mrharrier's FBG Consensus Rankings Critique (1 Viewer)

[10993]

Before I get started I just want to say that FBG is by far the best fantasy product available in all of the land and this critique is not meant to cast a negative shadow on the staff's efforts in any way. The purpose is to provide a catalyst for the discussion of the rankings. The world would be a boring place if everybody shared the same thoughts and opinions.

[SIZE=21pt]OVERRATED[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]1) Matt Hasselbeck Ranked #2[/SIZE]

It's funny how Hasselbeck's fortunes mirror, in many ways, Shaun Alexander's. Hasselbeck will also be hurt by Hutch's departure. Seattle's improving defense should also prevent them from having to throw too to stay in games. Hasselbeck peaked again last year after a disappointing 2004 campaign followed his #4 showing in 2003. Expect Hasselbeck to stay in the top ten, but a jump to #2 is unreasonable to expect. Nothing has improved except for Burleson. Even if he can overcome the factors working against him and take advantage of Nate Burleson's arrival, he'll likely finish no better than he did last year: #5.

Staff with Highest Ranking: Tremblay-Rudnicki-Gray-Brown-Wood #2

Staff with Lowest Ranking: Jeff Pasquino #6

mrharrier Ranking: #6

[SIZE=14pt]2) Jake Delhomme Ranked #8[/SIZE]

This is a tough one for me to write, because Jake Delhomme is a favorite player of mind, and seems to be an all-around good guy.

That said, even among last year's RB problems and with license to chuck it up to Steve Smith whenever he liked, Delhomme managed only a #12 showing. This year, Carolina's tough defense will support their revamped run game, and John Fox will keep the ball on the ground as much as he can--even with Smith running wild in the defensive backfield. With DeAngelo Williams and DeShaun Foster HoGging the ball, Jake won't get to sling it like that other Southern QB we all know and love.

A grounded Smith and a ground-focused run game equal a rougher fantasy year for Jake Delhomme.

Staff with Highest Ranking: Brown #5, Hicks #5

Staff with Lowest Ranking: Norton #16, Bloom #15

mrharrier Ranking: #14

[SIZE=14pt]3) Mark Brunell Ranked #22[/SIZE]

Brunell's short-lived renaissance will come to an end this year in Washington. Al Saunders' wide-open attack will require someone who's not so slow of foot and feeble in the pocket as Brunell's aging condition makes him. Expect Jason Campbell to get some playing time whether the Redskins are in the playoff hunt or not.

Saunders will also likely focus more attention on Clinton Portis, after his late-season surge carried Washington last year. With an ever-improving defense and a solid ground attack, there just isn't enough to support Brunell's #22 ranking.

Staff with Highest Ranking: Wood #18, Brown #18

Staff with Lowest Ranking: Lamney #25, Bloom #25, Hicks #25

mrharrier Ranking: #27

[SIZE=21pt]UNDERRATED[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]1) Drew Bledsoe Ranked #12[/SIZE]

After a #6 finish last year, the addition of T.O., and with a new blocking TE to protect stone-foot Drew, we're supposed to expect him to drop all the way to #12? It's not like he'll be getting much help from that running games of theirs. Julius can't carry the load for 6 games, much less 16.

The 2 TE set will give Drew plenty of the checkdown opportunities he needs to avoid strong rushes. T.O.'s consistent ability to boost his QB's stats in the comparatively harmonious first season with a new team will certainly come into play here. Don't forget about Terry Glenn, either, who can still stretch the field on those old legs, and who will be far more comfortable with T.O. drawing most of the coverage.

Staff with Highest Ranking: Lamney #6, Wood #6, Hicks #7, Rudnicki #7

Staff with Lowest Ranking: Pasquino #18, Baker #17, Bloom #16, Brown #16

mrharrier Ranking: #8

[SIZE=14pt]2) Ben Roethlisberger Ranked #15[/SIZE]

As EBF often notes, Big Ben got the most out of the least number of opportunities in the past couple years. With Cowher remolding the offense to fit around Ben, bringing in speedy receivers and highlighting Parker, the future holds nothing but bright things. Expect the continued maturation of Heath Miller and the maintenance of a consistently high YPA, along with 3-5 more passes a game, to lead to a successful season for the young Super Bowl champ.

Of course, if Cowher does end up pulling off that trade for Duckett and deciding to pound the rock all year, all bets are off for the dramatic improvement we'd like to see in Ben's stats.

