I am a friend of Jones' one-time girlfriend personally, and was on the Notre Dame campus often during his career. I have no evidence whatsoever that he is or ever was on steroids. That said, the rumors around the ND campus were rampant. He works out religiously with David Boston, a known steroid user, and Thomas Jones, an accused one. His physique, his history, and my knowledge of his personality and run-ins with him would make me guess, if I were to proffer them, that artificial enhancement on his part is likely.Thanks with regard to the other rankings.Do you have more than loose allegations to support this as fact? I am not saying you are right or wrong in your assessment nor am I naive enough to think steriods do not exist in the NFL. However, if you are going to come with that type of statement regarding a player, there needs to be more than sports talk radio, slow day of news, speculation supporting that type of remark, opinion.Moreover, he's a workout warrior with his brother and David Boston, and "artificially" enhanced.
His attitude and academic problems at Notre Dame? Fact on the record. His association with Boston? Fact and on the record. Use of illegal training substances? Allegation and pure speculation at this point and time.
I like the C. Johnson ranking. I like the aggressive S. Jackson rating too. Martz is finally weaning himself off the Faulk teat and Jackson is in a great situation. Now, if Martz would only run first and pass second things could be that much better.
Good job throwing your opinions out there and putting your neck on the block.
I think the evidence you've offered to support this assertion is pretty convincing. Guess I'll just have to throw up my hands on this one.Jackson:You've got S jackson ranked way, way to high.
Good Point.I didn't work out the actual math, was just trying to make the point that Martin will be the go-to guy in NY this year, without question.At age 32, after a 370-carry season (a career high), you're expecting Martin to get 80% of the carries? Last year the Jets ran 527 times. If they run only 500 times this year, you're expecting Martin to set a new career high of 400 carries, maintaining the same level of performance?Pigs will sooner fly.I know you're a big stat guy, but I am basing the projection on two things:1. Quality of the NYJ O-LineMartin has hit both those milestones in the same season only 3 times in 10 seasons.An undrafted rookis (Benson) ahead of last year's rushing champ (CuMart)
Based on what??????????????????
Martin is way too low. If he stays healthy he is a lock for 1300/10
2. Minimum projected output for the Jet running game, and what I perceive CuMart's carry distribution to be; about 80% of the carries.
I really don't care about what he did in NE, or when he played hurt for all of 2003 and some of 2002.
If he's healthy, he's an extremely safe pick in the 2nd round.
I am wary of him coming back from such a serious injury--I expect Colbert to also be a high performer. That said, I think there is potential for Smith to outperform that ranking.Good read MrH. I think you should take a second look at S. Smith. I can't see Delhomme finishing as high as you have him w/o Smith coming along for the ride. The Panthers don't throw to a lot of different WRs for significant yardage.
I would not agree that S Jax is "supremely talented" - that is saved for the Faulks and Eric Dickersons of this world. I have not seen anything that puts him in that type of uber elite skills category. Meaning not last year with his rushing (which was impressive, but supreme talent is something Edge doesnt even have. I think the upside skills wise of S Jax is Edge, which aint shabby, just not supreme) and not during his college years. He was first in a very weak RB class. Id be curious where S Jax would have been drafted in this years crop.Now, his fantasy numbers may be better, but my worry is Martz as much as Faulk. The man just wants to throw some days. Even a still great Faulk was hampered by it. Someone with less skills and far less break away impact/ability, I do not agree that S Jax should be that high.I think the evidence you've offered to support this assertion is pretty convincing. Guess I'll just have to throw up my hands on this one.Jackson:You've got S jackson ranked way, way to high.
-is supremely talented (most had him ranked as the #1 back in the draft)
-has an amazing situation
-performed exceptionally last year
The only thing that could limit him is Faulk taking too much time. Statements from Faulk and Martz lead me to believe that it won't be a problem.
I noticed you had Colbert pretty high. I'm not very high on him. He had a very difficult time getting separation last year.I am wary of him coming back from such a serious injury--I expect Colbert to also be a high performer. That said, I think there is potential for Smith to outperform that ranking.Good read MrH. I think you should take a second look at S. Smith. I can't see Delhomme finishing as high as you have him w/o Smith coming along for the ride. The Panthers don't throw to a lot of different WRs for significant yardage.
