Mike vick #1 overal (1 Viewer)

[hotboyz]

Teams have a year of film on Vick; no way will he come close to last season.

Coaches have 7 yrs of film on Vick have they ever been able to stop his run game and have these coaches had to study Vick with these kind of weapons? Hell Jay geeky put up good numbers in Andy Reid's offense so are we to believe this is the yr Andy Reid's passing game doesn't work?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I really think anyone extrapolating Vick's numbers from last year over an entire season are making a mistake. I don't see Vick as just an injury "risk" - I think it's a lock that he misses games due to injuries. He will also likely play injured in a number of games that he does start which will further limit his fantasy production. At this point last year, no one was expecting Vick to play much. This year, every defensive coordinator on the Eagles schedule has spent the summer specifically designing a game-plan to keep Vick in the pocket - of course, not all of them will be successful, but those that will will serve as a model for other teams.

In 2004, 2005, and 2006 he missed a total of 2 games over 3 years. Add in 2002 and he missed a total of 3 games over those 4 years. Why is he a major injury risk? He is faster than just about everyone on the field and also carries the fear that he could launch that pigskin over his shoulder anytime by simply flipping it down the field...just curious. I can accept folks that project Vick at 12-14 games but at the same time all players are injury risks to some degree. Is everyone ready to lock and load, go all in on Arian Foster? He played the season with a decent injury along the way. Maybe this year he just won't have the same will he had last year...just being the devil's ad here.

 

[Banger]

Teams have a year of film on Vick; no way will he come close to last season.

so you and everyone else saying he won't come close to the numbers from last year, what are your projections?last year he threw for 3018-21-6 (essentially Chad Henne/Ryan Fitzpatrick #'s) and ran for 676-9. Even though he missed time due to injury he still finished #1 o/all. I mean he'll still be the starting QB on the team that's been a top 10 passing team every year for the past 7 years and the range has been amazingly consistent between 3900 and 4300 yards. I think that the Eagles probably have their best wr's they've had during that entire period right now so the talent is still there. So are they suddenly going to stop passing and turn into a running team (Reid is still the coach)?Running is also not a new thing for him...do people just expect that he'll stop running or that now someone how a DC will find that magic piece of film that they've been looking for for 7 years? Run the math.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Teams have a year of film on Vick; no way will he come close to last season.

so you and everyone else saying he won't come close to the numbers from last year, what are your projections?last year he threw for 3018-21-6 (essentially Chad Henne/Ryan Fitzpatrick #'s) and ran for 676-9. Even though he missed time due to injury he still finished #1 o/all. I mean he'll still be the starting QB on the team that's been a top 10 passing team every year for the past 7 years and the range has been amazingly consistent between 3900 and 4300 yards. I think that the Eagles probably have their best wr's they've had during that entire period right now so the talent is still there. Running is also not a new thing for him...do people just expect that he'll stop running? Run the math.

Also too many people grab a QB early and then pretend they won't need another. If you get a stud in round 1 or 2 and you get to round 8 adn other teams are playing games at QB almost daring you to to take a 2nd Qb then do it. If Vick is healthy half the season then those 8 games he provides a weapon to which there might not be an answer from the opposition you face. In other words he likely will give you a 10-15 PPG advantage over many of your competitors. I have been getting my QB1 earlier this year but I am not afraid to pull the trigger on a guy I like in round 7 just because I got a solid QB in the 1 hole.

 

[hotboyz]

So now the eagles add Ronnie brown and u kno the mad scientists Andy Reid gonna thro some wildcat in man Vick season may be one for the ages

 

[gianmarco]

Teams have a year of film on Vick; no way will he come close to last season.

Yes, because weeks of film just aren't enough and teams at the end of the year were still befuddled on what to do.

 

[shadyridr]

his adp is currently selcted 8th. thats shocking imo

 

[Banger]

his adp is currently selcted 8th. thats shocking imo

In what way? Too high or too low?