Staff with Highest Ranking: Hicks #8, Pasquino #9, Bloom #10, Rudnicki #10

Staff with Lowest Ranking: Levin #20, Gray #18, Baker #18

mrharrier Ranking: #10

[SIZE=14pt]3) Brett Favre Ranked #16[/SIZE]

In last year, his worst year, Favre finished #13. With a new coach pulling in the reins and demanding more accountability from Favre, his interception rate should go down (could it possibly go up?) which will free up more reasonable and consistent passing opportunities for him. Greg Jennings (look forward to the WR review) should help give Favre a bit of a boost this year.

Staff with Highest Ranking: Wimer #10, Baker #11, Wood #11

Staff with Lowest Ranking: Pasquino #23, Tremblay #21

mrharrier Ranking: #13

Honorable Mention: Kurt Warner

This ranking depends entirely on what you think of the ability of the Cards' new TE, RB, and OL to protect Warner. I, personally, think they will protect him enough to keep him in for at least 13 games. With the firepower he's got at his disposal, that's a #10 ranking. In a redraft, you'd be foolish not to pair Warner and Leinart as a cheap QB later in the draft with top-notch performance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One note about quarterbacks: Jon Kitna would definitely be underrated if I thought he'll start the whole year. I don't. McCown and he should go frustratingly back and forth all year long. The Bengals have more weapons than the Lions, and Kitna did not acquit himself well with them after Palmer went down last year.

Parts III (WRs) and IV (TEs and more) will be coming out later this week.

 

[mbuehner]

Nothing has improved except for Burleson.

A healthy Darrell Jackson will be a change this season, a big change. When Jackson was in the lineup in 05, Hasselback averaged 244 yards 1.67 tds, and .3 ints per game. Without Jackson 199.5 yards, 1.4 tds, .7 ints. And that was with a limited Jackson towards the end.

 

[Arnold. S]

Nothing has improved except for Burleson.

A healthy Darrell Jackson will be a change this season, a big change. When Jackson was in the lineup in 05, Hasselback averaged 244 yards 1.67 tds, and .3 ints per game. Without Jackson 199.5 yards, 1.4 tds, .7 ints. And that was with a limited Jackson towards the end.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

true dat, I was about to post the same thing

 

[BigJim®]

Nothing has improved except for Burleson.

A healthy Darrell Jackson will be a change this season, a big change. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't have anything against optimism... but "will be"? Last I'd heard he went under the knife again on the knee and was scheduled to be resting all the way up to training camp.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I'm as big a fan of Hasselbeck as anyone, but the #2 ranking surprised the heck out of me.

I wouldn't be COMPLETELY surprised if he managed a #2 ranking however. After Manning, the QB position looks to be in shambles right now. It's not like how it was a few years ago, when you could name off 5-6 solid QBs who were entering the same situation in the current year as they had produced the year before.

All the top QBs are either coming off big injuries, or major team/coaching changes.

Still.. I have Bledsoe #2 after Manning. He's gotten the richest this off-season.

 

[10993]

Nothing has improved except for Burleson.

A healthy Darrell Jackson will be a change this season, a big change. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't have anything against optimism... but "will be"? Last I'd heard he went under the knife again on the knee and was scheduled to be resting all the way up to training camp.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I said, nothing's improved but Burleson. It's certainly possible DJax could be helathy all year, but I don't really see the difference between last year and this coming year in that respect.

 

[mbuehner]

It's certainly possible DJax could be helathy all year, but I don't really see the difference between last year and this coming year in that respect.

You dont expect Jackson to play in more than 6 games this season?

 

[10993]

It's certainly possible DJax could be helathy all year, but I don't really see the difference between last year and this coming year in that respect.

You dont expect Jackson to play in more than 6 games this season?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course I do. But the difference going into last year and going into this year isn't significant, is it? I mean, I certainly think there's a greater change that DJax does than he doesn't. But that chance is easily counterbalanced by Hutch's departure and Alexander's sure decline after getting his contract issued. Yet he's supposed to rise from #5 to #2? Highly unlikely.

 

[nerangers]

As long as Shaun Alexander is in Seattle, I expect Hasselbeck to be betwwen #5 and #10. He is the first scoring option for the team, and it is ground first, air second with Alexander.

 

[Assani Fisher]

[SIZE=14pt]2) Jake Delhomme Ranked #8[/SIZE]

That said, even among last year's RB problems and with license to chuck it up to Steve Smith whenever he liked, .  This year, Carolina's tough defense will support their revamped run game, and John Fox will keep the ball on the ground as much as he can--even with Smith running wild in the defensive backfield.  With DeAngelo Williams and DeShaun Foster HoGging the ball, Jake won't get to sling it like that other Southern QB we all know and love.

