Pasquino Dynasty Rankings (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Pasquino]

With just two weeks to go before the NFL Draft, I re-vamped my rankings for all the veterans.

You can find the link in my signature.

Feel free to ask about them and I'll try and get to your comments / concerns / questions in a timely fashion.

A few notes:

1. Yes they are NOT PPR.

2. NO they do not include the rookies (so pretty much the bottom 5-10 names will all be gone in 3 weeks anyway)

3. I look 3-4 years down the line for value. More than four years is just crazy guesswork anyway.

4. Probably the biggest one - I take no questions personally and am happy to discuss the rankings. As I've stated many times before, questions about a player will either make me defend my stance well OR cause me to change my mind if you make a good argument. In either instance the rankings are either solidified or improved via a change - and we all believe that the rankings are better.

Enjoy.

 

[Mark Wimer]

Nice Job, Jeff!

 

[Alex P Keaton]

With just two weeks to go before the NFL Draft, I re-vamped my rankings for all the veterans.You can find the link in my signature.Feel free to ask about them and I'll try and get to your comments / concerns / questions in a timely fashion.A few notes:1. Yes they are NOT PPR.2. NO they do not include the rookies (so pretty much the bottom 5-10 names will all be gone in 3 weeks anyway)3. I look 3-4 years down the line for value. More than four years is just crazy guesswork anyway.4. Probably the biggest one - I take no questions personally and am happy to discuss the rankings. As I've stated many times before, questions about a player will either make me defend my stance well OR cause me to change my mind if you make a good argument. In either instance the rankings are either solidified or improved via a change - and we all believe that the rankings are better.Enjoy.

Thanks for posting your rankings Jeff, great job! A couple of questions below re: dynasty rankings.RBs:- why do you have Steven Jackson at #7 if you look out 3-4 years? He turns 28 this summer, has been nicked up (though also played through minor injuries) much of his career, and plays in an offense with no receiving weapons. How much longer does this guy keep producing at a high level?- ditto for frank gore at #6....when does he break down? - are you anticipating that Deangelo Williams moves on elsewhere? - why do you have Arian Foster at #10? not sold on his talent level? ability to stay healthy?- it seems like you aren't really predicting any breakouts.....unless you consider Best, Mathews, Spiller (16, 18, 20) to be breakouts. any reason why you aren't being more aggressive, given the dynasty format?- which RBs in the lower tiers (e.g., > 40) excite you the most?WRs:- how do you rank Greg Jennings so high? he performed poorly when Finley was healthy early in 2010, then once Finley went down he finally started getting meaningful targets. aren't you worried that the Pack go back to the "feed Finley" plan?- Dez Bryant 5 spots higher than Miles Austin...just due to talent differential? it can't be age....since your window is only 3-4 years out.- do you see M Crabtree improving this year? #27 is pretty low....but then again, he hasn't shown much so far- why do you have M Williams (TB) at #21 and not higher? are you worried that he won't get a higher # of targets?Thx again for the rankings!

 

[moderated]

Enjoy the rankings. Don't understand gore, sjax, turner being so high though. In 2 years they will all be pretty much worthless in dynasty leagues.

 

[tones]

While I love the fact that FBG has comments on players, is there some way you could turn them off after a period of time? Some of them go back to last spring.

Thanks for updating your rankings.

 

[Dragon1952]

Thank you!

 

[Go deep]

With just two weeks to go before the NFL Draft, I re-vamped my rankings for all the veterans.You can find the link in my signature.Feel free to ask about them and I'll try and get to your comments / concerns / questions in a timely fashion.A few notes:1. Yes they are NOT PPR.2. NO they do not include the rookies (so pretty much the bottom 5-10 names will all be gone in 3 weeks anyway)3. I look 3-4 years down the line for value. More than four years is just crazy guesswork anyway.4. Probably the biggest one - I take no questions personally and am happy to discuss the rankings. As I've stated many times before, questions about a player will either make me defend my stance well OR cause me to change my mind if you make a good argument. In either instance the rankings are either solidified or improved via a change - and we all believe that the rankings are better.Enjoy.

WRs:- how do you rank Greg Jennings so high? he performed poorly when Finley was healthy early in 2010, then once Finley went down he finally started getting meaningful targets. aren't you worried that the Pack go back to the "feed Finley" plan?

I know your not asking me, but with Driver and Jones likely gone, how much of Rodgers 4000/30 do you think can really go to Finley? I dont think Finley has been Jennings problem as much as Driver has been. As a matter of fact, i think having just Finley to competer for targets with will be the best situation Jennings has ever been in.

 

[ClownDogs]

Two glaring ones i seen and a few other notes.(after the E.Sanders one i pointed out to you previously )

Mendy at RB13? Seems too low, especially cause of being so young and only RB in Pitt.

DJax at WR3? GOTTA be the homer pick in you, just can't justify a one trick pony(deep threat) in the top 5, probably not top 10 for me personally. Maclin is the the WR to own in Philly longterm.