 

[gethugefast1]

his adp is currently selcted 8th. thats shocking imo

That ADP is ususally based on 4 points per passing TD At 6 points per passing TD (what the OP is suggesting), you have your argument.

 

[shadyridr]

his adp is currently selcted 8th. thats shocking imo

In what way? Too high or too low?

too low considering the debate at taking him #1 overall

 

[bweiser]

per the the vick/hillis vs. manning/cj3 argument:

give me vick/hillis. while vick MAY miss games, i think taking CJ3 in the first round is a bigger gamble. vick is in camp. Cj3 is not. until he actually shows up and practices, i'm taking the next BPA available over him.

and i own CJ3 and Vick in my keeper league.

 

[Longshot88]

I belive he would be more valueable in a 4 pt passing td scoring system. if he throws for 25 and runs for 10 for a total of 35. Roggers/Manning should throw for that if all tds are 6 points, his only advantage over roggers/manning is his rushing yards. so IMO 6 points for all TDs Hes closer in production to other top QBs,and a bigger injury risk

 

[cvnpoka]

his adp is currently selcted 8th. thats shocking imo

That ADP is ususally based on 4 points per passing TD At 6 points per passing TD (what the OP is suggesting), you have your argument.

hes moar valuable at 4/td than 6 tho.

 

[KCC]

I really think anyone extrapolating Vick's numbers from last year over an entire season are making a mistake. I don't see Vick as just an injury "risk" - I think it's a lock that he misses games due to injuries. He will also likely play injured in a number of games that he does start which will further limit his fantasy production. At this point last year, no one was expecting Vick to play much. This year, every defensive coordinator on the Eagles schedule has spent the summer specifically designing a game-plan to keep Vick in the pocket - of course, not all of them will be successful, but those that will will serve as a model for other teams.

In 2004, 2005, and 2006 he missed a total of 2 games over 3 years. Add in 2002 and he missed a total of 3 games over those 4 years. Why is he a major injury risk? He is faster than just about everyone on the field and also carries the fear that he could launch that pigskin over his shoulder anytime by simply flipping it down the field...just curious. I can accept folks that project Vick at 12-14 games but at the same time all players are injury risks to some degree. Is everyone ready to lock and load, go all in on Arian Foster? He played the season with a decent injury along the way. Maybe this year he just won't have the same will he had last year...just being the devil's ad here.

As players get older, their bodies become more susceptable to injuries and it takes them longer to recover from those injuries. Last year, Vick played with an attitude that was great for fantasy numbers but hard on his body - probably because he had a lot to prove to everyone (including himself.) If he plays that way again, I really think injuries will impact his season. If he plays more cautiously, his fantasy value drops a bit. Remember, Vick is 31. That age isn't a huge concern for the QB position, but it's an issue of concern for RBs. Vick's fantasy value is high because he's a QB who plays like a RB.

 

[matuski]

Mathew Berry has an interesting arguement for Drafting Vick #1. Check it out at ESPN under his draft day manifesto article. He is a huge believer in drafting Vick as the overall #1 pick.

I haven't read Berry's argument but I imagine he realizes Vick is both a top 5 QB and a top 10 RB when you take his passing and rushing seperately. Clear cut #1 pick imo.

If Vick runs that much they're gonna be scrapin him off the field. If you take Vick, get a good back up. This is definately possible. There will good QB's available in middle rounds.Personally, I'd rather take AP and get one of the stud QB's available at the turn.

It isn't like he needs a lot of carries to do this.

 

[CalBear]

If Vick can play like he did last season for a full season, then sure. But his production last year was stupid good, and if he regresses anywhere near the normal amount, he won't be worth the #1 pick.