[SIZE=21pt]UNDERRATED[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]1) Drew Bledsoe Ranked #12[/SIZE]

It's not like he'll be getting much help from that running games of theirs.  Julius can't carry the load for 6 games, much less 16.

Staff with Lowest Ranking:  Pasquino #18, Baker #17, Bloom #16, Brown #16

[SIZE=14pt]2) Ben Roethlisberger Ranked #15[/SIZE]

Of course, if Cowher does end up pulling off that trade for Duckett and deciding to pound the rock all year, all bets are off for the dramatic improvement we'd like to see in Ben's stats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You seem to be implying that a good running game hurts a QBs' numbers, which I simply don't agree with.

 

[10993]

[SIZE=14pt]2) Jake Delhomme Ranked #8[/SIZE]

That said, even among last year's RB problems and with license to chuck it up to Steve Smith whenever he liked, .  This year, Carolina's tough defense will support their revamped run game, and John Fox will keep the ball on the ground as much as he can--even with Smith running wild in the defensive backfield.  With DeAngelo Williams and DeShaun Foster HoGging the ball, Jake won't get to sling it like that other Southern QB we all know and love.

[SIZE=21pt]UNDERRATED[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]1) Drew Bledsoe Ranked #12[/SIZE]

It's not like he'll be getting much help from that running games of theirs.  Julius can't carry the load for 6 games, much less 16.

Staff with Lowest Ranking:  Pasquino #18, Baker #17, Bloom #16, Brown #16

[SIZE=14pt]2) Ben Roethlisberger Ranked #15[/SIZE]

Of course, if Cowher does end up pulling off that trade for Duckett and deciding to pound the rock all year, all bets are off for the dramatic improvement we'd like to see in Ben's stats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You seem to be implying that a good running game hurts a QBs' numbers, which I simply don't agree with.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all. An improvement in the running game usually helps QBs. A shift in emphasis toward running as opposed to passing, however, hurts QBs.Indy and Pitt last year were great examples. Indy's great running game, with Edge James, helped Manning. But Pitt's choice to emphasize the running game hurt Roethlisberger, fantasy-wise. It's not a matter of productivity from the running game, but rather number of opportunities for the passing game.

 

[mbuehner]

Of course I do. But the difference going into last year and going into this year isn't significant, is it? I mean, I certainly think there's a greater change that DJax does than he doesn't. But that chance is easily counterbalanced by Hutch's departure and Alexander's sure decline after getting his contract issued. Yet he's supposed to rise from #5 to #2? Highly unlikely

If we are talking about projections, I would simply argue that Hasselbecks numbers arent any better but the rest of the league is considerably worse, or at least has many more question marks. Manning remains 1, but McNabb and Culpepper have huge question marks and go from around top 3 to maybe not even top 10. Brady lost a top WR and hasnt gotten any real help, Eli hasnt proven he is top 3 talent and lacks top flight weapons, Palmer and Bulger are coming off serious injuries. Vick remains Vick.Hasselbeck has a great opportunity because he has a new weapon and one of the most reliable ones in the league coming back to him. He doesnt need to outperform last years projections by much because last year ended up a majorly down year for QBs so much so that this year may be impacted early on. Let me put it this way, if Hasselbeck had put up his 2003 numbers in 05, he would have beaten out Peyton Manning, thats how down the season was even for Manning. If that trend continues, Hasselbeck has every earmark of playing top 5 if not top 3 ball just by doing what he has always done. Not because he is better, but because the league is worse.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I don't really expect Hasselbeck to do much better this year...I just expect the other QBs to do worse. He also has the fewest question marks for me.

Brady lost one of his starting WRs and the team added a 1st round RB.

McNabb is coming off an injury and lost Owens and his offensive coordinator.

Culpepper shredded his knee and changed teams.

Palmer wrecked his knee in January.

Brees hurt his throwing shoulder and changed teams.

Eli Manning and Drew Bledsoe seem like the two QBs with the best shot to finish ahead of Hasselbeck right now. Both were top-6 last year and there is reason to expect improvement from each. Manning b/c he's young and getting better...Bledsoe b/c the team received an upgrade from Keyshawn to Owens.

But, Hasselbeck has been a top-5 fantasy QB in 2 of the past 3 seasons. He seemed to be the safer choice of the 3 so I gave him the 2 slot. But, he's not really ranked that much higher than the guys directly below him.