I think AFoster/JCharles will be top 5 RB's this year, but can see the reasoning behind putting them in the bottom of the top 10.

Massaquoi seems like a stretch, but guess he has the talent, just not sure what happens when they grab a WR in the draft.

 

[moderated]

Massaquoi seems like a stretch, but guess he has the talent, just not sure what happens when they grab a WR in the draft.

Unfortunately his hands suck, for a wr they are pretty important.

 

[loose circuits]

i'm buying Jacoby Ford and Johnny Knox at that price.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I know your not asking me, but with Driver and Jones likely gone, how much of Rodgers 4000/30 do you think can really go to Finley? I dont think Finley has been Jennings problem as much as Driver has been. As a matter of fact, i think having just Finley to competer for targets with will be the best situation Jennings has ever been in.

1. Are you suggesting that Driver is retiring? I haven't seen that anywhere.2. Finley was injured in week 5. Not coincidentally, week 6 is when Jennings started to go wild. Driver missed a few games but continued playing all year. That seems to suggest the loss of Finley was a bigger issue....but I see your point on Driver too.

 

[bonesman]

Did you write something for Celek? His ranking is bolded, but I get a java-void when I click over it.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Nice Job, Jeff!

Thanks Mark.

 

[Steed]

i'm buying Jacoby Ford and Johnny Knox at that price.

Jeff hates young WRs. I remember after 2007 he ranked Greg Jennings and Roddy White in the late 20s despite them both coming off their 1st big seasons. Knox and Ford aren't in the same class as those 2 were, but you get the gist.

 

[Go deep]

I know your not asking me, but with Driver and Jones likely gone, how much of Rodgers 4000/30 do you think can really go to Finley? I dont think Finley has been Jennings problem as much as Driver has been. As a matter of fact, i think having just Finley to competer for targets with will be the best situation Jennings has ever been in.

1. Are you suggesting that Driver is retiring? I haven't seen that anywhere.2. Finley was injured in week 5. Not coincidentally, week 6 is when Jennings started to go wild. Driver missed a few games but continued playing all year. That seems to suggest the loss of Finley was a bigger issue....but I see your point on Driver too.

No, i dont know that Driver is retiring, but even if he is back, his days of stealing targets from better WR's are over.Its way too small of a sample size to assume that Jennings numbers improved soley because Finley got hurt. Lets assume that Rodgers throws for 4000 yards and 30 TD's, which is probably being conservative, how do you see those yards and TD's being distributed?

 

[Mr. Peterson]

I know your not asking me, but with Driver and Jones likely gone, how much of Rodgers 4000/30 do you think can really go to Finley? I dont think Finley has been Jennings problem as much as Driver has been. As a matter of fact, i think having just Finley to competer for targets with will be the best situation Jennings has ever been in.

1. Are you suggesting that Driver is retiring? I haven't seen that anywhere.2. Finley was injured in week 5. Not coincidentally, week 6 is when Jennings started to go wild. Driver missed a few games but continued playing all year. That seems to suggest the loss of Finley was a bigger issue....but I see your point on Driver too.

No, i dont know that Driver is retiring, but even if he is back, his days of stealing targets from better WR's are over.Its way too small of a sample size to assume that Jennings numbers improved soley because Finley got hurt.

Lets assume that Rodgers throws for 4000 yards and 30 TD's, which is probablt being conservative, how do you see thise yards and TD's being distributed?

This is FBG... Where the Finley hype is crazy. Most people here will probably say about 90% of Rodgers yds and td's are going directly to Finley himself.And Jeff, I like where you have SJAX. I have him in a couple dynasty leagues. I may not agree totally... But I like seeing it. I plan on using him to help me win another championship this year while everyone else is gonna think he's done cause he's getting older.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

With just two weeks to go before the NFL Draft, I re-vamped my rankings for all the veterans.You can find the link in my signature.Feel free to ask about them and I'll try and get to your comments / concerns / questions in a timely fashion.A few notes:1. Yes they are NOT PPR.2. NO they do not include the rookies (so pretty much the bottom 5-10 names will all be gone in 3 weeks anyway)3. I look 3-4 years down the line for value. More than four years is just crazy guesswork anyway.4. Probably the biggest one - I take no questions personally and am happy to discuss the rankings. As I've stated many times before, questions about a player will either make me defend my stance well OR cause me to change my mind if you make a good argument. In either instance the rankings are either solidified or improved via a change - and we all believe that the rankings are better.Enjoy.