The "supremely talented" Faulk ran for 4.0 YPC behind that line last year--Jackson ran for 5.0 YPC. Huge difference. That, combined with having actually seen his stellar play in limited time last year, and his high grades in the draft, make me expect him to be a Top 5 finisher for some time, should he avoid injury.I would not agree that S Jax is "supremely talented" - that is saved for the Faulks and Eric Dickersons of this world. I have not seen anything that puts him in that type of uber elite skills category. Meaning not last year with his rushing (which was impressive, but supreme talent is something Edge doesnt even have. I think the upside skills wise of S Jax is Edge, which aint shabby, just not supreme) and not during his college years. He was first in a very weak RB class. Id be curious where S Jax would have been drafted in this years crop.Now, his fantasy numbers may be better, but my worry is Martz as much as Faulk. The man just wants to throw some days. Even a still great Faulk was hampered by it. Someone with less skills and far less break away impact/ability, I do not agree that S Jax should be that high.I think the evidence you've offered to support this assertion is pretty convincing. Guess I'll just have to throw up my hands on this one.Jackson:You've got S jackson ranked way, way to high.
-is supremely talented (most had him ranked as the #1 back in the draft)
-has an amazing situation
-performed exceptionally last year
The only thing that could limit him is Faulk taking too much time. Statements from Faulk and Martz lead me to believe that it won't be a problem.
However, I can see justification of a top 10-12 ranking, although I would not touch him there.
5 Culpepper, Daunte MIN QB - Overrated now that Moss is gone
6 Jackson, Steven STL RB - Likely won't get the carries to justify this spot
16 Bell, Tatum DEN RB - Too risky this high
22 Johnson, Andre HOU WR - I like him, but this is a round too high
37 Wayne, Reggie IND WR - Career year in 2004, unlikely to repeat IMO
38 Vick, Michael ATL QB - Exciting potential, but mediocre fantasy numbers
48 Burleson, Nate MIN WR - Don't see him as having elite potential
49 Edwards, Braylon FA WR - Too high for any rookie WR
50 Johnson, Larry KCC RB - The 5th round is too high for a backup RB
51 Witten, Jason DAL TE - Don't think he's value here
60 Branch, Deion NEP WR - Has shown flashes, but is undersized and New England spreads the ball around
62 Crumpler, Alge ATL TE - See Jason Witten
63 Smith, Onterrio MIN RB - I don't think a RB will emerge as a workhorse in Minnesota without an injury
64 Delhomme, Jake CAR QB - I see the Panthers running more next year
67 Colbert, Keary CAR WR - See Jake Delhomme. I also don't understand taking a guy who might be a 1,100 yard guy over someone who probably will (Isaac Bruce)
Faulk hasnt been supremely talented for 2-3 years now. I guess I never thought his play stellar. Maybe just opinion there.The "supremely talented" Faulk ran for 4.0 YPC behind that line last year--Jackson ran for 5.0 YPC. Huge difference. That, combined with having actually seen his stellar play in limited time last year, and his high grades in the draft, make me expect him to be a Top 5 finisher for some time, should he avoid injury.
Truth be known... he had a couple of good games against Philly and San Francisco in 2004. The rest of his limited body of work was average. Not sure how this equates to a #6 overall ranking, given the fact that Faulk will steal some carries and he has shown durability issues. He also competes on the worst carpet in the NFL, which is always a concern.Jackson:
-performed exceptionally last year
So in the only two games that he was the main back, he had great games (including 6.2 YPC against philly). and in the season on the whole, he averaged 5.0 YPC with a good sample size (134 carries)--i don't see how you manage to determine that this is either a "limited body of work" or "average," because it's neither of those two things. and faulk only managed 4.0 YPC behind that line. i don't see what the carpet has to do with anything, but jackson is a top 5 back next year if what faulk and martz say about the roles is true--and i think it is. i don't think faulk has enough left for it not to be.This statement: "The rest of his limited body of work was average" was probably the most ridiculous thing written this offseason. NFL teams would kill for that kind of "average."Truth be known... he had a couple of good games against Philly and San Francisco in 2004. The rest of his limited body of work was average. Not sure how this equates to a #6 overall ranking, given the fact that Faulk will steal some carries and he has shown durability issues. He also competes on the worst carpet in the NFL.Jackson:
-performed exceptionally last year
No.The most ridiculous thing written this off-season... is ranking a running back (who will be sharing time) #6 overall, especially when he has a coach who is notorious for abandoning the run. (Your ranking of AJ over Moss comes in a close 2nd by the way).This statement: "The rest of his limited body of work was average" was probably the most ridiculous thing written this offseason. NFL teams would kill for that kind of "average."