As for losing Hutchinson, it certainly will hurt a bit. But, the Seahawks should still have one of the best offensive lines in the league.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Of course I do. But the difference going into last year and going into this year isn't significant, is it? I mean, I certainly think there's a greater change that DJax does than he doesn't. But that chance is easily counterbalanced by Hutch's departure and Alexander's sure decline after getting his contract issued. Yet he's supposed to rise from #5 to #2? Highly unlikely

If we are talking about projections, I would simply argue that Hasselbecks numbers arent any better but the rest of the league is considerably worse, or at least has many more question marks. Manning remains 1, but McNabb and Culpepper have huge question marks and go from around top 3 to maybe not even top 10. Brady lost a top WR and hasnt gotten any real help, Eli hasnt proven he is top 3 talent and lacks top flight weapons, Palmer and Bulger are coming off serious injuries. Vick remains Vick.

Hasselbeck has a great opportunity because he has a new weapon and one of the most reliable ones in the league coming back to him. He doesnt need to outperform last years projections by much because last year ended up a majorly down year for QBs so much so that this year may be impacted early on.

Let me put it this way, if Hasselbeck had put up his 2003 numbers in 05, he would have beaten out Peyton Manning, thats how down the season was even for Manning. If that trend continues, Hasselbeck has every earmark of playing top 5 if not top 3 ball just by doing what he has always done. Not because he is better, but because the league is worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the last two full seasons Hasselbeck played, he was #4 in 2003 and #5 in 2005. (He was #13 in 2004, but he missed a couple games.)

The guys who finished above him in 2005 were Palmer, Brady, Manning, and Manning.

Palmer is an underdog to start in week one. Brady I like, but I think his 2005 season was more outside the norm than was Hasselbeck's. (Before last year, he'd never finished better than #9 despite having played in 16 games in each of the last four years.) Manning is awesome and I have him ranked #1. Manning hasn't fully proven himself yet.

There's not a huge gap between #2 and #6 this year, though. It's Manning and then a large gap, and then the next five guys bunched pretty closely together, then there's another big gap. Ranking Hasselbeck #2 isn't all that different from ranking him where mrharrier has him, IMO.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Let me ask a question here - When people do their projections, do they project injury-prone players stats in a limited amount of games? I certainly don't. I just place an asterick next to injury-prone players, and if I choose to draft them and they get hurt, so be it. That said, let's say Bulger and Warner play an entire 16 game season. It could happen you know. Wouldn't these 2 guys be right up near the top? As of right now both are healthy, and I would gladly welcome either of them on my FF roster. I'd just make sure I grabbed Leinart/Frerotte as insurance.

 

[Michael Brown]

I have Hass at #2, but I'm fairly certain I won't be drafting him in many (if any) leagues this year. He's number two because someone has to be, but realistically I see a big drop-off from Manning to the next tier. There isn't much difference in the next 5-6 guys, and I'd rather wait for a similar value to present itself.

 

[10993]

I have Hass at #2, but I'm fairly certain I won't be drafting him in many (if any) leagues this year. He's number two because someone has to be, but realistically I see a big drop-off from Manning to the next tier. There isn't much difference in the next 5-6 guys, and I'd rather wait for a similar value to present itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I disagree with Hass being the guy to put in that position (McNabb or Brady makes a lot more sense), I think this is a great explanation of what to do with Hass's #2 ranking: i.e. don't draft him as the #2 QB.

 

[mbuehner]

While I disagree with Hass being the guy to put in that position (McNabb or Brady makes a lot more sense), I think this is a great explanation of what to do with Hass's #2 ranking: i.e. don't draft him as the #2 QB.

I think i'm ok with that. Like I said, Hasselbeck gets ranked second because of his reliability. I dont think he will end up second, but of the half dozen or more guys with a realistic shot at doing so, who do you pick? The upside of this whole thing is Hasselbeck's ADP wont be #2 either, it will be around 5 and quite possibly later depending on the flavor of the week around draft time. Hass may be the forgotten man in many drafts. If he stays healthy he will live up to that draft position, if his receivers stay healthy he will outperform it. So let some other guys play the QB lottery early in the draft and if Hasselbeck is sitting there with good value a little later, grab him and dont think about it the rest of the season.

 

[thayman]

still some good stuff mrharrier. I do enjoy your rankings. I agree with everyone else about Hass. Brunell at 27 is a bit of a stretch for me. Well if he stays healthy that is. He has vastly improved WR, him in the early 20's late teens isn't much of a stretch.

