What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Most Important Position? Be an NFL GM (1 Viewer)

There aren't 32 starting level QBs in the league now. If I have the first pick I take Brady. At 2-1, if there is another QB I consider starter worthy I take him.Also do I get the first rookie pick, i.e. Bush :D

A franchise quarterback is worthless unless he gets to stand in the pocket for four seconds on average. Ask David Carr.You have to build the line first.QB would be second after a dominant left tackle. I'd start at the pro bowl list and work my way from there to find the most stable LT under 30 right now with pro bowl type skills (far too linemen don't get the glory and go to Honolulu).

After reading, my top 12:

1. Walter Jones

2. Richard Seymour

3. Julius Peppers

4. Dwight Freeney

5. Macus Stroud

6. Chris Samuels

7. DeAngelo Hall

8. LT

9. Antonio Gates

10. Brian Urlacher

11. Peyton Manning

12. Tom Brady

I would have liked to go all linemen, but some players are dominant enough at their position to warrant a different plan.

* The only QBs I put in the 2nd round are Roethlisberger and Palmer. :)
You haven't seen enough of Chris Samuels. He's not even the best Tackle on the team. No way he should make anyone's top 12 list.
Maybe I haven't seen enough, but what I saw I liked. I would have put Jansen up there, but I thought that was just the "homer" in me - we played against him in High School.
A franchise quarterback is worthless unless he gets to stand in the pocket for four seconds on average. Ask David Carr.

You have to build the line first.

QB would be second after a dominant left tackle. I'd start at the pro bowl list and work my way from there to find the most stable LT under 30 right now with pro bowl type skills (far too linemen don't get the glory and go to Honolulu).
I agree with the first part, but unless I get one of the top 4 QBs, I'll wait for one. You hit the problem on the head, I know I'd start with the line, but aside from KC, I haven't seen enough of the linemen to completely evaluate them properly. And with KC, I'm not drafting a lineman who will retire within the next two years in the first couple rounds. I assume I'd be able to hire a good scouting department or get a lot more research done before actually drafting ;)

There was a study a couple of years back that evaluated spending habits. It ranked positions by how high the correlation between spending at that position and wins was. It found that the position that correlated highest, that gave you the most wins per dollar spent, was... placekicker.Ladies and gentlemen, meet David Akers, first overall selection of the FBGs fantasy draft. :hophead: :boxing:Seriously, though... football is a game of matchups. The first guy I would take would HAVE to be a guy capable of causing MASSIVE matchup disadvantages. This means I would either take a defensive lineman who DEMANDS a double-team, a cornerback who can be left entirely on his own against the other team's best receiver, a Wide Receiver who can consistantly beat double-teams, or a Tight End who presents coverage problems for both CBs and Safeties. Linemen, Quarterbacks, Runningbacks, Linebackers, and Safeties are very very important to a team's success... but none of these guys can create a cascade effect that forces the other unit to change their entire philosophy and play the rest of the team short-handed because of all the attention they're paying to my #1 overall pick. There are a very few exceptions, such as Brian Dawkins and Julian Peterson (before he was injured), who are so versatile that they create matchup problems, but for the sake of this excercise, I'm sticking to DLs, CBs, WRs, and TEs.My second concern is going to be longevity. How much can I get out of my stud player, how much does he have left in him? If I'm basing my franchise off of a player, I want a guy who has at least 3 straight years of demonstrated excellence, but who is still under 30 and plays at a position known for longevity.Anyway, that said, on to the lists.Defensive Line- Peppers is very, very good, but not consistantly dominant for me to use my first pick on. Dwight Freeney is VERY tempting, since he's young and has established a history of dominance, but he's too one-dimensional. Casey Hampton, the NT for the Steelers, is another guy who is absolutely dominant, but he's just as one-dimensional as Freeney. Michael Strahan and Jason Taylor have absolutely everything I'm looking for, and would easily be my first overall pick... if they were just a couple years younger. This leaves me with really only one choice on the D-line. Richard Seymour.CB- Ty Law would be the guy if this was 5 years ago, but it's not, so he's not. With Law too old, it's gotta be Champ Bailey. 6 straight pro-bowls and 2 straight all-pros show a demonstrated history of excellence. He's under 30 in a position known for longevity. I already know he'll be able to handle going 1-on-1, since he does it all the time anyway (unlike another guy I like, Terrence Newman, who would be a bit of an unknown in strictly man-coverage on the other team's #1). A lot of other guys have had great seasons (Al Harris, Lito Sheppard, and Chris McCallister), but they haven't been consistantly great enough to warrent the pick.WR- For Steve Smith, I might consider waiving the 3-year excellence standard, because he was injured, but was pretty good in year 1 and dominant in year 3. That said, I have a lot of concerns about Steve Smith, since Muhsin Muhammed put up just as ridiculous of numbers in that system. This makes me question whether Smith is the REASON, or BENEFICIARY. Randy Moss is an easy choice here, but his recent injury history scares me off too much. Harrison is too old, Santana Moss is still too unproven, Owens is too old and also too unpredictable. In fact, there's not a lot of WRs that I like here. Fitzgerald, Boldin, and Holt would all warrent a long look... but in the end, Chad Johnson is the only WR I'd consider here. 4 straight dominant years, 3 straight pro-bowls, success with different QBs and different offensive systems, and he's under 30.TE- The list begins and ends at Antonio Gates. Heap/Shockey have been too inconsistant, Gonzalez is too old, no one else has been dominant. I'm waiving the 3-years of excellence rule, because Gates was SO dominant during his 2 straight seasons.So the final list is, in order of preference:Champ BaileyRichard SeymourAntonio GatesChad Johnson

I think many of you are under rating the quarterbacks. I don't care how good your LT is, he's not stopping a blitz on the other side. A good QB will be able to audible to a play that has a chance for success and should be able to get the ball off a half second quicker. A good QB with pocket presence will be able to slide around and create some additional time. Sure, a serviceable QB like Dilfer will work if you have superior players at most of the other positions.gotta run...more later.

So for me, it's QB by a long shot.
I agree by a longshot, and fwiw, so does Jimmy Johnson.However:

As I mentioned in the other thread, IMO teh success or failure of a team can many times be derived from the strength of the line play.
I agree with this too. It's just that QB is one position, while the lines are units made up of several positions. So, I still think QB is the most important individual position, but nothing is more important than dominating in the trenches. :2cents:


Users who are viewing this thread