I don't think there's a plausible mean for him to regress to. I also don't think the concept of a "normal" amount of regression is meaningful. The only baseline we have for Vick prior to 2010 ended in 2006, on a different team, with a different offensive system, and before he had a major life-changing event. I don't see any real reason to look at his Atlanta stats as typical and his Philly stats as abnormal. He's a different player now.In particular, I am willing to predict that he will complete upwards of 60% of his passes, and if he plays 12 or more games he will throw for more than 20 TDs (the most he ever had in Atlanta). I am also willing to predict that he will rush for at least 6 yards per carry, and have at least 100 rushing attempts. So I would say his baseline for 2011 is at least as good as his best season in Atlanta, when he finished with 78 VBD points in 15 games. I can't imagine projecting any downside risk (or "regression," but I think you're misusing that term) from there except due to injury, and that's a heck of a baseline to start with.

 

[Banger]

If Vick can play like he did last season for a full season, then sure. But his production last year was stupid good, and if he regresses anywhere near the normal amount, he won't be worth the #1 pick.

I don't think there's a plausible mean for him to regress to. I also don't think the concept of a "normal" amount of regression is meaningful. The only baseline we have for Vick prior to 2010 ended in 2006, on a different team, with a different offensive system, and before he had a major life-changing event. I don't see any real reason to look at his Atlanta stats as typical and his Philly stats as abnormal. He's a different player now.In particular, I am willing to predict that he will complete upwards of 60% of his passes, and if he plays 12 or more games he will throw for more than 20 TDs (the most he ever had in Atlanta). I am also willing to predict that he will rush for at least 6 yards per carry, and have at least 100 rushing attempts. So I would say his baseline for 2011 is at least as good as his best season in Atlanta, when he finished with 78 VBD points in 15 games. I can't imagine projecting any downside risk (or "regression," but I think you're misusing that term) from there except due to injury, and that's a heck of a baseline to start with.

you said what i was trying to express much more eloquently.

 

[Ian F]

I definitely think this strategy has the potential to pay off huge. It is risky as is any draft QB early strategy in that you have to do a good job of drafting your RBs and WRs.

I think the major regression risk is in his rushing TDs but that could easily be offset by slight uptick in any other category as he improves as a passer or rushes for a few more yards as he has done before in his career.

However, for me it really does come down to PPG - who cares if he only plays 12 times, if hes close to 2010 form he will almost single hand-idly win you all the matchups he plays as long as you are servicable at other spots. That gets you to the playoffs where its pretty much a lottery anyway...

 

[kinglochness]

It's basic VBD. Yes, Vick could "potentially" put up the most points of any fantasy player in history. But the dropoff at RB and even WR is much steeper. I would say Foster instead of CJ, but that's not really the point. Using Dodd's projections as non-biased numbers (where Vick is actually the #2 QB btw) the dropoff from Vick to Manning is 41.7. Foster to Hillis is 66.4 and CJ to Hillis is 56.2. Your league scoring system and personal projections will obviously change these numbers around, but I would be interested in seeing your projections to back up your logic here. I just don't see it being worth it.

 

[CalBear]

It's basic VBD. Yes, Vick could "potentially" put up the most points of any fantasy player in history. But the dropoff at RB and even WR is much steeper. I would say Foster instead of CJ, but that's not really the point. Using Dodd's projections as non-biased numbers (where Vick is actually the #2 QB btw) the dropoff from Vick to Manning is 41.7. Foster to Hillis is 66.4 and CJ to Hillis is 56.2. Your league scoring system and personal projections will obviously change these numbers around, but I would be interested in seeing your projections to back up your logic here. I just don't see it being worth it.

Dodds is projecting Vick to miss 2 games. If you project Dodds' numbers out to a full season, he'd have Vick with 437 points, which would make the dropoff to Manning 97 points. So Dodds is projecting Vick to outscore Manning by 6 points per game.

 

[kinglochness]

It was like having another starter on your team.

Seriously. Vick has the potential to simultaneously put up QB1 numbers and RB2 numbers. It's really like adding an extra flex player to your starting lineup.

Better have a nice backup QB and plenty of RB depth to cover you the 3-4 games Vick will be hurt this year.