 

[10993]

still some good stuff mrharrier.  I do enjoy your rankings.  I agree with everyone else about Hass.  Brunell at 27 is a bit of a stretch for me.  Well if he stays healthy that is.  He has vastly improved WR, him in the early 20's late teens isn't much of a stretch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously if he starts the whole way through, that's a pretty pessimistic view of his prospects. I don't expect him to start 16, though--whether it's a function of injury or poor play, I think Jason Campbell gets his shot this year.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Mark Brunell could be the new Trent Green. His arm strength magically returned last year and now he has a new offensive coordinator and some shiny new weapons.

 

[10993]

Mark Brunell could be the new Trent Green. His arm strength magically returned last year and now he has a new offensive coordinator and some shiny new weapons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's definitely a possibility. If you really believe that he'll maintain that mini-peak he hit last year, and not his recent very frustrating level of play (that had Pat Ramsey :X put in for him), AND you believe he's got good odds to avoid injury for all but one or two games... then I think you can make a good argument for him to produce well. The trouble is, that was like making the argument for Curtis Martin last year to maintain the #4 ranking he held the year before. I think there are just too many unlikely events that need to fall into place.Like you said, he could be the new Trent Green. But he's not worth my draft pick to hope for that.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I think there are a lot of QBs you can get late who have the potential to finish top-10 in fantasy points per game. Guys like Favre, Leftwich, Brunell, Warner, Culpepper. Even the Detroit QB position has a lot of potential this year.

There's even less reason to reach on a QB in redraft leagues than usual.

 

[Sammy3469]

Mark Brunell could be the new Trent Green. His arm strength magically returned last year and now he has a new offensive coordinator and some shiny new weapons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's definitely a possibility. If you really believe that he'll maintain that mini-peak he hit last year, and not his recent very frustrating level of play (that had Pat Ramsey :X put in for him), AND you believe he's got good odds to avoid injury for all but one or two games... then I think you can make a good argument for him to produce well. The trouble is, that was like making the argument for Curtis Martin last year to maintain the #4 ranking he held the year before. I think there are just too many unlikely events that need to fall into place.Like you said, he could be the new Trent Green. But he's not worth my draft pick to hope for that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only problem with that line of argument, harr, is that if you give any NFL time they can generally get the ball where it needs to go. At least he's still more accurate than Favre. BTW, last year is about as few of attempts as Delhomme is going to have in any year, so i don't know how much you can really expect him to digress.

As Rude says though, there really is no reason to chase any of the QBs since it all looks like a crapshoot.

 

[10993]

Mark Brunell could be the new Trent Green. His arm strength magically returned last year and now he has a new offensive coordinator and some shiny new weapons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's definitely a possibility. If you really believe that he'll maintain that mini-peak he hit last year, and not his recent very frustrating level of play (that had Pat Ramsey :X put in for him), AND you believe he's got good odds to avoid injury for all but one or two games... then I think you can make a good argument for him to produce well. The trouble is, that was like making the argument for Curtis Martin last year to maintain the #4 ranking he held the year before. I think there are just too many unlikely events that need to fall into place.Like you said, he could be the new Trent Green. But he's not worth my draft pick to hope for that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only problem with that line of argument, harr, is that if you give any NFL time they can generally get the ball where it needs to go. At least he's still more accurate than Favre. BTW, last year is about as few of attempts as Delhomme is going to have in any year, so i don't know how much you can really expect him to digress.

As Rude says though, there really is no reason to chase any of the QBs since it all looks like a crapshoot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really expect Delhomme to get worse--I could see him right in that #12-14 range again. I just don't see him rising up to #8, that's all.

 

[AB in DC]

still some good stuff mrharrier.  I do enjoy your rankings.  I agree with everyone else about Hass.  Brunell at 27 is a bit of a stretch for me.  Well if he stays healthy that is.  He has vastly improved WR, him in the early 20's late teens isn't much of a stretch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously if he starts the whole way through, that's a pretty pessimistic view of his prospects. I don't expect him to start 16, though--whether it's a function of injury or poor play, I think Jason Campbell gets his shot this year.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I live in the DC area, so trust me -- Gibbs has some serious man-love for Brunell. As long as Brunell is even mildly effective, he's starting.Campbell is still a bit of a project. If I'm not mistaken, he'll now be learning his sixth different offensive system in six years. I think 2007 is the earliest we see him on the field for any length of time.