You know that saying that you can tell the character of a man by who he surrounds himself with? Yeah, true of Julius too.But I note that you were unable to refute the ridiculousness of calling 5.0YPC over 134 carries, behind a line that faulk got 4.0YPC with, an "average" performance.No.The most ridiculous thing written this off-season... is ranking a running back (who will be sharing time) #6 overall, especially when he has a coach who is notorious for abandoning the run. (Your ranking of AJ over Moss comes in a close 2nd by the way).This statement: "The rest of his limited body of work was average" was probably the most ridiculous thing written this offseason. NFL teams would kill for that kind of "average."
But I will excuse you since you know Julius Jones' ex-girlfriend.
![]()
Can you give me the lotto numbers for next week too.I'd like to know what YOU SAW from Julius last year that said he isnt capable of carrying the load for dallas. The guy will get 25 plus carries a game and will be in on the goal line. I expect to do MUCH better than most people think.I have Julius low??? Seriously?It wasn't overlooked--he's not a great RB, and he will not perform at the level people are expecting. It may be a little bit low, but he will not be anywhere near the Top 10 range people are expecting.You have Julius WAY TOO low my friend.![]()
The Rams are lobbying for a new surface. In fact, article in post dispatch this week says they may have found the one they are looking for. The problem of course will be who has to pay for it. But there is a chance that the players will have something different and more up to date to play on by next year. Cuz its become sickening watchin Rams and opponents tear up their knees on this damn concrete. S-Jax will have monster season IF he can stay healthy, I know that can be said about almost any player, but if new turf, i would have no problem taking him in top 6 of draft. Running game should be much stronger next year as Martz is putting a priority on . ( so he says anyhow ) But added Roland Williams to use more 2 t.e. sets for run blocking, would just like to see them add a masher type fullback.Truth be known... he had a couple of good games against Philly and San Francisco in 2004. The rest of his limited body of work was average. Not sure how this equates to a #6 overall ranking, given the fact that Faulk will steal some carries and he has shown durability issues. He also competes on the worst carpet in the NFL, which is always a concern.Jackson:
-performed exceptionally last year
I saw him have some good games against bad defenses, at a time of year when his legs were fresher than everyone else's. I don't expect to see him succeed long-term in the NFL.Can you give me the lotto numbers for next week too.I'd like to know what YOU SAW from Julius last year that said he isnt capable of carrying the load for dallas. The guy will get 25 plus carries a game and will be in on the goal line. I expect to do MUCH better than most people think.I have Julius low??? Seriously?It wasn't overlooked--he's not a great RB, and he will not perform at the level people are expecting. It may be a little bit low, but he will not be anywhere near the Top 10 range people are expecting.You have Julius WAY TOO low my friend.![]()
Edge is only there because of the potential of being dealt to AZ. Alexander's ranking is not affected because I don't think he'll get dealt, and Rhodes is not ranked because I don't think he'll start.Dang. SP Harrier >>>> FFA Harrier.![]()
I like the S Jackson ranking. I think Edge and Westbrook are a little low, K Jones and A Green a little high.
responses to EBF's overrated list in bold
5 Culpepper, Daunte MIN QB - Overrated now that Moss is gone
with the amount of his production not devoted to moss last year, and the prospect of bringing in braylon, i don't expect culpepper to miss a step
6 Jackson, Steven STL RB - Likely won't get the carries to justify this spot
responded previously
16 Bell, Tatum DEN RB - Too risky this high
the risk is in his ranking--if there it were guaranteed he'd start, he'd be top 10
22 Johnson, Andre HOU WR - I like him, but this is a round too high
not only has he shown amazing skill, it's his third year, traditionally a breakout year for every wr
37 Wayne, Reggie IND WR - Career year in 2004, unlikely to repeat IMO
it was a career year--just like 2003 was, and just like 2002 was. he has improved significantly every single year. why would he not maintain the level of production he has imrpoved to, at the very least?