 

[kinglochness]

Dodds is projecting Vick to miss 2 games. If you project Dodds' numbers out to a full season, he'd have Vick with 437 points, which would make the dropoff to Manning 97 points. So Dodds is projecting Vick to outscore Manning by 6 points per game.

Fair point. But I wonder why Dodds would be projecting Vick to miss 2 games? BTW, 2 is being generous IMO. The numbers are what they are and I understand some people are drooling over Vick potentially playing 16 games. If your draft strategy is praying for an injury prone running QB to stay at that level AND play a full 16 games though, I think you are setting yourself up for failure.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

instead of using last seasons numbers, i would predict a slightly more modest 3000 yd passing (150 pts @ .05), 800 yd rushing (80 pts @ 0.10), 30 TDs passing (120 pt @ 4), 10 TDs rushing (60 pt @ 6) for a total of 410 pts. still pretty good. seriously considering him now in the mid first round, though i can't imagine taking him over the consensus big 4 RBs (Foster, Peterson, Johnson, Rice)

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Fair point. But I wonder why Dodds would be projecting Vick to miss 2 games? BTW, 2 is being generous IMO. The numbers are what they are and I understand some people are drooling over Vick potentially playing 16 games. If your draft strategy is praying for an injury prone running QB to stay at that level AND play a full 16 games though, I think you are setting yourself up for failure.

That's simply not true. Matt Stafford right now is injury prone, let's have some perspective. Vick is a 4 time Pro Bowler and you can't do that by being injury prone. If you want to hate on Vick because you dislike the decisions he has made in life, fine...but don' tsay he is injury prone when that simply is not the case. He starts and finishes plenty of games...ask the New York Giants if they think Michael Vick is injury prone or the Washington Redskins last year.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Chad Pennington is inujury prone

 

[CalBear]

Fair point. But I wonder why Dodds would be projecting Vick to miss 2 games? BTW, 2 is being generous IMO. The numbers are what they are and I understand some people are drooling over Vick potentially playing 16 games. If your draft strategy is praying for an injury prone running QB to stay at that level AND play a full 16 games though, I think you are setting yourself up for failure.

Vick has missed more than one game twice in his career. It's certainly possible, and it might even be more likely for Vick than for other QBs, but it's not like he's a massively greater risk than other QBs. Tom Brady has missed more games due to injury than Vick.

 

[gianmarco]

Fair point. But I wonder why Dodds would be projecting Vick to miss 2 games? BTW, 2 is being generous IMO. The numbers are what they are and I understand some people are drooling over Vick potentially playing 16 games. If your draft strategy is praying for an injury prone running QB to stay at that level AND play a full 16 games though, I think you are setting yourself up for failure.

Vick for 12 games + WW QB for 4 games is still HUGE.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It was like having another starter on your team.

Seriously. Vick has the potential to simultaneously put up QB1 numbers and RB2 numbers. It's really like adding an extra flex player to your starting lineup.

Better have a nice backup QB and plenty of RB depth to cover you the 3-4 games Vick will be hurt this year.

Of course I'll have a backup QB. Not sure why RB depth would be needed if my QB got injured. Besides, i think I'd rather have a QB play 12 games and score 360 fantasy points than have a QB play 16 games and score 400 fantasy points.

 

[kinglochness]

That's simply not true. Matt Stafford right now is injury prone, let's have some perspective. Vick is a 4 time Pro Bowler and you can't do that by being injury prone. If you want to hate on Vick because you dislike the decisions he has made in life, fine...but don' tsay he is injury prone when that simply is not the case. He starts and finishes plenty of games...ask the New York Giants if they think Michael Vick is injury prone or the Washington Redskins last year.