Thanks for posting your rankings Jeff, great job! A couple of questions below re: dynasty rankings.RBs:- why do you have Steven Jackson at #7 if you look out 3-4 years? He turns 28 this summer, has been nicked up (though also played through minor injuries) much of his career, and plays in an offense with no receiving weapons. How much longer does this guy keep producing at a high level?- ditto for frank gore at #6....when does he break down? - are you anticipating that Deangelo Williams moves on elsewhere? - why do you have Arian Foster at #10? not sold on his talent level? ability to stay healthy?- it seems like you aren't really predicting any breakouts.....unless you consider Best, Mathews, Spiller (16, 18, 20) to be breakouts. any reason why you aren't being more aggressive, given the dynasty format?- which RBs in the lower tiers (e.g., > 40) excite you the most?WRs:- how do you rank Greg Jennings so high? he performed poorly when Finley was healthy early in 2010, then once Finley went down he finally started getting meaningful targets. aren't you worried that the Pack go back to the "feed Finley" plan?- Dez Bryant 5 spots higher than Miles Austin...just due to talent differential? it can't be age....since your window is only 3-4 years out.- do you see M Crabtree improving this year? #27 is pretty low....but then again, he hasn't shown much so far- why do you have M Williams (TB) at #21 and not higher? are you worried that he won't get a higher # of targets?Thx again for the rankings!

Holy smokes, maybe I should've capped the # of questions Okay - here goes.

RBs:1 - why do you have Steven Jackson at #7 if you look out 3-4 years? He turns 28 this summer, has been nicked up (though also played through minor injuries) much of his career, and plays in an offense with no receiving weapons. How much longer does this guy keep producing at a high level?2 - ditto for frank gore at #6....when does he break down? 3 - are you anticipating that Deangelo Williams moves on elsewhere? 4 - why do you have Arian Foster at #10? not sold on his talent level? ability to stay healthy?5 - it seems like you aren't really predicting any breakouts.....unless you consider Best, Mathews, Spiller (16, 18, 20) to be breakouts. any reason why you aren't being more aggressive, given the dynasty format?6 - which RBs in the lower tiers (e.g., > 40) excite you the most?

1. S-Jax is a stud RB with no threat to his job security. He's 28 and - although he has been nicked up - he really has put up some very strong numbers when there was nothing else for the Rams on offense. Now he has Bradford who is starting to put up a decent passing game and even the defense is starting to come around. I give Jackson two strong years as a feature RB and then 1-2 years as a Thomas Jones RBBC type. That's worth quite a bit to me. 2. Same for Gore - and he'll be a workhorse this year. A. Dixon is not a threat and Harbaugh is going to run Gore into the ground. The defense will get better and better and Gore will get 300+ touches in 2011 and 2012. SJax-similar story.3. Absolutely DeW/DWill will be elsewhere. I expect Miami. JStewart and Goodson will be your 1-2 (mostly Stewart) in Carolina.4. Foster is solid, but I really believe that the Texans go to more of a RBBC to try and preserve Foster. That plus Foster crushed last year, and I have a hard time envisioning him to be the #1 RB again. Sure he could, but I think he's in that second tier of backs. I also think another RB (likely Ben Tate) takes some workload, both lowering the pressure on Foster and as a result lowering his fantasy production.5. I don't especially look for a breakout. I just look at both talent and opportunity. I don't see many feature backs in the making that aren't already in that role nor do I see RBBCs breaking out. The breakouts will be from the rookies this year if any.6. Sleeper hunting, are we? Bernard Scott (if Benson doesn't return) and Rashad Jennings (I always liked him, and MJD is one more hit on his knee away from really giving up the workload). A dark horse I like is McGahee who is younger than most think and has really put up numbers every single NFL season - even with Ray Rice to compete for touches. I think he can have 2-3 strong years left.

WRs:1 - how do you rank Greg Jennings so high? he performed poorly when Finley was healthy early in 2010, then once Finley went down he finally started getting meaningful targets. aren't you worried that the Pack go back to the "feed Finley" plan?2 - Dez Bryant 5 spots higher than Miles Austin...just due to talent differential? it can't be age....since your window is only 3-4 years out.3 - do you see M Crabtree improving this year? #27 is pretty low....but then again, he hasn't shown much so far4 - why do you have M Williams (TB) at #21 and not higher? are you worried that he won't get a higher # of targets?

1 - I like him? I have him as the #1 WR on one of the best passing offenses with a strong QB in Rodgers. I'm not going to buy into the "Finley steals touches/targets" thoughts here when I think Jennings is good for 1200/10 or so in that offense pretty easily. It is a good question though and I may have to look again at Finley's impact, but it would be hard to question the #1 WR for a strong offense to not be high in the rankings.2 - I don't think Austin is a stud WR1. I think he's a very, very strong possession guy and route runner, and much more prolific as a WR2. I think Bryant gets more Red Zone targets (and Witten too) which makes the difference (touchdowns matter more). Bryant not only has more talent than Austin but he also was getting more targets than Austin in Bryant's last four full games last year.3 - I think this is the year that Crabtree finally gets it - but even then the offense (Gore-centric) and the Red Zone targets going to Vernon Davis are going to limit his upside. Plus they kind of need a QB in San Fran.4 - I don't think Mike Williams at WR21 or so is a bad ranking for him. Tampa Bay is going to try and get another WR to step up and get involved. Mike Williams had 128 targets last year, and no other WR had over 41. Kellen Winslow had 92 targets but he won't last forever, but the Bucs will want a WR2 like Benn to get 70-80 targets to balance out that other side of the field, which should lower Williams' production just a bit.