38 Vick, Michael ATL QB - Exciting potential, but mediocre fantasy numbers
as the WCO is familiar to him in his 2nd year, plus with the 900yds and 6-8tds he'll grab on the ground, he justifies this ranking.
48 Burleson, Nate MIN WR - Don't see him as having elite potential
what does his "potential" matter? he was the #12WR in the league last year, before moss and his targets left town
49 Edwards, Braylon FA WR - Too high for any rookie WR
he's at the #15WR right here. michael clayton was #13 last year, and braylon is significantly more talented--plus there's the good chance he goes to Minn. if he does, he'll be even higher.
50 Johnson, Larry KCC RB - The 5th round is too high for a backup RB
well, if priest plays the whole year, he'll be a top 4 back. if he is out early, LJ is top 10. the rankings as they stand reflect the risks in both directions. if anything, he should be higher. he averaged around 27 fantasy ppg the last 5 games of the season
51 Witten, Jason DAL TE - Don't think he's value here
his numbers say otherwise. he's not a big sexy name, but his production sure is
60 Branch, Deion NEP WR - Has shown flashes, but is undersized and New England spreads the ball around
branch has improved markedly every year, and his skills displayed in limited games last year were impressive. as the #1wr and with brady's passing attack improving, this ranking might be his downside, not his upside
62 Crumpler, Alge ATL TE - See Jason Witten
see comments on witten--do you just not like TEs?
63 Smith, Onterrio MIN RB - I don't think a RB will emerge as a workhorse in Minnesota without an injury
neither do i--if he were a workhouse back he'd be top 30 by default
64 Delhomme, Jake CAR QB - I see the Panthers running more next year
i don't.
67 Colbert, Keary CAR WR - See Jake Delhomme. I also don't understand taking a guy who might be a 1,100 yard guy over someone who probably will (Isaac Bruce)
bruce will not--he is in decline, and curtis will take many of his catches. colbert is a great young player and they'll have a strong passing game
I don't think Faulk will take away nearly that much work--the way Jackson performed as the lead back in the games against PHI and SF at the end of last year will give Martz more than enough confidence to use him in that role for this year. And it would make sense for Blaylock to come in and get more carries than Jordan--after Martin's 370 last year and at age 32, some will have to be handed off.People always forget the rule for RB and WR. For RB, the future comes now. Rookies and young players do great, old ones die off quickly. WR take longer to develop, and take longer to die off. QB even longer.6-SJackson
l
l
34-CMartin
a year too early on both...Faulk will take away just enough work to have Jackson somewhere around 20 overall, which is just around where Martin falls,also IMO
I don't expect Curtis Martin to be a top 4 back this year...nor #24, as you have him---Blaylock couldn't be expected to come in and get MORE work than Jordan, an injury to Martin notwithstanding
as I said...a year too early on the rise of Stephen Jackson and at least a year early on the demise of Curtis Martin
I think your rankings are FOS and its hard to take you serious, therefore i wont.I saw him have some good games against bad defenses, at a time of year when his legs were fresher than everyone else's. I don't expect to see him succeed long-term in the NFL.Can you give me the lotto numbers for next week too.I'd like to know what YOU SAW from Julius last year that said he isnt capable of carrying the load for dallas. The guy will get 25 plus carries a game and will be in on the goal line. I expect to do MUCH better than most people think.I have Julius low??? Seriously?It wasn't overlooked--he's not a great RB, and he will not perform at the level people are expecting. It may be a little bit low, but he will not be anywhere near the Top 10 range people are expecting.You have Julius WAY TOO low my friend.![]()
I don't know what that means, but then I don't know who you are--so why would I care? Your wont to take me seriously is unimportant to me, so I don't mind if you won't.I think your rankings are FOS and its hard to take you serious, therefore i wont.I saw him have some good games against bad defenses, at a time of year when his legs were fresher than everyone else's. I don't expect to see him succeed long-term in the NFL.Can you give me the lotto numbers for next week too.I'd like to know what YOU SAW from Julius last year that said he isnt capable of carrying the load for dallas. The guy will get 25 plus carries a game and will be in on the goal line. I expect to do MUCH better than most people think.I have Julius low??? Seriously?It wasn't overlooked--he's not a great RB, and he will not perform at the level people are expecting. It may be a little bit low, but he will not be anywhere near the Top 10 range people are expecting.You have Julius WAY TOO low my friend.![]()
Beautiful, we're all set thenI don't know what that means, but then I don't know who you are--so why would I care? Your wont to take me seriously is unimportant to me, so I don't mind if you won't.I think your rankings are FOS and its hard to take you serious, therefore i wont.I saw him have some good games against bad defenses, at a time of year when his legs were fresher than everyone else's. I don't expect to see him succeed long-term in the NFL.Can you give me the lotto numbers for next week too.I'd like to know what YOU SAW from Julius last year that said he isnt capable of carrying the load for dallas. The guy will get 25 plus carries a game and will be in on the goal line. I expect to do MUCH better than most people think.I have Julius low??? Seriously?It wasn't overlooked--he's not a great RB, and he will not perform at the level people are expecting. It may be a little bit low, but he will not be anywhere near the Top 10 range people are expecting.You have Julius WAY TOO low my friend.![]()
First off I gotta give you kudos because these are some bold predictions. I'm curious how they will change come August time - but still bold.Now, here's my take on Jackson.But I note that you were unable to refute the ridiculousness of calling 5.0YPC over 134 carries, behind a line that faulk got 4.0YPC with, an "average" performance.