First, I'm not hating on Vick and I don't care about his past. I think he is being overvalued by taking him #1 overall. Now, as far as injury prone, maybe I overstated that a bit. I'm not trying to say the guy is a wuss but there are some facts that are undeniable. Fact #1 Has played a full 16 games once in his career. Granted, he's played 15 three times, but I am arguing he won't play 16 which will obviously change the projections we are talking about. Fact #2 He runs more than any QB in the league. Fact #3 Ranks 22nd among starters at the end of last year in games missed over their careers. You can argue that is because of of the 2003 season where he missed 11 games because of his fibula, but isn't that the real concern? The season-ending injury? This article (http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2011/3/28/2075654/how-injury-prone-is-michael-vick-exactly) looks at the numbers and takes those same facts and takes the "Vick isn't injury prone for what he is" standpoint so maybe it's an eye of the beholder thing. I personally don't think the numbers make sense to take him that high and, if he were to fall to me (which he won't) I would make sure to grab the cheap VY handcuff.

 

[kinglochness]

Fair point. But I wonder why Dodds would be projecting Vick to miss 2 games? BTW, 2 is being generous IMO. The numbers are what they are and I understand some people are drooling over Vick potentially playing 16 games. If your draft strategy is praying for an injury prone running QB to stay at that level AND play a full 16 games though, I think you are setting yourself up for failure.

Vick for 12 games + WW QB for 4 games is still HUGE.

Absolutely. I'm not saying don't draft the guy. I'm saying don't draft him #1.

 

[icehouse]

So is Vince an automatic handcuff for Vick? Can he put up close to the same numbers in that system?

His schedule doesn't look the greatest either.

 

[kinglochness]

It was like having another starter on your team.

Seriously. Vick has the potential to simultaneously put up QB1 numbers and RB2 numbers. It's really like adding an extra flex player to your starting lineup.

Better have a nice backup QB and plenty of RB depth to cover you the 3-4 games Vick will be hurt this year.

Of course I'll have a backup QB. Not sure why RB depth would be needed if my QB got injured. Besides, i think I'd rather have a QB play 12 games and score 360 fantasy points than have a QB play 16 games and score 400 fantasy points.

Because that was the context in which it was posted.

 

[kinglochness]

So is Vince an automatic handcuff for Vick? Can he put up close to the same numbers in that system?His schedule doesn't look the greatest either.

I think the numbers drop off obviously if VY is at the helm, but not enough to go to the waiver over handcuffing VY.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It was like having another starter on your team.

Seriously. Vick has the potential to simultaneously put up QB1 numbers and RB2 numbers. It's really like adding an extra flex player to your starting lineup.

Better have a nice backup QB and plenty of RB depth to cover you the 3-4 games Vick will be hurt this year.

Of course I'll have a backup QB. Not sure why RB depth would be needed if my QB got injured. Besides, i think I'd rather have a QB play 12 games and score 360 fantasy points than have a QB play 16 games and score 400 fantasy points.

Because that was the context in which it was posted.

Just because Vick produces like two players doesn't mean you'd need to (or even could) replace him with two players if he got hurt.

 

[kinglochness]

It was like having another starter on your team.

Seriously. Vick has the potential to simultaneously put up QB1 numbers and RB2 numbers. It's really like adding an extra flex player to your starting lineup.

Better have a nice backup QB and plenty of RB depth to cover you the 3-4 games Vick will be hurt this year.

Of course I'll have a backup QB. Not sure why RB depth would be needed if my QB got injured. Besides, i think I'd rather have a QB play 12 games and score 360 fantasy points than have a QB play 16 games and score 400 fantasy points.

Because that was the context in which it was posted.

Just because Vick produces like two players doesn't mean you'd need to (or even could) replace him with two players if he got hurt.

If you are going to draft him expecting those kinds of numbers, you should probably have strong depth at both.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It was like having another starter on your team.

Seriously. Vick has the potential to simultaneously put up QB1 numbers and RB2 numbers. It's really like adding an extra flex player to your starting lineup.

Better have a nice backup QB and plenty of RB depth to cover you the 3-4 games Vick will be hurt this year.

