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.

New Expert rankings Posted (1 Viewer)

bostonfred2

Footballguy
Now that we've seen the first 10 rounds of the mb v staff league, shouldn't the message board's rankings be weighted 80% and the staff 20%?

 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
All right, even though I didn't participate, I'm going to point out some obvious flaws.1) Mushim Muhammad - Didn't make the top 60 and no one included him in the top 40. Let's not forget that he finished #32 last year with a first year QB. Carolina has not, I repeat, NOT cut him.2) Jake Delhomme - #19 with no placement higher then #18. Hello, he finished #15 last year. You may recall him in a previous role performing as the NFC Championship QB. Yeah, the guy with a 106 QB rating in the playoffs, tied with Payton Manning, better than Farve, Bulger, McNabb, McNair, Brady, Hasselbeck, Green, etc. So the consensus expectation is for him to severely regress from his first year totals?3) Denver RBs - Yup, I'm still beating this dead horse. All three of them have slid further down the rankings despite no real news. Other then Wimer having Griffin at #22, no one sees a Denver RB finishing better then #26.I take any friendly wagers on the following events using FBG standard scoring.a) Muhammad will finish in the top 60.b) Delhomme will finish in the top 18.c) A Denver RB will finish in the top 25.Something tells me that I won't get many takers.By the way, props to those who were involved with these rankings. It's good to see them updated so frequently in the off season. I know it's easy to sit back at critique, but I just wanted to plant some seeds for future thought.

 

Chris Smith

The Head Goon!
All right, even though I didn't participate, I'm going to point out some obvious flaws.1) Mushim Muhammad - Didn't make the top 60 and no one included him in the top 40. Let's not forget that he finished #32 last year with a first year QB. Carolina has not, I repeat, NOT cut him.2) Jake Delhomme - #19 with no placement higher then #18. Hello, he finished #15 last year. You may recall him in a previous role performing as the NFC Championship QB. Yeah, the guy with a 106 QB rating in the playoffs, tied with Payton Manning, better than Farve, Bulger, McNabb, McNair, Brady, Hasselbeck, Green, etc. So the consensus expectation is for him to severely regress from his first year totals?3) Denver RBs - Yup, I'm still beating this dead horse. All three of them have slid further down the rankings despite no real news. Other then Wimer having Griffin at #22, no one sees a Denver RB finishing better then #26.I take any friendly wagers on the following events using FBG standard scoring.a) Muhammad will finish in the top 60.b) Delhomme will finish in the top 18.c) A Denver RB will finish in the top 25.Something tells me that I won't get many takers.By the way, props to those who were involved with these rankings. It's good to see them updated so frequently in the off season. I know it's easy to sit back at critique, but I just wanted to plant some seeds for future thought.
# 1 Muhsin Muhammad... Just because we don't have him in the top forty doesn't mean he isn't in our top sixty. He is in mine.# 2 Denver RB... We already have an incredible thread devoted to this topic. I lot of the news out of the mini-camps is that Bell doesn't appear ready to be the full time guy. I don't see any of those RB's carrying the ball 20 times per game. Hearst is still the best bet in my opinion.# 3 Jake Delhomme... He has a rebuilt offensive line in front of him, the Panthers are a run first football team, It is very possible that he, Smith and Muhammad played over their heads a little last year and I don't want him on my fantasy roster except as a mediocre backup quarterback. His fantasy points per game were not very good (I think he ranked about 22nd at the QB position) and I don't think he'll do much better than last year.
 

Aaron Rudnicki

Keep Walking™
Staff member
a) Muhammad will finish in the top 60.b) Delhomme will finish in the top 18.c) A Denver RB will finish in the top 25.
As Chris said, Muhammad wasn't in anyone's top 40, but I would not be surprised if he was in EVERYONE'S top 60. You won't get many people to take that wager.For Delhomme, he doesn't have to regress if the other QBs in the league simply perform better and overtake him in the rankings.For Broncos RBs, you can have that mess. I'll be staying away until something more conclusive comes out.
 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
1) Chris said it best, Muhsin Muhammad ranked 49th in my latest projections. Remember that Carolina was 29th in the league in passing attempts last year, I don't see them throwing the ball a ton anytime soon with that defense, and John Fox as the head coach. Also, I have Steve Smith ranked 8th, which layers in why I don't see a ton of upside from Muhsin.2) Jake Delhomme finished 15th last year by virtue of staying healthy. He ranked 23rd in fantasy points per game. Since injuries are difficult if not impossible to predict, when one projects what each QB will do over a full season, Delhomme's outlook isn't as enticing.3) Denver RB situation has been debated over and over again. I've got Bell, Hearst and Griffin projected for over 100 carries each right now. Will that happen? I doubt it, but until camp starts and there's some inkling of the pecking order, I feel this is the appropriate way to value them.

 

3nOut

Footballguy
3) Denver RBs - Yup, I'm still beating this dead horse. All three of them have slid further down the rankings despite no real news. Other then Wimer having Griffin at #22, no one sees a Denver RB finishing better then #26.

.

.

.

c) A Denver RB will finish in the top 25.
You addressed the question yourself. With no real news coming out of Denver, noone can be certain who the primary carrier. They have FOUR good carriers that can handle the load, and as of now, it looks like an RBBC. If that assumption is correct, there are too few carries and TDs to go around, making none of them a viable RB2. This the low ranking. Until you hear anything difinitive out of Bronco's camp, you'd better be cautious drafting a possible RBBC player as your RB2.
 

bostonfred2

Footballguy
3) Denver RBs - Yup, I'm still beating this dead horse. All three of them have slid further down the rankings despite no real news. Other then Wimer having Griffin at #22, no one sees a Denver RB finishing better then #26.
3) Denver RB situation has been debated over and over again. I've got Bell, Hearst and Griffin projected for over 100 carries each right now. Will that happen? I doubt it, but until camp starts and there's some inkling of the pecking order, I feel this is the appropriate way to value them.
For Broncos RBs, you can have that mess. I'll be staying away until something more conclusive comes out.
# 2 Denver RB... We already have an incredible thread devoted to this topic. I lot of the news out of the mini-camps is that Bell doesn't appear ready to be the full time guy. I don't see any of those RB's carrying the ball 20 times per game. Hearst is still the best bet in my opinion.
:no:
Now that we've seen the first 10 rounds of the mb v staff league, shouldn't the message board's rankings be weighted 80% and the staff 20%?
:yes:
 

3nOut

Footballguy
The thing that jumps put at me most (again) is Mark Wimer's low ranking of Marshal Faulk.

