago. Orton could hold off Tebow for 3 years but he'd still eat into Orton's value.

 

[Go deep]

It may be unAmerican to have Brady as a #2, but as you can see over the last few weeks without Moss, thats exactly where he belongs. He is a 33 year old version of Eli Manning except he doesnt have the Weapons Eli has.

Except without the massive amount of turnovers and the yearly 2nd half swoon. Eli's Nov/Dec numbers are historically lower. Weapons aren't as good right now. Hernandez this year is sort of like Nicks last year. Tate hasn't peaked. Welker is maybe 80%. And they will be (could be) in the market for some WR in the offseason

One thing about Orton vs. Brady is losing redzone to Tebow right now. Tebow vultured one TD 2 weeks ago. Orton could hold off Tebow for 3 years but he'd still eat into Orton's value.

Manning will turn the ball over more than Brady, although he only threw 14 ints last year and 10 the year before.

As far as the late season swoon Manning threw for 1810 yards, 12 TD's and 6 ints over the last 6 weeks last season. Prorate those numbers and you would get a season of 4827 yards, 32 TD's and 16 int's. Those are easily top 5 QB numbers.

As far as comparing the Patriots WR's to the Giants, it isnt really close. Youre not really comparing Hernandez to Nicks, are you?

Even with Tebow Vulturing TD's, Orton is still averaging more than 3 points a game more than Brady. Ortons worst game this season is better than Bradys best game without Moss.