 

[10993]

still some good stuff mrharrier.  I do enjoy your rankings.  I agree with everyone else about Hass.  Brunell at 27 is a bit of a stretch for me.  Well if he stays healthy that is.  He has vastly improved WR, him in the early 20's late teens isn't much of a stretch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously if he starts the whole way through, that's a pretty pessimistic view of his prospects. I don't expect him to start 16, though--whether it's a function of injury or poor play, I think Jason Campbell gets his shot this year.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I live in the DC area, so trust me -- Gibbs has some serious man-love for Brunell. As long as Brunell is even mildly effective, he's starting.Campbell is still a bit of a project. If I'm not mistaken, he'll now be learning his sixth different offensive system in six years. I think 2007 is the earliest we see him on the field for any length of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gibbs buckled to public pressure due to Brunell's poor play before. If Brunell has another rough stretch, Gibbs will buckle again. With the risk of that, plus the risk of injury, it's difficult for me to put the faith in Brunell that others are.

 

[thayman]

still some good stuff mrharrier.  I do enjoy your rankings.  I agree with everyone else about Hass.  Brunell at 27 is a bit of a stretch for me.  Well if he stays healthy that is.  He has vastly improved WR, him in the early 20's late teens isn't much of a stretch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously if he starts the whole way through, that's a pretty pessimistic view of his prospects. I don't expect him to start 16, though--whether it's a function of injury or poor play, I think Jason Campbell gets his shot this year.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I live in the DC area, so trust me -- Gibbs has some serious man-love for Brunell. As long as Brunell is even mildly effective, he's starting.Campbell is still a bit of a project. If I'm not mistaken, he'll now be learning his sixth different offensive system in six years. I think 2007 is the earliest we see him on the field for any length of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Completely agree....Brunell will be in as long as he can stand upright. Where his numbers take a dip, is when he gets a slight injury, ala the hammy strain a couple years ago when he bombed completely.I'm in the minority that I don't see Campbell starting, just because the Skins get eliminated from the playoffs. Gibbs likes to keep his QB's on the bench to learn.

 

[10993]

I don't see Campbell starting, just because the Skins get eliminated from the playoffs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's a virtual guarantee. The minute the Skins are eliminated, if they're eliminated, Campbell is in.

 

[mbuehner]

The problem with Brunell is he is not that talented. Sometimes he plays out of his mind, but he's just not very good, especially at this point in his career. Buyer beware! I think there are better options where Brunell will be drafted.

 

[Bob Henry]

Some great discussion going on in these threads. Keep it up, guys. This is good for everyone involved.

I know we talked about this subject quite a bit at our Vegas retreat.. After Manning, it's a tough call. There is a good case for several QBs to be ranked between 2nd and 6th. I know I've gone back and forth several times with Brady, McNabb, Hasselbeck and Eli in that mix.

I've been pretty high on Roethlisberger myself, but for some reason I have to temper my enthusiasm for the same reasons I have some problems putting Hass at #2.

Both BigBen and Hass are elite fantasy QBs in the first half of their games, but because both teams play very good defense and have stellar ground games to preserve leads, they often don't throw the ball more than a handful of times after halftime.

Eli, Bledsoe and McNabb seem like good bets to join or stay in these ranks as well. McNabb won't have TO, but he's been a top 5 QB throughout most of his career without TO and I believe he'll continue to be in that mix again barring some unforeseen improvements in the Eagles running attack and a change in their offensive philosophy.

Bledsoe and Eli probably have the best chance to improve on last year's numbers. Eli could move up simply by improving with maturity and experience, reducing his INTs and becoming more efficient like most QBs do over time.

Once I finish my projections then I'll have a better grasp on where I really feel on the QBs in this range. Right now, as LHUCKS and others have discussed at length in various threads, it is a combination of where the players will finish in points scored along with our confidence in said players, ADP and where we would draft them, etc.

I like to base my rankings off my projections, but then I tend to tweak players up/down that list depending on my perception of their durability, system, stability (coaching and chances of getting benched or otherwise losing the job due to other reasons like injury and competition) and my own confidence in that player.

All in all, sorry to ramble here, but I think these threads hold a ton of value and I look forward to seeing more good debate and analysis from you Sharks out there.

 

[thayman]

I don't see Campbell starting, just because the Skins get eliminated from the playoffs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's a virtual guarantee. The minute the Skins are eliminated, if they're eliminated, Campbell is in.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I do agree that there is no guarantee, it is the NFL. But I go only go with Gibbs's past history, and he never swaps out QB's.