Mark, OK, maybe you don't think that highly of Faulk this year, for whatever reason, his age, his knee, whatever. But 26?? Thats an RB3 in a 12 team league. I just don't see the logic. Some issues:

1. If you think its because of his age and/or knees, then you must think Steven Jackson will start in his place for a number of games. If thisis true, why don't you even have Jackson ranked? Who will get the carries in STL?

2. I think Steven Jackson wil only spell Faulk during games, giving Faulk some rest and keeping him fresh, but not enough to warrant a drop out of the top 12, let alone the top 24. EVERY team uses their backups to some extent. But what surprises me is that you rank other RBs who will more likely have fewer carries becasue of RBBC higher than Faulk. OK, I can see your logic for your top 12 (although i don't agree ;) ), but the following are all ranked higher than Faulk. Most are in RBBC or have someone vulturing goaline TDs:

#13 Bennett (Smith and Williams)

#14 Barber (Dayne)

#15 Henry (McGahee)

#16 Rudi Johnson (unproven)

#17 Westbrook (Buckhalter)

#18 Davis (Foster)

#19 Martin (Jordan, plus they won't have that many TDs anyway)

#20 Staley (Bettis)

#21 Shipp????

#22 Griffin (Anderson, Bell, Hearst)

#23 Brown (may not even be starter if george resigns)

#24 T. Jones (A-Train)

#25 Dillon (also ranked too low)

Are you saying you'd sooner draft any ofthese before Faulk as your RB2? Wow! Well lets just agree to disagree then. I personally think that Faulk will rebound and be a top 10 RB this year, possibly top 5.

 

jurb26

Footballguy
c) A Denver RB will finish in the top 25.
Problem is, projections don't ask for how a TEAM will do but rather INDIVIDUAL players. Of course Den will supply a very effective running game. Unless you narrow your challenge to an individual RB (Griffin, Bell, Hearst), this challenge is pointless. When figuring rankings you don't ask yourself so much will Den be able to run the ball. You 1st must answer WHO will be running the ball. As of now 3 guys all have = shots at that and untill it changes NO Den RB should be ranked any higher IMO.
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
c) A Denver RB will finish in the top 25.
LOL.Once again, Dodds wouldn't let me rank "a Denver RB." Nor would he let me rank "a backup QB."
Nope, but people will be drafting them and winning their leagues.I should have been a little clearer, intersting that all the Denver RBs dropped further down the rankings. Did the o-line get hit with a serious injury?
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject. However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a :2cents: wager. I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.

 

Callas Disregard

Footballguy
So from what I can tell the REAL flaw in the rankings is that the published list goes deeper than the individual lists.By only asking for a top 40, but then publishing a top 60 based on everyone's top 40, you are engaging in what appears to be a statistically flawed practice. The published list should NOT contain more players than anyone's individual ranking.The result of this practice could be that ALL 16 STAFF AND THE MESSAGE BOARD agree that Muhammy is the #41 WR -- EVERYONE has him there. Meanwhile, only one person ranks Kevin Dyson at #40, while the other 15 + MB all have him outside the top 60. The rankings will put Dyson in the top 60, but will leave Muhammy out. This is nonsensical. Clearly Muhammy is rated higher than Dyson by 16 of the rankings, and in one ranking Dyson is just one spot ahead. Muhammy should be listed above Dyson.

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject. However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a :2cents: wager. I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.
Bass,No one is betting you because no one disagrees. While Muhammad isn't in any of our top 40, I'm sure he's in all of our top 60...so we're in agreement. While no Denver RB is currently projected to finish in the top 25, I nor most FBGs disagree with the notion that one WILL, it's just a matter of figuring out who...so again, we're in agreement. And although I don't have Delhomme finishing in the top 18, at 20, with a whopping 7 points separating my QB18 from Delhomme, that's hardly a bet I would endure without you giving me some rock solid odds.
 

Jetdoc

Footballguy
I am very surprised at how low Kurt Warner is ranked, unless those polled think that he will be replaced at sometime during the season by Manning.He's below guys like Carson Palmer, Rich Gannon (who has more starting questions than Warner), Rex Grossman and Tim Rattay. VERY unusual.

 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject. However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a :2cents: wager. I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.
Bass,No one is betting you because no one disagrees. While Muhammad isn't in any of our top 40, I'm sure he's in all of our top 60...so we're in agreement. While no Denver RB is currently projected to finish in the top 25, I nor most FBGs disagree with the notion that one WILL, it's just a matter of figuring out who...so again, we're in agreement. And although I don't have Delhomme finishing in the top 18, at 20, with a whopping 7 points separating my QB18 from Delhomme, that's hardly a bet I would endure without you giving me some rock solid odds.
Jason,When 16 respected experts all agree that Delhomme will finish no higher the 18th, you're already getting some great odds. I mean that's basically that's a stone cold lock. I just don't see how there can be that much of a consensus on the subject. I sort of see Muhammad the same way. Heck, one person has Colbert ahead of Muhammad so they must predicting a Muhammad injury or be a huge USC fan.I haven't seen the rankings move despite Muhammad not being cut and zero talk of contract difficulties here in Charlotte. Yes the o-line took a hit. Second and short will now be second/third and long...more passing situations. The schedule looks very pass friendly plus most of the opponents have very capable offenses to push the score. For the record, I think the defense is very overated at this point in the pre-season.
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
I am very surprised at how low Kurt Warner is ranked, unless those polled think that he will be replaced at sometime during the season by Manning.He's below guys like Carson Palmer, Rich Gannon (who has more starting questions than Warner), Rex Grossman and Tim Rattay. VERY unusual.
:fishing:
 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject. However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a :2cents: wager. I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.
I'll take your wager. Name a Denver RB whom you think will finish in the top 25, and I'll give you 1:1 action on it.
 