Be careful using the Philly game as a gauge for how well Stephen Jackson will do this year. The Eagles already had everything locked up and rested most of their best players. I also agree with most of the other posters on Curtis Martin. I've had Curtis Martin on my dynasty team for the last three years. It would always frustrate me when Martin would help drive the team the length of the field and once the Jets got inside the 5, Lamont Jordan would come in. Unless Blaylock will now fill that role, I don't see him getting any more carries than Jordan did. I think simply based on the fact that Martin will get most of the carries and has been extremely durable in his career, that alone will put him in the top 15 for Running Backs and if Blaylock doesn't vulcher goalline carries he could be a fringe top 10 guy.So in the only two games that he was the main back, he had great games (including 6.2 YPC against philly). and in the season on the whole, he averaged 5.0 YPC with a good sample size (134 carries)--i don't see how you manage to determine that this is either a "limited body of work" or "average," because it's neither of those two things. and faulk only managed 4.0 YPC behind that line. i don't see what the carpet has to do with anything, but jackson is a top 5 back next year if what faulk and martz say about the roles is true--and i think it is. i don't think faulk has enough left for it not to be.This statement: "The rest of his limited body of work was average" was probably the most ridiculous thing written this offseason. NFL teams would kill for that kind of "average."
I certainly don't think that they "must" then be ranked together--their stats were very different. Jackson's were on 33% more carries than Jordan's, which I consider to be a pretty big difference. Also, Jackson had two starts in there, while Jordan had none, and no games with 20 or more carries. From watching film, it's clear to me that Jackson is the better, stronger, more explosive back. And finally, Jordan had a much better line. While Jackson was running behind a line that Faulk could manage only 4.0YPC behind, Jordan ran behind a line that helped the aging Curtis Martin to 4.6YPC.First off I gotta give you kudos because these are some bold predictions. I'm curious how they will change come August time - but still bold.Now, here's my take on Jackson.But I note that you were unable to refute the ridiculousness of calling 5.0YPC over 134 carries, behind a line that faulk got 4.0YPC with, an "average" performance.
I saw many of his games last year - not all - but enough. Some grames he was impressive and others he was ok and still others he was injured. I did not see anything that will put him above about 10 other established vets. However, that is subjective so...If you rank him that high based on more hard-core items like situation and 5 YPC on 134 carries - then you MUST put Lamont Jordan right there with him as Jordan has an almost identical great situation and had very similar numbers to Jackson last year. If you rank Jackson that high then Jordan's gotta be right after. But neither is yet proven hence my feelings on SJ being way, way too high.
Your rhetoric makes it seem as though Faulk is the better back. Having watched them both over the past few years there is no doubt in my mind that currently Martin is a much better back. Some people just age quicker than others.Personally I like Jackson better than Jordan. They both have good situations in explosive offenses, and they both have a pretty good size-speed combo, but from what I've seen Jackson has better vision and is a better overall runner. I am not all that worried about Martz abandoning the run--I think that he abandoned the run due to Marshall's decline in productivity and that he will run a fair amount with Jackson, but he is no Vermeil.And finally, Jordan had a much better line. While Jackson was running behind a line that Faulk could manage only 4.0YPC behind, Jordan ran behind a line that helped the aging Curtis Martin to 4.6YPC.