Thx again for the rankings!

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

While I love the fact that FBG has comments on players, is there some way you could turn them off after a period of time? Some of them go back to last spring.Thanks for updating your rankings.

I've asked the master of ceremonies who runs the engine behind these for a kill switch. Bear with them for now please.

 

[Go deep]

I know your not asking me, but with Driver and Jones likely gone, how much of Rodgers 4000/30 do you think can really go to Finley? I dont think Finley has been Jennings problem as much as Driver has been. As a matter of fact, i think having just Finley to competer for targets with will be the best situation Jennings has ever been in.

1. Are you suggesting that Driver is retiring? I haven't seen that anywhere.2. Finley was injured in week 5. Not coincidentally, week 6 is when Jennings started to go wild. Driver missed a few games but continued playing all year. That seems to suggest the loss of Finley was a bigger issue....but I see your point on Driver too.

No, i dont know that Driver is retiring, but even if he is back, his days of stealing targets from better WR's are over.Its way too small of a sample size to assume that Jennings numbers improved soley because Finley got hurt.

Lets assume that Rodgers throws for 4000 yards and 30 TD's, which is probablt being conservative, how do you see thise yards and TD's being distributed?

This is FBG... Where the Finley hype is crazy. Most people here will probably say about 90% of Rodgers yds and td's are going directly to Finley himself.And Jeff, I like where you have SJAX. I have him in a couple dynasty leagues. I may not agree totally... But I like seeing it. I plan on using him to help me win another championship this year while everyone else is gonna think he's done cause he's getting older.

Im all for the Finley hype, and i think he will put up top 3 TE numbers. My problem is why people think it is going to hurt Greg Jennings. Even if the only reason Jennings had a top 5 WR season was because Finley went out, who says they are going to go back to Finley and away from Jennings. Throwing more to Jennings seem to work for the Packers last year, they went on to win the SB.

Since Finley came back from injury in week 11 of 2009, here are Greg Jennings numbers in the 12 games both players played together(along with Nelson/Driver/Jones) 52 rec/858 yards/6 TD's. That prorates to 69 rec/1144 yards/8 TD's, which would be good for WR11 last season. Take an aging Driver and Jones out of the picture and i would assume those numbers are close to Jennings floor gong forward.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Two glaring ones i seen and a few other notes.(after the E.Sanders one i pointed out to you previously )Mendy at RB13? Seems too low, especially cause of being so young and only RB in Pitt.DJax at WR3? GOTTA be the homer pick in you, just can't justify a one trick pony(deep threat) in the top 5, probably not top 10 for me personally. Maclin is the the WR to own in Philly longterm.I think AFoster/JCharles will be top 5 RB's this year, but can see the reasoning behind putting them in the bottom of the top 10.Massaquoi seems like a stretch, but guess he has the talent, just not sure what happens when they grab a WR in the draft.

Bloom commented on Mendy earlier this week when he looked at them. I just see Redman as a possible threat to stealing goal line looks - or another back that Pittsburgh drafts (which I think is very probable). DJax at #3 seems out of place, but find me a bigger home run weapon than DJax who loves to run under Vick's deep ball. If ever there was a guy who can put up 15+ TDs in a season for the next 2-3 years, this is him. Plus if you get KR/PR points or get credit for big plays, he's money in the bank. I'd put him at WR5 in PPR because he doesn't have the high catch numbers but he's such a threat every time he touches the ball it is unreal. If you love Vick, you have to love DeSean.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Did you write something for Celek? His ranking is bolded, but I get a java-void when I click over it.

That's probably a glitch. Sorry.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Good stuff Jeff, appreciate the responses. On the Finley vs Jennings issue -- I'm a Jennings owner and a huge Packer fan. All I'm saying is be cautious and open-minded.....having watched McCarthy basically ignore Jennings the first few games in 2010....it was painful.

BTW - I didn't realize there was a limit on the # of questions.

 

[loose circuits]

i'm buying Jacoby Ford and Johnny Knox at that price.

Jeff hates young WRs. I remember after 2007 he ranked Greg Jennings and Roddy White in the late 20s despite them both coming off their 1st big seasons. Knox and Ford aren't in the same class as those 2 were, but you get the gist.

fair enough, I think I may be the oppositeNeither of those guys should be behind Mass, Avery, Clayton, Breaston, Lee Evans, B Tate, DHB, Jacoby Jones, Shipley, and Benn coming off surgery, Schilens, Hartline, and Meachem. None of them have proven much or they've been haunted by injuries or inconsistency.when you consider what Ford & Knox have shown, their body of work separates them from the guys above from what I've seen. Once Ford got PT he destroyed it. Knox has put up fairly consistent numbers and improved from a year ago. I think as he learns more of the offense and Martz understands Knox more (how to use/not use him) the sky is the limit.I would like to say that I appreciate his time & effort regardless. I'm sure a lot of thought went into making this type of extensive list and it's risky to put it in writing cause things always change

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

i'm buying Jacoby Ford and Johnny Knox at that price.