jurb26

Footballguy
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject. However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a :2cents: wager. I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.
I'll take your wager. Name a Denver RB whom you think will finish in the top 25, and I'll give you 1:1 action on it.
I was going to say you pick which one of the 4 you think will be top 25 and give me even odds plus the other 3. I'll give you who ever you want. :D
 

Marc Levin

Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
I am very surprised at how low Kurt Warner is ranked, unless those polled think that he will be replaced at sometime during the season by Manning.
:yes: That's my thinking - getting pulled sometime before game 10 for the remainder of the season will hurt your final FF numbers.
 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
I am very surprised at how low Kurt Warner is ranked, unless those polled think that he will be replaced at sometime during the season by Manning.
:yes: That's my thinking - getting pulled sometime before game 10 for the remainder of the season will hurt your final FF numbers.
I just don't see how you can really count on Warner playing the full season. Yes, you would think his thumb checks out otherwise why would the Giants have played him, but nevertheless, he looked shellshocked last year and that was running an offense that he knew intimately well and had won 2 MVPs guiding. Now he goes to a team with marginal talent, a new coach, a new offensive scheme, and a sieve offensive line; good luck. Layer onto that Eli Manning getting HUGE bucks as the top pick and future of the team AND (according to several reports including Mort's latest chat IIRC), the idea that Coughlin would prefer Eli to play sooner rather than later, and I just don't see Warner as a guy worth ranking too highly.
 

MUBB

Footballguy
So from what I can tell the REAL flaw in the rankings is that the published list goes deeper than the individual lists.By only asking for a top 40, but then publishing a top 60 based on everyone's top 40, you are engaging in what appears to be a statistically flawed practice. The published list should NOT contain more players than anyone's individual ranking.The result of this practice could be that ALL 16 STAFF AND THE MESSAGE BOARD agree that Muhammy is the #41 WR -- EVERYONE has him there. Meanwhile, only one person ranks Kevin Dyson at #40, while the other 15 + MB all have him outside the top 60. The rankings will put Dyson in the top 60, but will leave Muhammy out. This is nonsensical. Clearly Muhammy is rated higher than Dyson by 16 of the rankings, and in one ranking Dyson is just one spot ahead. Muhammy should be listed above Dyson.
Agree with Duffman here. I noticed this last year as well. Another thing I have noticed is how sometimes individual positions are ranked 1-20 but then that person's rankings don't follow that same ranking in the overall rankings. For instance they rank RBs 1-40 but then in the overall rankings, RB 32 is ranked higher than RB 28. Then sometimes one may be totally forgotten in the overall rankings and not ranked. I recommended early this year to FBG in setting up a tool similar to the "2004 Interactive Schedule". Instead of Week 1, 2, etc, the positions needing ranked would be there. When you click on it all, RB1, RB2, etc for each team would be listed (carried over from the depth charts). Then you could rank them and hit submit. This way hopefully non of the starters get forgotten as I often saw last year.
 

Marc Levin

Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Another thing I have noticed is how sometimes individual positions are ranked 1-20 but then that person's rankings don't follow that same ranking in the overall rankings. For instance they rank RBs 1-40 but then in the overall rankings, RB 32 is ranked higher than RB 28. Then sometimes one may be totally forgotten in the overall rankings and not ranked.
Point out these errors - sometimes when staff re-rank their individual players they forget to, or improperly, re-rank their overall lists.We are required, as staff, to prevent that from happening in our overall rankings - if player A is on our RB list at 31 and player B is at RB32, Player A must be above player B on our individual overall list, too.Now, what MAY happen is that on the RB list a player is listed over another, but on the overall list they flip flop somehow for a variety of possible reasons, but that is an extremely unlikely situation,
 

Marc Levin

Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Mark, OK, maybe you don't think that highly of Faulk this year, for whatever reason, his age, his knee, whatever. But 26?? Thats an RB3 in a 12 team league. I just don't see the logic.
We are required to rank as we see the final EOY FF standing come out.However, where Winer is screwy is that if Faulk is #26 (obviously due to season ending injury), Stephen Jackson or Lamar Gordon need to be ranked SOMEwhere in the top unless he really perceives the St Lou running game producing next to nothing all year.
 

LHUCKS

Footballguy
By the way...for all the criticism I dish out on the rankings I don't give enough praise.These consensus rankings are the best on the planet. And if there is one place I go to cross-reference my projection rankings it is here. Nice work again this year to FBG. :thumbup: :thumbup:

 

Will Grant

Prince of Insufficient Light
I am very surprised at how low Kurt Warner is ranked, unless those polled think that he will be replaced at sometime during the season by Manning.
:yes: That's my thinking - getting pulled sometime before game 10 for the remainder of the season will hurt your final FF numbers.
I just don't see how you can really count on Warner playing the full season. Yes, you would think his thumb checks out otherwise why would the Giants have played him, but nevertheless, he looked shellshocked last year and that was running an offense that he knew intimately well and had won 2 MVPs guiding. Now he goes to a team with marginal talent, a new coach, a new offensive scheme, and a sieve offensive line; good luck. Layer onto that Eli Manning getting HUGE bucks as the top pick and future of the team AND (according to several reports including Mort's latest chat IIRC), the idea that Coughlin would prefer Eli to play sooner rather than later, and I just don't see Warner as a guy worth ranking too highly.
To add to Jason's point... what's the odds that the Giants will make the playoffs this year? Maybe they can turn everything around in 1 year, split games with Dallas and Philly and win a few non conference and squeak in via a wild card? I doubt it. I'm betting that the Giants are eliminated from the playoffs long before any of the other three teams in the division are. Once that happens, it will be hard not to consider sticking Manning into the mix to see what happens. I'd be very surprised if Warner starts more than 12-13 games for the Giants this year. Given that he's going to be closer to the bench when most fantasy teams are heading into the playoffs, Warner is not a guy that I feel very confident about.
 