I'd agree that Martin is better than Faulk at this age, and that Jackson is better than Jordan. I do think the NYJ line is better, and helped prop Jordan up more than Jackson got from the STL line. I don't think Martz will abandon the run either.Your rhetoric makes it seem as though Faulk is the better back. Having watched them both over the past few years there is no doubt in my mind that currently Martin is a much better back. Some people just age quicker than others.Personally I like Jackson better than Jordan. They both have good situations in explosive offenses, and they both have a pretty good size-speed combo, but from what I've seen Jackson has better vision and is a better overall runner. I am not all that worried about Martz abandoning the run--I think that he abandoned the run due to Marshall's decline in productivity and that he will run a fair amount with Jackson, but he is no Vermeil.And finally, Jordan had a much better line. While Jackson was running behind a line that Faulk could manage only 4.0YPC behind, Jordan ran behind a line that helped the aging Curtis Martin to 4.6YPC.
Of course it is. But for people who are doing redrafts right now (and some are), it's important for them to have a best guess of what a player's redraft value is. As the draft rumors become clearer, and then after the draft occurs, and then as training camp opens, the rankings will necessarily change, as I noted in the intro.I don't know how you can include rookies in your rankings before the NFL draft. Where a player goes is crucial in redraft rankings.
Just quoted this because it's a funny idea--but were this impossible situation to happen, I'd rank Ronnie higher than you'd expect. Dillon's a prime candidate for injury and poor performance at his age after a 400-carry season.If Ronnie Brown goes to the Colts...yes he deserves a ranking that high....if he goes to New England to sit behind Dillon for a year or two...where does he rank this year in redraft format?
I have Edwards that high because he's considered in many circles to be the best player in the draft, and he's likely to enter the most friendly WR situation in the NFL in a couple months. As Indy already has 3 good WRs, they're out of the race. After that, Minn is the best place to be, and they have a gap waiting to be filled. Of course if he doesn't go there he will drop, close to where Mike Williams is, but if he does go there he'll rise to the top 10.2nd....staying with the rookie theme.....last year was the exception to the rule concerning rookie WR's. Clayton was the huge surprise....but he was in an ideal situation.....he was a fairly polished receiver......in an excellent passing offense....that had it's star receiver hold out and get traded, and then injuries to all their other receivers. He was option 1,2,&3. Yes, Randy Moss was a stud out of the gate....but most WRs take time to develop in the pros. For every Moss & A.Boldin....there are 10 Dysons & David Terrells. Having Edwards that high is insane.
I don't think that 39 is really much "love" for a starting RB. If I were sure he'd play every game, he'd be top 20, and probably top 15. He produced very, very impressively when playing last year. It's precisely his propensity to get hurt which has him as low as he is. It's ridiculous to say that a starting NFL RB who produces well shouldn't even make the top 75 because he might get hurt. It's possible that he will, but then maybe he'll pull a Fragile Freddy Taylor and shake the label. And if he does, he'll be the SOD at #39.Why all of the love for D.Foster? Just because he broke off a couple of 80 yard runs a few years ago, he gets a free pass! He's hurt every season, and never even comes close to people's predictions. He shouldn't even be on that list!
Is he a starting RB?I don't think that 39 is really much "love" for a starting RB. If I were sure he'd play every game, he'd be top 20, and probably top 15. He produced very, very impressively when playing last year. It's precisely his propensity to get hurt which has him as low as he is. It's ridiculous to say that a starting NFL RB who produces well shouldn't even make the top 75 because he might get hurt. It's possible that he will, but then maybe he'll pull a Fragile Freddy Taylor and shake the label. And if he does, he'll be the SOD at #39.Why all of the love for D.Foster? Just because he broke off a couple of 80 yard runs a few years ago, he gets a free pass! He's hurt every season, and never even comes close to people's predictions. He shouldn't even be on that list!