Jeff hates young WRs. I remember after 2007 he ranked Greg Jennings and Roddy White in the late 20s despite them both coming off their 1st big seasons. Knox and Ford aren't in the same class as those 2 were, but you get the gist.

Yes, Dez Bryant is really getting up there....Knox is fine, but if he wasn't finding the end zone so much in December you would really question his numbers too. Earl Bennett and Greg Olsen were getting almost as many TD chances as Knox last year. Knox had just 51 catches all season and failed to catch more than 4 balls in his final eight contests. How high should I have him?I don't trust Jacoby Ford either. I think Schilens comes back and does well and that Oakland keeps trying to make DHB a player - and that won't work either. Ford and Murphy won't get as many opportunities as they should and the QB situation will regress next year when Campbell likely leaves. He had two huge games last November then fell off the map with only 19 targets and nine receptions in the final five games of the year. I'd sell on Ford.

 

[loose circuits]

I understand that argument, but I don't think I'll agree to it. Should be interesting to watch. New offense for Knox and he's still pretty raw out of Abilene Christian. Signs I've seen point to improvement. He did tally off late, but I still have seen as much in him as some of the other guys ranked.

I think Oakland found a playmaker in Jacoby Ford and they'll get him on the field or they should all be fired. He has some Steve Smith in him

I was also surprised to see that Andre Roberts and David Gettis didn't make the cut.

 

[dickey moe]

Rodgers is ranked as the #1 QB when you select the QB drop-down menu, but is ranked behind Brees in the overall (all positions) rankings. Is this a glitch? Other than that, thanks for the update.

 

[Cassius]

- how do you rank Greg Jennings so high? he performed poorly when Finley was healthy early in 2010, then once Finley went down he finally started getting meaningful targets. aren't you worried that the Pack go back to the "feed Finley" plan?

Jennings had more targets than Finley in the 5 games that Finley was healthy. So did Donald Driver actually. And James Jones as a wopping 2 targets behind. Both Driver and Jennings also outscored Finley fantasy points-wise.Feed Finley plan. The hype on this guy is epic.

 

[Hoosier16]

4. Foster is solid, but I really believe that the Texans go to more of a RBBC to try and preserve Foster. That plus Foster crushed last year, and I have a hard time envisioning him to be the #1 RB again. Sure he could, but I think he's in that second tier of backs. I also think another RB (likely Ben Tate) takes some workload, both lowering the pressure on Foster and as a result lowering his fantasy production.

Foster could take a 25% workload cut and still have finished #1 last year.No MSW?

 

[MoraccoMole]

Thanks Jeff for the updated rankings. I have been looking for something like this to help decide on various trade offers.

Any idea when your cohorts will be giving their rankings?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I think Oakland found a playmaker in Jacoby Ford and they'll get him on the field or they should all be fired. He has some Steve Smith in him

Im starting to think they will. Hue Jackson said Ford could be one of the most dangerous playmakers in the league (paraphrasing). Sure that may be partially "coachspeak", but I don't see how he can say something like that and then not use him.As far a Schiliens cutting into his numbers, can some one please put this half decades Tyrone Calico out of hsi misery. I don't know how people still beleive in him.I don't own Ford in any leagues but I plan on looking into acquiring him.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Glad to see you not buying into the "Michael Turner has lost a step" bandwagon.

 

[Dope]

I know that as an Eagle's homer, you are automatically a Giant's hater but Mario Manningham at WR73?

He was WR18 last season and posted upticks in every single category that matters to a FF player over a fairly successful season before (where he ranked at WR30)

To have a guy who followed up a marginal WR3 season with an decent WR2 season ranked as a WR6+ basically means you find him unrosterable. Why?

 

[squistion]

I take no questions personally and am happy to discuss the rankings.