MUBB

Footballguy
Point out these errors - sometimes when staff re-rank their individual players they forget to, or improperly, re-rank their overall lists.We are required, as staff, to prevent that from happening in our overall rankings - if player A is on our RB list at 31 and player B is at RB32, Player A must be above player B on our individual overall list, too.Now, what MAY happen is that on the RB list a player is listed over another, but on the overall list they flip flop somehow for a variety of possible reasons, but that is an extremely unlikely situation,
Marc, I don't see anything jumping out at me currently on the offensive rankings, but I can easily see a few IDP abnormalities when comparing the Overall IDP and position rankings. I enjoy IDP more so its easier for me to notice things there than compared to the broad offensive list.You guys do a great job and I don't want to sound petty, just thought offensive and defensive rankings would follow the same basic guidelines. Can't wait til I get some free time to input my rankings with the message boards.
 

Clayton Gray

Just call me Carlton
Staff member
2) Jake Delhomme - #19 with no placement higher then #18. Hello, he finished #15 last year. You may recall him in a previous role performing as the NFC Championship QB. Yeah, the guy with a 106 QB rating in the playoffs, tied with Payton Manning, better than Farve, Bulger, McNabb, McNair, Brady, Hasselbeck, Green, etc. So the consensus expectation is for him to severely regress from his first year totals?
If you purchased a Stats Book / CD, check out the "Super Bowl Hangover" article by Joe T.If you didn't make that purchase, here's a very brief overview:In it that article, Joe T points out that of the last ten Super Bowl losers exactly one QB has improved his fantasy ranking the following season. The other nine QBs regressed following their Super Bowl loss.Does that mean that Delhomme is destined to fail in 2004? Of course not, but don't assume that projecting him to do so is flawed analysis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Will Grant

Prince of Insufficient Light
Marc, I don't see anything jumping out at me currently on the offensive rankings, but I can easily see a few IDP abnormalities when comparing the Overall IDP and position rankings. I enjoy IDP more so its easier for me to notice things there than compared to the broad offensive list.
[Raisehand]That would be me.Not sure what happened at the tail end there.. maybe asleep at the wheel or something... Somehow when I was doing my overall IDP, I skipped Barnett in the overall rankings. That pulled up a few people who should not have been there.I'm just now starting to warm up to Barnett. While I still don't rank him as high as everyone else, he should have been in my top 40 overall. I'll send in a correction now and triple check things next time.[/Raisehand]
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject. However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a :2cents: wager. I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.
I'll take your wager. Name a Denver RB whom you think will finish in the top 25, and I'll give you 1:1 action on it.
You're on MT.BellHearstGriffinAndersonYup, I just named a Denver RB that will be in the top 25.
 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject.  However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a  :2cents: wager.  I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.
I'll take your wager. Name a Denver RB whom you think will finish in the top 25, and I'll give you 1:1 action on it.
You're on MT.BellHearstGriffinAndersonYup, I just named a Denver RB that will be in the top 25.
You're on. I'll give you 1:1 odds on each of them.
 

Marc Levin

Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject.  However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a  :2cents: wager.  I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.
I'll take your wager. Name a Denver RB whom you think will finish in the top 25, and I'll give you 1:1 action on it.
You're on MT.BellHearstGriffinAndersonYup, I just named a Denver RB that will be in the top 25.
You're on. I'll give you 1:1 odds on each of them.
:rotflmao:
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
2) Jake Delhomme - #19 with no placement higher then #18.  Hello, he finished #15 last year.  You may recall him in a previous role performing as the NFC Championship QB.  Yeah, the guy with a 106 QB rating in the playoffs, tied with Payton Manning, better than Farve, Bulger, McNabb, McNair, Brady, Hasselbeck, Green, etc.  So the consensus expectation is for him to severely regress from his first year totals?
If you purchased a Stats Book / CD, check out the "Super Bowl Hangover" article by Joe T.If you didn't make that purchase, here's a very brief overview:In it that article, Joe T points out that of the last ten Super Bowl losers exactly one QB has improved his fantasy ranking the following season. The other nine QBs regressed following their Super Bowl loss.Does that mean that Delhomme is destined to fail in 2004? Of course not, but don't assume that projecting him to do so is flawed analysis.
I've already read the article. Interesting stuff, but I don't necessary think it will apply to the passing stats given the over riding factors such as 9 out of 10 QBs likely improved from year one to year two. Since we're talking history, why are so many people picking Philly when they've lost 3 NFC championships in a row? Probably becuase one thing has nothing to do with the other. You might want to take a look at a couple of other factors. Remember how boring the lead up to the game was...players not getting arrested, violating curfew, hamming it up for TV. Speaks volumes of the coach. Other then the local Bojangles commercial, I haven't seen much going on to distract Delhomme.
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject.  However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a  :2cents: wager.  I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.
I'll take your wager. Name a Denver RB whom you think will finish in the top 25, and I'll give you 1:1 action on it.
You're on MT.BellHearstGriffinAndersonYup, I just named a Denver RB that will be in the top 25.
You're on. I'll give you 1:1 odds on each of them.
For those confused by the word games...
Code:
I take any friendly wagers on the following events using FBG standard scoring.a) Muhammad will finish in the top 60.b) Delhomme will finish in the top 18.c) A Denver RB will finish in the top 25.
Still no serious takers. I think my point has been made.
 