 

[diesel7982]

I don't see Campbell starting, just because the Skins get eliminated from the playoffs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's a virtual guarantee. The minute the Skins are eliminated, if they're eliminated, Campbell is in.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I do agree that there is no guarantee, it is the NFL. But I go only go with Gibbs's past history, and he never swaps out QB's.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Patrick Ramsey might take a swing at you if you tell him that.

 

[thayman]

I don't see Campbell starting, just because the Skins get eliminated from the playoffs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's a virtual guarantee. The minute the Skins are eliminated, if they're eliminated, Campbell is in.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I do agree that there is no guarantee, it is the NFL. But I go only go with Gibbs's past history, and he never swaps out QB's.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Patrick Ramsey might take a swing at you if you tell him that.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ramsey was never Gibbs's guy. He was the incumbent when Gibbs took over.

 

[Sidewinder16]

If you really believe that he'll maintain that mini-peak he hit last year, and not his recent very frustrating level of play (that had Pat Ramsey  :X   put in for him), AND you believe he's got good odds to avoid injury for all but one or two games... then I think you can make a good argument for him to produce well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You realize that Brunell was replaced by Ramsey two seasons ago, right? Not last season.In 2005, Brunell replaced Ramsey in week 1 and was the starter for the rest of the season. After week 1 Ramsey was pretty much only put in for Brunell in the week 8 Giants blowout and again in week 16 against the Giants when Brunell got hurt.

Injury is about the only thing that can de-rail Brunell (it was the reason behind his poor play in '04) from the starting job, but it's a very legitimate concern.

 

[Wade]

Let me ask a question here - When people do their projections, do they project injury-prone players stats in a limited amount of games?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If a player has a history of playing less than 16 games (where, say, 14 games is the norm for him), then I'll project him for 14 games. If a player is starting the season hurt (like C.Palmer) and I expect him only to play the last 10 games, then I project him for 10 games. If a player blew out his knee a couple years ago, and didn't re-injure himself last season, then I don't penalize him overmuch for that old injury...I project him for the full 16 games.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Hasselbeck lost Joe Delicious Jurevicius. BUMP HIM WAY DOWN!

 

[Billy Ball Thorton]

What I don't understand is how Kurt Warner has two recievers ranked in the top 10 #3 and #9 I believe buut Kurt is 17th. He is the only qb with this luxory.

Are we in the business of predicting injurys now???? If so Mcnabb needs to be dwongraded for injury and no recievers.

I will bet as much money as anyone wants to wager that KW will be a better "Fantasy" than McNabb.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What I don't understand is how Kurt Warner has two recievers ranked in the top 10 #3 and #9 I believe buut Kurt is 17th. He is the only qb with this luxory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We had this exact same discussion a few years ago when Ward & Burress were in everybody's top ten, but Tommy Maddox was ranked #17.Some reasons it can happen (and has happened, as it did with the Steelers):

1. The QB scores no fantasy points by rushing. Many QBs will have several hundred yards rushing and a few TDs, but Warner isn't one of those guys (just like Maddox wasn't).

2. The TE is not a big part of the offense. Many QBs throw for several hundred yards and a few TDs to their tight ends. The Steelers never did with Bruener, and the Cardinals haven't recently either. (Will this change with Pope? It could.)

3. The RBs are not involved in the passing game. This was true when Bettis was the lead back for the Steelers, but it doesn't apply as much with the Cardinals, especially now that Edge is on board.

4. The WR3 is not involved in the passing game. A few years ago the Colts had three WRs with 1,000 yards each. Last year, the Cardinal WRs as a group also had over 3,000 yards, but they were much more heavily concentrated in just the top two guys.

In any event, it is quite possible, even without any injuries, for a QB to rank in the mid-teens while two of his WRs rank in the top ten. It just means that the QB won't get many rushing yards or TDs, and the passing yards and TDs on that team will not be spread around all that much, but will instead be concentrated on those two WRs.

Whether that will be the case with the Cardinals this year or not is up for discussion. But a #17 QB with two top ten WRs is not a logical contradiction.