Yes.Is he a starting RB?I don't think that 39 is really much "love" for a starting RB. If I were sure he'd play every game, he'd be top 20, and probably top 15. He produced very, very impressively when playing last year. It's precisely his propensity to get hurt which has him as low as he is. It's ridiculous to say that a starting NFL RB who produces well shouldn't even make the top 75 because he might get hurt. It's possible that he will, but then maybe he'll pull a Fragile Freddy Taylor and shake the label. And if he does, he'll be the SOD at #39.Why all of the love for D.Foster? Just because he broke off a couple of 80 yard runs a few years ago, he gets a free pass! He's hurt every season, and never even comes close to people's predictions. He shouldn't even be on that list!
SD is out--if you think Goings is going to take the job from him, rank Goings #39. But the job is Foster's.Yes.Is he a starting RB?I don't think that 39 is really much "love" for a starting RB. If I were sure he'd play every game, he'd be top 20, and probably top 15. He produced very, very impressively when playing last year. It's precisely his propensity to get hurt which has him as low as he is. It's ridiculous to say that a starting NFL RB who produces well shouldn't even make the top 75 because he might get hurt. It's possible that he will, but then maybe he'll pull a Fragile Freddy Taylor and shake the label. And if he does, he'll be the SOD at #39.Why all of the love for D.Foster? Just because he broke off a couple of 80 yard runs a few years ago, he gets a free pass! He's hurt every season, and never even comes close to people's predictions. He shouldn't even be on that list!
I don't think Pittman will have a job next year, other than backing up whoever is in TB.I'd be surprised too if it were exactly those three rookies. But then I'd be surprised if itt were exactly the three guys listed on spot above or below them in any direction--of course there will be surprises. And knowing what situation each uy is going to will dramatically affect the rankings. But people forget how good these guys are, because they want to believe that every draft class is the same, comparatively. ALL THREE of the big three hae graded out higher than LT, S. Alexander, and Kevin Jones did. Considering those are three of my top 5 backs, I'm not worried about having the three rookies in the top 40.You have three undrafted rookie RBs in the top 40. There may end up being 3, but if its the top three exactly it would be amazing. No way i'd pass over proven fantasy players like Fred Taylor, Dillon, or Thomas Jones based on speculation. Sure, if one of them landed in the ideal situation and all indicators were he was going to come out of the blocks, i'd roll the dice, but no way all three are going to be in that situation.
No Pittman?
Nice, overall conservative list, pretty close to how I'd draft them except the ones I made comments on, but that's just due to personal preferance.1.Manning
2.Culpepper
3.K.Collins - Moss and Porter give him great assets, but ranking him above McNabb seems a bit much.
4.McNabb
5.T.Green
6.Vick
7.Bulger
8.Delhomme
9.Brady
10.Brees
1.Tomlinson
2.S.Alexander - If he gets dealt, does he stay this high?
3.McGahee
4.J.Lewis
5.C.Portis
6.P.Holmes - discount due to injury? Or do you see LJ taking carries?
7.A.Green
8.D.McAllister
9.D.Davis
10.E.James
11.T.Barber
12.C.Brown
13.C.Dillon
14.K.Jones
15.C.Martin
1.R.Moss - This will be interesting, given Turner's system
2.T.Owens
3.J.Walker
4.T.Holt
5.C.Johnson
6.M.Harrison
7.S.Smith - high IMO, but hey, if Moose can do it...
8.A.Johnson
9.R.Williams
10.R.Wayne
11.J.Horn
12.N.Burelson
13.H.Ward
14.J.Porter
15.D.Bennett
Obviously, rookies will effect this, and I'll rank them after they are drafted. Braylon Edwards could be a top 10 WR in the right situation, imo.
While those numbers are true for rushing stats, fantasy football also awards points for receiving numbers also. In Martin's 10 seasons he has the following numbers:lowest rushing + receiving yards: 1456Martin has hit both those milestones in the same season only 3 times in 10 seasons.An undrafted rookis (Benson) ahead of last year's rushing champ (CuMart)
Based on what??????????????????
Martin is way too low. If he stays healthy he is a lock for 1300/10
If Collins ranks in the Top 3 next year, I will eat my hat. Given that he does next to nothing running the ball, Collins will need 4500/35 OR BETTER to rank as a Top 3 QB.1.Manning
2.Culpepper
3.K.Collins
4.McNabb
5.T.Green
6.Vick
7.Bulger
8.Delhomme
9.Brady
10.Brees