Marc Levin

Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject.  However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a  :2cents: wager.  I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.
I'll take your wager. Name a Denver RB whom you think will finish in the top 25, and I'll give you 1:1 action on it.
You're on MT.BellHearstGriffinAndersonYup, I just named a Denver RB that will be in the top 25.
You're on. I'll give you 1:1 odds on each of them.
For those confused by the word games...
Code:
I take any friendly wagers on the following events using FBG standard scoring.a) Muhammad will finish in the top 60.b) Delhomme will finish in the top 18.c) A Denver RB will finish in the top 25.
Still no serious takers. I think my point has been made.
Not really - I think MT has made ours very well - you were supposed to pick "a Denver RB" that was to crack the top-25 - you then picked all four - MT Then gave you 1:1 odds an ALL four - meaning you will probably lose three of the four and win one of the four, thus losing the bet.There's the point.On the other "wagers" the only one unaccounted for is Delhomme in the top-18.As staff, we don't rank WRs in the 40-60 range for our rankings - I have Muhammed in the 40-60 range as well.
 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Still no serious takers.  I think my point has been made.
"Denver RB" and Muhammad have been covered.Your Delhomme offer is a fair one. I would take you up on it if I felt like gambling. But for me, all the QBs in 16-22 range are ranked extremely close. (I have Delhomme at #22.) In a sense, they may as well all be tied for #19. So I don't really want to bet that Delhomme will finish outside the top 18. There's not enough of an overlay for me -- it's pretty close to 50-50, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pigskinliquors

Dr. Parrothead
BnB I'll take your bet on Delhomme. I'll bet the that Delhomme ends up 18th or worse in fantasy points per game, using FBG's scoring. Signature bet, that must be displayed from January to May of next year. :boxing:

 

Capybara

Footballguy
By the way...for all the criticism I dish out on the rankings I don't give enough praise.These consensus rankings are the best on the planet. And if there is one place I go to cross-reference my projection rankings it is here. Nice work again this year to FBG. :thumbup: :thumbup:
Agreed!For a brief break from the Denver RB betting, here are my thoughts on the main items I disagree with on the K list:1. Most have Vanderjagt ranked #1. The few that don't have Wilkins at the top. IMO neither one will finish first.2. IMO Vinatieri will not be top 10.P.S. The best bet in Denver = Elam!
 

Holy Schneikes

Footballguy
Tell you who I'm surpised about - David Boston.He was 19th last year in 14 games, 16th in PPG under less than ideal circumstances (some of his own making of course).Yes, he has issues and there is a lot of risk there. But he also has a lot of talent. A 29th ranking seems pretty brutal.Chris Chambers is a nice receiver, but I don't think he's as good as Boston let alone 13 places higher in my rankings. I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the top 10 at the end of the year.

 

Mark Wimer

Moderator
The thing that jumps put at me most (again) is Mark Wimer's low ranking of Marshal Faulk.

Mark, OK, maybe you don't think that highly of Faulk this year, for whatever reason, his age, his knee, whatever. But 26?? Thats an RB3 in a 12 team league. I just don't see the logic. Some issues:

1. If you think its because of his age and/or knees, then you must think Steven Jackson will start in his place for a number of games. If thisis true, why don't you even have Jackson ranked? Who will get the carries in STL?

2. I think Steven Jackson wil only spell Faulk during games, giving Faulk some rest and keeping him fresh, but not enough to warrant a drop out of the top 12, let alone the top 24. EVERY team uses their backups to some extent. But what surprises me is that you rank other RBs who will more likely have fewer carries becasue of RBBC higher than Faulk. OK, I can see your logic for your top 12 (although i don't agree ;) ), but the following are all ranked higher than Faulk. Most are in RBBC or have someone vulturing goaline TDs:

#13 Bennett (Smith and Williams)

#14 Barber (Dayne)

#15 Henry (McGahee)

#16 Rudi Johnson (unproven)

#17 Westbrook (Buckhalter)

#18 Davis (Foster)

#19 Martin (Jordan, plus they won't have that many TDs anyway)

#20 Staley (Bettis)

#21 Shipp????

#22 Griffin (Anderson, Bell, Hearst)

#23 Brown (may not even be starter if george resigns)

#24 T. Jones (A-Train)

#25 Dillon (also ranked too low)

Are you saying you'd sooner draft any ofthese before Faulk as your RB2? Wow! Well lets just agree to disagree then. I personally think that Faulk will rebound and be a top 10 RB this year, possibly top 5.
| 1999 ram | 16 | 253 1381 5.5 7 | 87 1048 12.0 5 || 2000 ram | 14 | 253 1359 5.4 18 | 81 830 10.2 8 |

| 2001 ram | 14 | 260 1382 5.3 12 | 83 765 9.2 9 |

| 2002 ram | 14 | 212 953 4.5 8 | 80 537 6.7 2 |

| 2003 ram | 11 | 209 818 3.9 10 | 45 290 6.4 1 |

Hey 3nOut --

Above is the stat line for Marshall Faulk since he joined the Rams. The decline in games played is quite evident, as is his downward spiral in terms of yards per carry and yards per catch.

I don't think that the Rams expended a first round pick on a new RB capriciously, I think they agree with observers like Jim Thomas who wrote on 6/28/04

Clipped from: Foxsports/Sporting News article by Jim Thomas, 6/28/04

RUNNING BACKS ANALYSIS

The big question is how much the Rams will get from Marshall Faulk. Faulk still can be a workhorse for a short stretch, but it would be foolish to count on him for 20 carries per game. First-round pick Steven Jackson has good receiving skills and, though he's more of a power runner than Faulk, can turn the corner. Look for the team to devise some two-back sets to make use of both players. Lamar Gordon, set back by injury problems in the past, might have missed his chance to be Faulk's successor. Joey Goodspeed and Arlen Harris will compete at fullback. Goodspeed is a decent blocker and pass catcher; Harris, a converted running back, is tough but undersized (5-10, 225).
I see Faulk as the starter going into the season, but increasingly splitting time with Jackson, until he is supplanted (whether due to injury or just plain being outperformed by the younger back) -- my projections for Faulk in 2004 are 700-800 rushing with 7-8 TD's and 200-300 receiving with 1-2 receiving TD's, while Jackson gets 600-700 rushing and 2-3 rushing TD's, with 100-200 receiving and 0-1 TD's. Regarding Bennett: He's on record predicting 1500/10 rushing for himself this season (exclusive of receiving), and Coach Tice has been very positive in his assessments of Bennett's prospects in material I have read out of Minnesota. I think he's the headliner, with some spelling from the others.

Re: Barber: Barber seeking to Eliminate Fumbling: Vastly Improve Strength -- Also -- Dayne? Hasn't been able to do the job yet -- why would he now?

Re: Henry -- McGahee is totally unproven and Henry is said to be in great shape/attitude heading into the season.