Of course I'll have a backup QB. Not sure why RB depth would be needed if my QB got injured. Besides, i think I'd rather have a QB play 12 games and score 360 fantasy points than have a QB play 16 games and score 400 fantasy points.

Because that was the context in which it was posted.

Just because Vick produces like two players doesn't mean you'd need to (or even could) replace him with two players if he got hurt.

If you are going to draft him expecting those kinds of numbers, you should probably have strong depth at both.

Yeah, this makes no sense.

 

[shortbow]

It was like having another starter on your team.

Seriously. Vick has the potential to simultaneously put up QB1 numbers and RB2 numbers. It's really like adding an extra flex player to your starting lineup.

Better have a nice backup QB and plenty of RB depth to cover you the 3-4 games Vick will be hurt this year.

Of course I'll have a backup QB. Not sure why RB depth would be needed if my QB got injured. Besides, i think I'd rather have a QB play 12 games and score 360 fantasy points than have a QB play 16 games and score 400 fantasy points.

Because that was the context in which it was posted.

Just because Vick produces like two players doesn't mean you'd need to (or even could) replace him with two players if he got hurt.

If you are going to draft him expecting those kinds of numbers, you should probably have strong depth at both.

Yeah, this makes no sense.

It made sense to me the first time I read it.You draft Vick in the first round, so you dont get a RB1. If Vick gets injured your "value" goes out the window.

 

[shadyridr]

Fair point. But I wonder why Dodds would be projecting Vick to miss 2 games? BTW, 2 is being generous IMO. The numbers are what they are and I understand some people are drooling over Vick potentially playing 16 games. If your draft strategy is praying for an injury prone running QB to stay at that level AND play a full 16 games though, I think you are setting yourself up for failure.

Vick for 12 games + WW QB for 4 games is still HUGE.

Absolutely. I'm not saying don't draft the guy. I'm saying don't draft him #1.

I agree I wouldnt take him #1, but where is the spot to take him? After the big 3 RBs? (Foster, ADP, Johnson) After Rice? After Charles?

 

[shadyridr]

It was like having another starter on your team.

Seriously. Vick has the potential to simultaneously put up QB1 numbers and RB2 numbers. It's really like adding an extra flex player to your starting lineup.

Better have a nice backup QB and plenty of RB depth to cover you the 3-4 games Vick will be hurt this year.

Of course I'll have a backup QB. Not sure why RB depth would be needed if my QB got injured. Besides, i think I'd rather have a QB play 12 games and score 360 fantasy points than have a QB play 16 games and score 400 fantasy points.

Because that was the context in which it was posted.

Just because Vick produces like two players doesn't mean you'd need to (or even could) replace him with two players if he got hurt.

If you are going to draft him expecting those kinds of numbers, you should probably have strong depth at both.

Yeah, this makes no sense.

It made sense to me the first time I read it.You draft Vick in the first round, so you dont get a RB1. If Vick gets injured your "value" goes out the window.

And if you draft a RB1 in the 1st round and he gets hurt your "value" goes out the window as well

 

[fruity pebbles]

Injury isnt my main concern with Vick, its the strength of the Eagles defense.

 

[shortbow]

It was like having another starter on your team.

Seriously. Vick has the potential to simultaneously put up QB1 numbers and RB2 numbers. It's really like adding an extra flex player to your starting lineup.

Better have a nice backup QB and plenty of RB depth to cover you the 3-4 games Vick will be hurt this year.

Of course I'll have a backup QB. Not sure why RB depth would be needed if my QB got injured. Besides, i think I'd rather have a QB play 12 games and score 360 fantasy points than have a QB play 16 games and score 400 fantasy points.

Because that was the context in which it was posted.

Just because Vick produces like two players doesn't mean you'd need to (or even could) replace him with two players if he got hurt.

If you are going to draft him expecting those kinds of numbers, you should probably have strong depth at both.

Yeah, this makes no sense.