Well, it is good to know that considering the comments I will make. I have done my own rankings for other sites over the years - posting them and inviting responses is the FF equivalent of making yourself a pinata. And with that said, along with the other children I will put on a blindfold and take a swing at the target.To me, rankings have to take into account the current markeplace, as evidenced by off season trades and start up drafts and I don't see that here in some instances.For example, you have Steven Jackson and Frank Gore ranked above Jamal Charles. I am currently in six leagues and in any of them if I offered Jamal Charles to the Jackson or Gore owner, the trade would be accepted before you could blink. Similarly, I think most Gore or Jackson owners couldn't hit the accept button fast enough if they were offered Foster. And I tried to move Gore last season for Mendenhall, which was quickly rejected (I don't think his being a year older and coming off an injury increases his marketability).I also just don't buy DeSean Jackson as the #3 dynasty WR. And I am not seeing that in either trades or start up drafts (well, maybe in a few rare exceptions). I doubt most Roddy White or Hakeem Nicks owners would do a straight up trade for Jackson. And while a lot of people are down on Fitzgerald, the consensus still is that he is a better dynasty prospect than Jackson, who may be injury prone if 2010 is any indication and has to compete with Harvin (who I honestly like better in dynasty).Finally, I will echo what others have said that you don't give enough credit to young WRs coming off a good year. Yes, they don't have a proven track record, but a key component to winning in dynasty IMO is grabbing the up and coming players before the conventional wisdom is that they are the real deal. Case in point, Mike Wallace - I have seen enough to convince me he is legitimate, IMO he is a clear #1 Top 10 WR, yet you have him at #17. Also TB Mike Williams ranked behind Colston and Anquan Boldin. Yeah he may be Michael Clayton redux, but personally I could never take Colston (and particularly Boldin) above him in any draft or in trade.And a closing WR note on Johnny Knox - he didn't do better because Cutler didn't have the time to get the ball deep to him, that should improve assuming the OL is addressed in the draft/free agency and with a second year in a Martz offense (althought the wild card with Knox is what the Bears will do in the draft or free agency).Anyway, Jeff, thanks for the time and effort you put in here. We are all trying to predict a futures market by looking in a rear view mirror and your take on things may ultimately prove to be better than mine.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I know that as an Eagle's homer, you are automatically a Giant's hater but Mario Manningham at WR73?He was WR18 last season and posted upticks in every single category that matters to a FF player over a fairly successful season before (where he ranked at WR30)To have a guy who followed up a marginal WR3 season with an decent WR2 season ranked as a WR6+ basically means you find him unrosterable. Why?

Probably a mental penalty on him for being a WR3 for the Giants. While I don't see him as THAT talented, he certainly came on strong the last three games and scored 4 TDs. I'll agree that he should be higher and I'll move him into the WR40 range next time around. Good comment.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I take no questions personally and am happy to discuss the rankings.

Well, it is good to know that considering the comments I will make. I have done my own rankings for other sites over the years - posting them and inviting responses is the FF equivalent of making yourself a pinata. And with that said, along with the other children I will put on a blindfold and take a swing at the target.To me, rankings have to take into account the current markeplace, as evidenced by off season trades and start up drafts and I don't see that here in some instances.For example, you have Steven Jackson and Frank Gore ranked above Jamal Charles. I am currently in six leagues and in any of them if I offered Jamal Charles to the Jackson or Gore owner, the trade would be accepted before you could blink. Similarly, I think most Gore or Jackson owners couldn't hit the accept button fast enough if they were offered Foster. And I tried to move Gore last season for Mendenhall, which was quickly rejected (I don't think his being a year older and coming off an injury increases his marketability).I also just don't buy DeSean Jackson as the #3 dynasty WR. I am not seeing that in either trades or start up drafts (well, maybe in a few rare exceptions). I doubt most Roddy White or Hakeem Nicks owners would do a straight up trade for Jackson. And while a lot of people are down on Fitzgerald, the consensus still is that he is a better dynasty prospect than Jackson, who may be injury prone if 2010 is any indication and has to compete with Harvin (who I honestly like better in dynasty).Finally, I will echo what others have said that you don't give enough credit to young WRs coming off a good year. Yes, they don't have a proven track record, but a key component to winning in dynasty IMO is grabbing the up and coming players before the conventional wisdom is that they are the real deal. Case in point, Mike Wallace - I have seen enough to convince me he is legitimate, IMO he is a clear #1 Top 10 WR, yet you have him at #17. Also TB Mike Williams ranked behind Colston and Anquan Boldin. Yeah he may be Michael Clayton redux, but personally I could never take Colston (and particularly Boldin) above him in any draft or in trade.And a closing WR note on Johnny Knox - he didn't do better because Cutler didn't have the time to get the ball deep to him, that should improve assuming the OL is addressed in the draft/free agency and with a second year in a Martz offense (althought the wild card with Knox is what the Bears will do in the draft or free agency).Anyway, Jeff, thanks for the time and effort you put in here. We are all always trying to predict a futures market by looking in a rear view mirror and your take on things may ultimately prove to be better than mine.

Thanks for the comments. I'm getting the general overall feedback about SJax and Gore. They may move down on the next spin of these, but I have a hard time not wanting the rare feature RB way up there. I'll give you that Charles owners wouldn't trade him straight for Gore or SJax, but I think Charles is overvalued in non-PPR leagues. We'll see.As for your comment on Knox - I was one of the biggest detractors of the Bears last year (and I still think that they were very lucky to get as far as they did), but their O-line was rebuilt and much stronger after their bye. The 6+ sacks a game went away so Cutler had more time than you think so I don't believe that this was a contributing factor to Knox not getting more production at the end of the year. It's just something about him that I didn't like when watching Chicago last season. He didn't command the ball to be thrown his way nor did he act like every ball in the air was his. I also thought his routes weren't very precise. Could he become a Top 20 WR? Sure - but I don't see it right now at all.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Glad to see you not buying into the "Michael Turner has lost a step" bandwagon.