Re: Johnson: I don't call

| 2002 cin | 7 | 17 67 3.9 0 | 6 34 5.7 0 |

| 2003 cin | 13 | 215 957 4.5 9 | 21 146 7.0 0 |

unproven. I do call McGahee unproven, though.

Re: Westbrook: Eagles 417 carries 2015 yards 4.83 ave 23 TD's rushing as a team in 2003, and now Staley is in Pitt; Plenty of balls/yards to split between Westbrook/Buckhalter, with Westbrook getting larger share and more FP. Buckhalter is my #32 RB, so it's not like I forgot to factor in his share, either.

Re: Davis: Panthers 521 carries 2095 yards 4.02 ave 9 TD's rushing as a team in 2003; assuming a similar emphasis on rushing in 2004, assuming we see Davis @ 25 carries a game (high, IMO, but assume for sake of argument) and there is still 100-120 for Foster to get as change of pace back in 2005. At 20 per game for Davis (318 1444 4.5 8 in 2003, BTW) -- more likely, IMO -- then more like 160-170 for Foster, and we still have Mr. Davis at #18 on my board with 1200-1300 yards 9-10 TD's rushing with 100-150 receiving 0-1 TD's (my current projections for him in 2004).

Re: Martin: Abnormally sub-par year last year with an absolutely horrible start. Weeks 4-10 do bother me as it is a brutal mid-year sched IMO, but I can't see Martin doing that poorly again in 2004. Jets basically told Jordan to shut up earlier in off-season when he whined about wanting more PT in 2004, BTW.

Staley: Rush/Receiving skill mix good fit for pass happy Steelers Offense, which even Bettis says won't go back to smash-mouth football (numerous stories on this topic out of Pitt this year). Bettis will be a situational player, and took a significant pay-cut in recognition of this fact.Bettis $3.3 Million Pay Cut Details/Story from 4/13/04

Shipp: Yes, Shipp. E. Smith will not start all season. Tank empty. The move was a sign of respect from H.C. Green and to motivate Shipp. I am worried about Josh Scobey, though -- waiting on Training Camp to see how the AZ situation plays out. It is early July, after all.

Re: Griffin: Inside track to start, according to about 1/2 the sources I read. No clear Bronco Back yet, but I think it will be Griffin (with significant help from other RB's, thus the 22 ranking for a Bronco Back)

Re: Brown: E George:

| 1999 ten | 16 | 320 1304 4.1 9 | 47 458 9.7 4 |

| 2000 ten | 16 | 403 1509 3.7 14 | 50 453 9.1 2 |

| 2001 ten | 16 | 315 939 3.0 5 | 37 279 7.5 0 |

| 2002 ten | 16 | 343 1165 3.4 12 | 36 255 7.1 2 |

| 2003 ten | 16 | 312 1031 3.3 5 | 22 163 7.4 0 |

Re-signed or not, Tank Empty. Brown starts by end of training camp.

Re: T. Jones: Best guess until we see how training camp shakes out.

Re: Corey Dillon: Prima-Donna whiner meets authoritarian Bill Belichick: a marriage made in the nether regions. Dillon: career max is 10 rushing scores in a season. Career average is 6.5 per season, with 5 receiving TD's in career (and Kevin Faulk to play in passing situations). RBBC with limited upside for Dillon on a team that plays matchups with their RB's and will start whoever they please in a given week, sure to anger/make whiny/end-up-on-bench Mr. Dillon. Cedric Cobbs waiting in the wings.... I like Dillon only marginally better than Faulk, with projections of 1000-1100 8-9 rushing and 100-200 0-1 receiving -- definitely not ranked too low, and maybe too optimisitic... Career numbers in Cincy, where he was unchallenged #1 until last year:

| 1997 cin | 16 | 233 1129 4.8 10 | 27 259 9.6 0 |

| 1998 cin | 15 | 262 1130 4.3 4 | 28 178 6.4 1 |

| 1999 cin | 15 | 263 1200 4.6 5 | 31 290 9.4 1 |

| 2000 cin | 16 | 315 1435 4.6 7 | 18 158 8.8 0 |

| 2001 cin | 16 | 340 1315 3.9 10 | 34 228 6.7 3 |

| 2002 cin | 16 | 314 1311 4.2 7 | 43 298 6.9 0 |

| 2003 cin | 13 | 138 541 3.9 2 | 11 71 6.5 0 |

No huge FP seasons here, ever, and only 2 seasons 10 or more TD's total. Note especially marked drop off in yards per carry and yards per catch over the last 3 seasons compared to earlier efforts.

My analysis of the situations as of today. All based on sound reasoning/statistical information(trends)/latest NFL news, IMO.

 

Colin Dowling

Footballguy
Tell you who I'm surpised about - David Boston.He was 19th last year in 14 games, 16th in PPG under less than ideal circumstances (some of his own making of course).Yes, he has issues and there is a lot of risk there. But he also has a lot of talent. A 29th ranking seems pretty brutal.Chris Chambers is a nice receiver, but I don't think he's as good as Boston let alone 13 places higher in my rankings. I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the top 10 at the end of the year.
Neither would I. I have Boston ranked 10th, which I believe is the highest by a long shot.COlin
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
Still no serious takers.  I think my point has been made.
"Denver RB" and Muhammad have been covered.Your Delhomme offer is a fair one. I would take you up on it if I felt like gambling. But for me, all the QBs in 16-22 range are ranked extremely close. (I have Delhomme at #22.) In a sense, they may as well all be tied for #19. So I don't really want to bet that Delhomme will finish outside the top 18. There's not enough of an overlay for me -- it's pretty close to 50-50, IMO.
Denver RB - Actually not covered. Why did three Denver RBs all slide down during this last period.Muhammad - Rankings need to be tweaked for the cuasal observer, but point taken.Delhomme - Looks like eveyone sees a big pile up between 16 and 24 with Delhomme getting the short end of the stick becuase he's not as sexy as some others. Just curious, how many of the Staff hail from somewhere southeast of Knoxville/Nashville and north of Miami?
 