It made sense to me the first time I read it.You draft Vick in the first round, so you dont get a RB1. If Vick gets injured your "value" goes out the window.

And if you draft a RB1 in the 1st round and he gets hurt your "value" goes out the window as well

Think about this for one second.The argument here is that you start 1 QB, inherently the player is less valuable then a position you start more than one of. Having a top 5 RB is much more valuable then having a top 5 QB. Giving up a top skill position player (RB or WR, TE in some formats) no matter if Vick has a "perfect" season and performs better than what everyone expects you will still have less points than a person that drafted a skill position player and a different quarterback.

 

[CalBear]

You draft Vick in the first round, so you dont get a RB1. If Vick gets injured your "value" goes out the window.

Yes, it is true that if your first round pick gets injured, you won't get production out of your first round pick. QED.

 

[CalBear]

Having a top 5 RB is much more valuable then having a top 5 QB

Prove it.

 

[flooredyas]

This will be an intriguing question for me throughout the preseason. Having ADP, Charles and Vick in a league I won last year nets me the #1 pick-I can only keep one. I've kept ADP since his rookie year.

Currently leaning toward Vick.

 

[shortbow]

Having a top 5 RB is much more valuable then having a top 5 QB

Prove it.

I dont have to, its common sense.You start 1 QB and you start 2 or more RB/WR then your QB is automatically worth less than your RB/WRs.

 

[hotboyz]

instead of using last seasons numbers, i would predict a slightly more modest 3000 yd passing (150 pts @ .05), 800 yd rushing (80 pts @ 0.10), 30 TDs passing (120 pt @ 4), 10 TDs rushing (60 pt @ 6) for a total of 410 pts. still pretty good. seriously considering him now in the mid first round, though i can't imagine taking him over the consensus big 4 RBs (Foster, Peterson, Johnson, Rice)

[/quote

So a pro bowl qb in a andy reid offense who throws the ball appx. 550 times a season and you predict him to only pass for 3000 yds. Sounds like to me alot of people are manipulating numbers to make them sound more reasonable. Seems lik alot of folks have preconcieved notions of who should finish where so when they do there stat projection it reflects that. If you do a honest projection without bias lookin completely at the situation with a clear mind how can people projections come out so low?? So we got to the point that we project injuries if thats the case how many game are folks predicting aaron rodgers to miss (concussions) Tom Brady who missed a whole season, rian Foster who played with a torn miniscus Or how bout Peyton Manning whos coming off of Neck surgery are folks taking games away from Andre Johnsons projections has he ever played 16 games?? I argue that you have to do projections based on a 16 game season the only time i project injuries is for somebody obvious like Fragile Fred Taylor! But honestly how many qb's miss a game here or there its normal!

 

[Touchdown There]

I belive he would be more valueable in a 4 pt passing td scoring system. if he throws for 25 and runs for 10 for a total of 35. Roggers/Manning should throw for that if all tds are 6 points, his only advantage over roggers/manning is his rushing yards. so IMO 6 points for all TDs Hes closer in production to other top QBs,and a bigger injury risk

You are correct.

 

[CalBear]

Having a top 5 RB is much more valuable then having a top 5 QB

Prove it.

I dont have to, its common sense.You start 1 QB and you start 2 or more RB/WR then your QB is automatically worth less than your RB/WRs.

No, it's not. You think there was someone more valuable than Steve Young in 1994?

 

[gethugefast1]

This will be an intriguing question for me throughout the preseason. Having ADP, Charles and Vick in a league I won last year nets me the #1 pick-I can only keep one. I've kept ADP since his rookie year. Currently leaning toward Vick.

Of course I'm going to hit you with 'this belongs in the coach's forum'. I have same decision... Vick, ADP or Foster @ #1 Spot, thus drafting #10.

 

[[icon]]

2006: 3529/242007: 4806/502009: 4398/28

Who is Tom Brady?2010: 3,900/36

Congrats... you're at least halfway paying attention. Now explain to me how this is relevant?