Another "old" back that is still the featured guy. Of course I don't have him so high in PPR - but he is very susceptible to a tumble if Atlanta drafts a new back.

 

[Couch Potato]

Jeff, if you were offered his Michael Bush (RB28) for your LeGarrette Blount (RB32) straight up, you'd do that deal? That's what your rankings suggest and is difficult for me to understand.

Bush is most likely returning to Oakland for another year and will again be behind McFadden. The following season, he'll be 28. Blount is the clear starter in a rising TB offense, is 2 1/2 years younger than Bush, and had a better season in 2010 than Bush will probably ever have.

Help me out here. What are you seeing that I'm not?

 

[jwb]

I'll kind of add to what Couch Potato mentioned.

A quick question on your rankings in general:

I see dynasty rankings generally following a "startup draft / trade x for y". I think most of us do. But do you? If not, what do you use?

I'm asking because, even in non ppr, through my eyes, I see you saying you would draft Turner over Calvin or Nicks in a dynasty startup (which I can't see anyone doing, even in non ppr.) Or Grant over Dez, Bowe, or Maclin. Or making those trades (which I can't see anyone doing either, almost regardless of situation.)

 

[Multiple Scores]

After hearing miles Austin is a "posession" wr I guess we disagree on that term. Seems everytime I watch him he is busting 60 yard scores either by smoking the corner or hiking the d out of their cleats.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Jeff, if you were offered his Michael Bush (RB28) for your LeGarrette Blount (RB32) straight up, you'd do that deal? That's what your rankings suggest and is difficult for me to understand.Bush is most likely returning to Oakland for another year and will again be behind McFadden. The following season, he'll be 28. Blount is the clear starter in a rising TB offense, is 2 1/2 years younger than Bush, and had a better season in 2010 than Bush will probably ever have. Help me out here. What are you seeing that I'm not?

I really like Michael Bush and he's not under contract. It's up in the air as to whether he's back in Oakland or not. Certainly if he's stuck behind McFadden that hurts him - but that's not a guarantee. Plus he certainly put up good numbers even as the RB2 there. The rankings put them close to one another for value. I'm sure there are several "would you really trade Player x for Player y" scenarios that I'd think twice about throughout the lists. When players get close on the rankings it does come down to personal preference. I like Blount but I don't know that he is the workhorse people are making him out to be.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I'll kind of add to what Couch Potato mentioned.A quick question on your rankings in general:I see dynasty rankings generally following a "startup draft / trade x for y". I think most of us do. But do you? If not, what do you use?I'm asking because, even in non ppr, through my eyes, I see you saying you would draft Turner over Calvin or Nicks in a dynasty startup (which I can't see anyone doing, even in non ppr.) Or Grant over Dez, Bowe, or Maclin. Or making those trades (which I can't see anyone doing either, almost regardless of situation.)

That's a fair question. I use my own rankings and the ADP information. I'd rather have a stud RB over a stud WR in non-PPR. That's about a 75-100 FF point difference in most leagues (assuming say 300-500 more yards for the RB and about 8-10 more TDs). That's huge. Calvin will last longer as a WR but I stated earlier I lean towards the next 3-4 years as an event horizon to decide values. Yes Turner will likely cliff dive in 3-4 years while Calvin will still be around, so that should give me pause about that decision. I might very well draft the player with higher ADP and hope a guy I have higher on my rankings is still there for my next selection - getting both.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Okay, I give in on Ford, Manningham and (to a lesser degree) Knox. All three moved up. Thanks for the comments on them.

I'm still holding on RBs until the Draft. I'm sure it'll all be turned upside down then.

 

[Multiple Scores]

Mike Wallace at 17?

Why do you see his production tailing off after his 2nd year in the league where he was WR #6 ???

 

[jeter23]

Rankings become so difficult to compile, especially when you know they will become public. Are they simply a reflection of the current value of players? If so, almost any of us could post our rankings and they would be alsmot exact. Does the fact that Jeff likes Mike Bush more than Blount mean he would make that deal? It shouldn't. That is where the consideration of current value comes into play. He might try and move Blount for Bush, but knowing the relative value of each, ask for an additional player as well.

The questioning some of you are doing seems to be blasting Jeff for not having rankings that match your own, or the conventional wisdom.

 

[loose circuits]

Rankings become so difficult to compile, especially when you know they will become public. Are they simply a reflection of the current value of players? If so, almost any of us could post our rankings and they would be alsmot exact. Does the fact that Jeff likes Mike Bush more than Blount mean he would make that deal? It shouldn't. That is where the consideration of current value comes into play. He might try and move Blount for Bush, but knowing the relative value of each, ask for an additional player as well.

The questioning some of you are doing seems to be blasting Jeff for not having rankings that match your own, or the conventional wisdom.