Warehouse Nasty

Footballguy
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject.  However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a  :2cents: wager.  I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.
I'll take your wager. Name a Denver RB whom you think will finish in the top 25, and I'll give you 1:1 action on it.
You're on MT.BellHearstGriffinAndersonYup, I just named a Denver RB that will be in the top 25.
For talking so much smack on the subject you sure are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is and pick a Denver RB in the top 25 Bass...
 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
I have Boston ranked 10th, which I believe is the highest by a long shot.
Yes, that's the highest by quite a bit. I've got him second highest at #20.It's tough to put him much higher than that. Last year, he was the Chargers' clear WR1 (when he played). This year, it's unclear whether he'll be the Dolphins' WR1. And the Dolphins' passing attack isn't any better than the Chargers'.That said, Boston does have the athletic potential to be a top 5 WR.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
The thing that jumps put at me most (again) is Mark Wimer's low ranking of Marshal Faulk.

Mark, OK, maybe you don't think that highly of Faulk this year, for whatever reason, his age, his knee, whatever. But 26?? Thats an RB3 in a 12 team league. I just don't see the logic. Some issues:

1. If you think its because of his age and/or knees, then you must think Steven Jackson will start in his place for a number of games. If thisis true, why don't you even have Jackson ranked? Who will get the carries in STL?

2. I think Steven Jackson wil only spell Faulk during games, giving Faulk some rest and keeping him fresh, but not enough to warrant a drop out of the top 12, let alone the top 24. EVERY team uses their backups to some extent. But what surprises me is that you rank other RBs who will more likely have fewer carries becasue of RBBC higher than Faulk. OK, I can see your logic for your top 12 (although i don't agree ;) ), but the following are all ranked higher than Faulk. Most are in RBBC or have someone vulturing goaline TDs:

#13 Bennett (Smith and Williams)

#14 Barber (Dayne)

#15 Henry (McGahee)

#16 Rudi Johnson (unproven)

#17 Westbrook (Buckhalter)

#18 Davis (Foster)

#19 Martin (Jordan, plus they won't have that many TDs anyway)

#20 Staley (Bettis)

#21 Shipp????

#22 Griffin (Anderson, Bell, Hearst)

#23 Brown (may not even be starter if george resigns)

#24 T. Jones (A-Train)

#25 Dillon (also ranked too low)

Are you saying you'd sooner draft any ofthese before Faulk as your RB2? Wow! Well lets just agree to disagree then. I personally think that Faulk will rebound and be a top 10 RB this year, possibly top 5.
| 1999 ram | 16 | 253 1381 5.5 7 | 87 1048 12.0 5 || 2000 ram | 14 | 253 1359 5.4 18 | 81 830 10.2 8 |

| 2001 ram | 14 | 260 1382 5.3 12 | 83 765 9.2 9 |

| 2002 ram | 14 | 212 953 4.5 8 | 80 537 6.7 2 |

| 2003 ram | 11 | 209 818 3.9 10 | 45 290 6.4 1 |

Hey 3nOut --

Above is the stat line for Marshall Faulk since he joined the Rams. The decline in games played is quite evident, as is his downward spiral in terms of yards per carry and yards per catch.

I don't think that the Rams expended a first round pick on a new RB capriciously, I think they agree with observers like Jim Thomas who wrote on 6/28/04

Clipped from: Foxsports/Sporting News article by Jim Thomas, 6/28/04

RUNNING BACKS ANALYSIS

The big question is how much the Rams will get from Marshall Faulk. Faulk still can be a workhorse for a short stretch, but it would be foolish to count on him for 20 carries per game. First-round pick Steven Jackson has good receiving skills and, though he's more of a power runner than Faulk, can turn the corner. Look for the team to devise some two-back sets to make use of both players. Lamar Gordon, set back by injury problems in the past, might have missed his chance to be Faulk's successor. Joey Goodspeed and Arlen Harris will compete at fullback. Goodspeed is a decent blocker and pass catcher; Harris, a converted running back, is tough but undersized (5-10, 225).
I see Faulk as the starter going into the season, but increasingly splitting time with Jackson, until he is supplanted (whether due to injury or just plain being outperformed by the younger back) -- my projections for Faulk in 2004 are 700-800 rushing with 7-8 TD's and 200-300 receiving with 1-2 receiving TD's, while Jackson gets 600-700 rushing and 2-3 rushing TD's, with 100-200 receiving and 0-1 TD's. Regarding Bennett: He's on record predicting 1500/10 rushing for himself this season (exclusive of receiving), and Coach Tice has been very positive in his assessments of Bennett's prospects in material I have read out of Minnesota. I think he's the headliner, with some spelling from the others.

Re: Barber: Barber seeking to Eliminate Fumbling: Vastly Improve Strength -- Also -- Dayne? Hasn't been able to do the job yet -- why would he now?

Re: Henry -- McGahee is totally unproven and Henry is said to be in great shape/attitude heading into the season.

Re: Johnson: I don't call

| 2002 cin | 7 | 17 67 3.9 0 | 6 34 5.7 0 |

| 2003 cin | 13 | 215 957 4.5 9 | 21 146 7.0 0 |

unproven. I do call McGahee unproven, though.

Re: Westbrook: Eagles 417 carries 2015 yards 4.83 ave 23 TD's rushing as a team in 2003, and now Staley is in Pitt; Plenty of balls/yards to split between Westbrook/Buckhalter, with Westbrook getting larger share and more FP. Buckhalter is my #32 RB, so it's not like I forgot to factor in his share, either.

Re: Davis: Panthers 521 carries 2095 yards 4.02 ave 9 TD's rushing as a team in 2003; assuming a similar emphasis on rushing in 2004, assuming we see Davis @ 25 carries a game (high, IMO, but assume for sake of argument) and there is still 100-120 for Foster to get as change of pace back in 2005. At 20 per game for Davis (318 1444 4.5 8 in 2003, BTW) -- more likely, IMO -- then more like 160-170 for Foster, and we still have Mr. Davis at #18 on my board with 1200-1300 yards 9-10 TD's rushing with 100-150 receiving 0-1 TD's (my current projections for him in 2004).