 

[AB in DC]

still some good stuff mrharrier.  I do enjoy your rankings.  I agree with everyone else about Hass.  Brunell at 27 is a bit of a stretch for me.  Well if he stays healthy that is.  He has vastly improved WR, him in the early 20's late teens isn't much of a stretch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously if he starts the whole way through, that's a pretty pessimistic view of his prospects. I don't expect him to start 16, though--whether it's a function of injury or poor play, I think Jason Campbell gets his shot this year.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I live in the DC area, so trust me -- Gibbs has some serious man-love for Brunell. As long as Brunell is even mildly effective, he's starting.Campbell is still a bit of a project. If I'm not mistaken, he'll now be learning his sixth different offensive system in six years. I think 2007 is the earliest we see him on the field for any length of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gibbs buckled to public pressure due to Brunell's poor play before. If Brunell has another rough stretch, Gibbs will buckle again.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again -- speaking as someone who lives in the DC area, I assure you that Gibbs doesn't give a damn about public pressure. It's not his thing. If he did, he would have benched Brunell much earlier that season.

 

[AB in DC]

I don't see Campbell starting, just because the Skins get eliminated from the playoffs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's a virtual guarantee. The minute the Skins are eliminated, if they're eliminated, Campbell is in.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With most coaches, you'd probably be right. But not with Gibbs. His man-love for Brunell knows no bounds.

 

[Billy Ball Thorton]

What I don't understand is how Kurt Warner has two recievers ranked in the top 10 #3 and #9 I believe buut Kurt is 17th. He is the only qb with this luxory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We had this exact same discussion a few years ago when Ward & Burress were in everybody's top ten, but Tommy Maddox was ranked #17.Some reasons it can happen (and has happened, as it did with the Steelers):

1. The QB scores no fantasy points by rushing. Many QBs will have several hundred yards rushing and a few TDs, but Warner isn't one of those guys (just like Maddox wasn't).

2. The TE is not a big part of the offense. Many QBs throw for several hundred yards and a few TDs to their tight ends. The Steelers never did with Bruener, and the Cardinals haven't recently either. (Will this change with Pope? It could.)

3. The RBs are not involved in the passing game. This was true when Bettis was the lead back for the Steelers, but it doesn't apply as much with the Cardinals, especially now that Edge is on board.

4. The WR3 is not involved in the passing game. A few years ago the Colts had three WRs with 1,000 yards each. Last year, the Cardinal WRs as a group also had over 3,000 yards, but they were much more heavily concentrated in just the top two guys.

In any event, it is quite possible, even without any injuries, for a QB to rank in the mid-teens while two of his WRs rank in the top ten. It just means that the QB won't get many rushing yards or TDs, and the passing yards and TDs on that team will not be spread around all that much, but will instead be concentrated on those two WRs.

Whether that will be the case with the Cardinals this year or not is up for discussion. But a #17 QB with two top ten WRs is not a logical contradiction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the in-depth reply.

 

[thayman]

still some good stuff mrharrier.  I do enjoy your rankings.  I agree with everyone else about Hass.  Brunell at 27 is a bit of a stretch for me.  Well if he stays healthy that is.  He has vastly improved WR, him in the early 20's late teens isn't much of a stretch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously if he starts the whole way through, that's a pretty pessimistic view of his prospects. I don't expect him to start 16, though--whether it's a function of injury or poor play, I think Jason Campbell gets his shot this year.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I live in the DC area, so trust me -- Gibbs has some serious man-love for Brunell. As long as Brunell is even mildly effective, he's starting.Campbell is still a bit of a project. If I'm not mistaken, he'll now be learning his sixth different offensive system in six years. I think 2007 is the earliest we see him on the field for any length of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gibbs buckled to public pressure due to Brunell's poor play before. If Brunell has another rough stretch, Gibbs will buckle again.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again -- speaking as someone who lives in the DC area, I assure you that Gibbs doesn't give a damn about public pressure. It's not his thing. If he did, he would have benched Brunell much earlier that season.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not trying to pile on or anything. But this is completely accurate. Gibbs doesn't care about public pressure. If he did you would of seen the old #8 car pulled a whole lot early, rather then wait until Brunell hardly walk.

 

[10993]

OVERRATED

1) Matt Hasselbeck Ranked #2

mrharrier Ranking: #6

2) Jake Delhomme Ranked #8

mrharrier Ranking: #14

3) Mark Brunell Ranked #22

mrharrier Ranking: #27

UNDERRATED

1) Drew Bledsoe Ranked #12

mrharrier Ranking: #8

2) Ben Roethlisberger Ranked #15

mrharrier Ranking: #10

3) Brett Favre Ranked #16

mrharrier Ranking: #13

It's nice to see that since this post, Dodds has pretty much directly followed my recommendations, though the staff as a whole lags far behind. I guess it would be too much to expect for them to catch up, but it's great to see Dodds' new rankings coming around in five of my six recommendations:Hasselbeck #5

Delhomme #11

Brunell #25

Bledsoe #7

Favre #14