Re: Martin: Abnormally sub-par year last year with an absolutely horrible start. Weeks 4-10 do bother me as it is a brutal mid-year sched IMO, but I can't see Martin doing that poorly again in 2004. Jets basically told Jordan to shut up earlier in off-season when he whined about wanting more PT in 2004, BTW.

Staley: Rush/Receiving skill mix good fit for pass happy Steelers Offense, which even Bettis says won't go back to smash-mouth football (numerous stories on this topic out of Pitt this year). Bettis will be a situational player, and took a significant pay-cut in recognition of this fact.Bettis $3.3 Million Pay Cut Details/Story from 4/13/04

Shipp: Yes, Shipp. E. Smith will not start all season. Tank empty. The move was a sign of respect from H.C. Green and to motivate Shipp. I am worried about Josh Scobey, though -- waiting on Training Camp to see how the AZ situation plays out. It is early July, after all.

Re: Griffin: Inside track to start, according to about 1/2 the sources I read. No clear Bronco Back yet, but I think it will be Griffin (with significant help from other RB's, thus the 22 ranking for a Bronco Back)

Re: Brown: E George:

| 1999 ten | 16 | 320 1304 4.1 9 | 47 458 9.7 4 |

| 2000 ten | 16 | 403 1509 3.7 14 | 50 453 9.1 2 |

| 2001 ten | 16 | 315 939 3.0 5 | 37 279 7.5 0 |

| 2002 ten | 16 | 343 1165 3.4 12 | 36 255 7.1 2 |

| 2003 ten | 16 | 312 1031 3.3 5 | 22 163 7.4 0 |

Re-signed or not, Tank Empty. Brown starts by end of training camp.

Re: T. Jones: Best guess until we see how training camp shakes out.

Re: Corey Dillon: Prima-Donna whiner meets authoritarian Bill Belichick: a marriage made in the nether regions. Dillon: career max is 10 rushing scores in a season. Career average is 6.5 per season, with 5 receiving TD's in career (and Kevin Faulk to play in passing situations). RBBC with limited upside for Dillon on a team that plays matchups with their RB's and will start whoever they please in a given week, sure to anger/make whiny/end-up-on-bench Mr. Dillon. Cedric Cobbs waiting in the wings.... I like Dillon only marginally better than Faulk, with projections of 1000-1100 8-9 rushing and 100-200 0-1 receiving -- definitely not ranked too low, and maybe too optimisitic... Career numbers in Cincy, where he was unchallenged #1 until last year:

| 1997 cin | 16 | 233 1129 4.8 10 | 27 259 9.6 0 |

| 1998 cin | 15 | 262 1130 4.3 4 | 28 178 6.4 1 |

| 1999 cin | 15 | 263 1200 4.6 5 | 31 290 9.4 1 |

| 2000 cin | 16 | 315 1435 4.6 7 | 18 158 8.8 0 |

| 2001 cin | 16 | 340 1315 3.9 10 | 34 228 6.7 3 |

| 2002 cin | 16 | 314 1311 4.2 7 | 43 298 6.9 0 |

| 2003 cin | 13 | 138 541 3.9 2 | 11 71 6.5 0 |

No huge FP seasons here, ever, and only 2 seasons 10 or more TD's total. Note especially marked drop off in yards per carry and yards per catch over the last 3 seasons compared to earlier efforts.

My analysis of the situations as of today. All based on sound reasoning/statistical information(trends)/latest NFL news, IMO.
Mark, How good have your calls like this been in the past? Other then your well thought out analysis, is there any history suggesting a strong track record at id'ing a fall from grace?
 

Colin Dowling

Footballguy
Still no serious takers.  I think my point has been made.
"Denver RB" and Muhammad have been covered.Your Delhomme offer is a fair one. I would take you up on it if I felt like gambling. But for me, all the QBs in 16-22 range are ranked extremely close. (I have Delhomme at #22.) In a sense, they may as well all be tied for #19. So I don't really want to bet that Delhomme will finish outside the top 18. There's not enough of an overlay for me -- it's pretty close to 50-50, IMO.
Denver RB - Actually not covered. Why did three Denver RBs all slide down during this last period.Muhammad - Rankings need to be tweaked for the cuasal observer, but point taken.Delhomme - Looks like eveyone sees a big pile up between 16 and 24 with Delhomme getting the short end of the stick becuase he's not as sexy as some others. Just curious, how many of the Staff hail from somewhere southeast of Knoxville/Nashville and north of Miami?
I live in Texas. Your point about Delhomme is a good one - there seems to be a real bottleneck between about 12 and 20 and Delhomme is getting "the short end of the stick" sure enough. I went back and looked at my QB rankings to see if I was guilty of not thinking things out regarding Delhomme and my conclusion is that I don't know who I'd drop to move Delhomme up. (My rankings)13. Brad Johnson14. Bulger15. Pennington16. Palmer17. Gannon18. Bledsoe19. DelhommeI've actually got Bulger, and Pennington ranked LOWER than the staff average, so they're not dropping. I think Johnson is a top-12 QB as long as he doesn't lose his job. I may be giving Palmer too much credit, but Gannon and Bledsoe have shown good ability in the past despite their most recent seasons being poor. I guess I could "peak" Delhomme around 14 in my rankings (and I was pissed when Joe T or Fro took him one spot ahead of where i wanted him in Survivor) because he has some upside, but in a tiered draft, he'd come in with Gannon/Bledsoe as the middle of QB2-Second Tier for me anyway. COlin
 

bostonfred2

Footballguy
A lot of good excuses...err...I mean thoughts on the subject. However, I've yet to see one person "step up" for even a :2cents: wager. I see a lack of conviction in many of these opinions, which means I've hit upon some areas that warrant discussion.
I'll take your wager. Name a Denver RB whom you think will finish in the top 25, and I'll give you 1:1 action on it.
I'll take Tatum Bell. How much?
 

jurb26

Footballguy
Some questions:Anyone care to tell me why a move up for Johnson QB, TB with the news of Simms threatening his PT.Plex, 23 ahead of Rodgers, Porter and Stallworth among others. Why with his question marks right now?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top