While I agree with the 1st part, disagree with bold. Jeff specifically asked us to generate discussion. That is sometimes the best way to update your rankings and understand where you need to consider changes by openly polling the general public. One positive that comes out of itI applaud Jeff for being open to criticism. I've seen people that do this stuff have way too much arrogance, and I think to be good at this hobby you have to play with an open mind at all times. Probably only going to help everyone in the end.

 

[Couch Potato]

Rankings become so difficult to compile, especially when you know they will become public. Are they simply a reflection of the current value of players? If so, almost any of us could post our rankings and they would be alsmot exact. Does the fact that Jeff likes Mike Bush more than Blount mean he would make that deal? It shouldn't. That is where the consideration of current value comes into play. He might try and move Blount for Bush, but knowing the relative value of each, ask for an additional player as well.The questioning some of you are doing seems to be blasting Jeff for not having rankings that match your own, or the conventional wisdom.

In the case of Blount and Bush, to me it's simply a matter of future production. I don't see it happening for Bush, and I do for Blount. I don't slavishly adhere to others' rankings either, but when he starts a thread inviting comment on his rankings and then we do so, it shouldn't be considered "blasting Jeff." I thought I worded my request for explanation respectfully.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Rankings become so difficult to compile, especially when you know they will become public.

He's on FBG's staff, it's part of the job.

Are they simply a reflection of the current value of players? If so, almost any of us could post our rankings and they would be almost exact.

In most cases, no they would not. As you know, investing in a player in dynasty is quite different than redraft and that's why you see the feedback/questions/comments.

Does the fact that Jeff likes Mike Bush more than Blount mean he would make that deal? It shouldn't. That is where the consideration of current value comes into play. He might try and move Blount for Bush, but knowing the relative value of each, ask for an additional player as well.

The questioning some of you are doing seems to be blasting Jeff for not having rankings that match your own, or the conventional wisdom.

I'm afraid we'll agree to disagree. From a dynasty viewpoint, one player is younger than the other and is the aplpha dog on his team at RB. The other is many slots below his RBBC partner and still ranks above Blount. It deserves discussion.

 

[Crippler]

Jeff, if you were offered his Michael Bush (RB28) for your LeGarrette Blount (RB32) straight up, you'd do that deal? That's what your rankings suggest and is difficult for me to understand.Bush is most likely returning to Oakland for another year and will again be behind McFadden. The following season, he'll be 28. Blount is the clear starter in a rising TB offense, is 2 1/2 years younger than Bush, and had a better season in 2010 than Bush will probably ever have. Help me out here. What are you seeing that I'm not?

These are his rankings. I think he would probably be smart enough if this it what he believes in trading Blount to get Bush plus because that would happen pretty fast in most instances. We all have players we are higher on than most and try to take advantage of a player who just had a big season with trying to trade for wanted player plus. So not as easy as would you really trade this player for that because a good fantasy owner takes advantage of his different views than the masses

 

[jeter23]

Rankings become so difficult to compile, especially when you know they will become public. Are they simply a reflection of the current value of players? If so, almost any of us could post our rankings and they would be alsmot exact. Does the fact that Jeff likes Mike Bush more than Blount mean he would make that deal? It shouldn't. That is where the consideration of current value comes into play. He might try and move Blount for Bush, but knowing the relative value of each, ask for an additional player as well.

The questioning some of you are doing seems to be blasting Jeff for not having rankings that match your own, or the conventional wisdom.

While I agree with the 1st part, disagree with bold. Jeff specifically asked us to generate discussion. That is sometimes the best way to update your rankings and understand where you need to consider changes by openly polling the general public. One positive that comes out of itI applaud Jeff for being open to criticism. I've seen people that do this stuff have way too much arrogance, and I think to be good at this hobby you have to play with an open mind at all times. Probably only going to help everyone in the end.

I am fine with the questions, and Jeff obviously is as well. I just thought some of the questions had the tone of "you're crazy." I enjoy reading the questions about the rankings, as well as Jeff's defense. The discussion is key and can lead to changed opinions, believe me

 

[jeter23]

Rankings become so difficult to compile, especially when you know they will become public. Are they simply a reflection of the current value of players? If so, almost any of us could post our rankings and they would be alsmot exact. Does the fact that Jeff likes Mike Bush more than Blount mean he would make that deal? It shouldn't. That is where the consideration of current value comes into play. He might try and move Blount for Bush, but knowing the relative value of each, ask for an additional player as well.The questioning some of you are doing seems to be blasting Jeff for not having rankings that match your own, or the conventional wisdom.

In the case of Blount and Bush, to me it's simply a matter of future production. I don't see it happening for Bush, and I do for Blount. I don't slavishly adhere to others' rankings either, but when he starts a thread inviting comment on his rankings and then we do so, it shouldn't be considered "blasting Jeff." I thought I worded my request for explanation respectfully.

I wasn't referring to you and just used your same example of players since they were the most recent mentioned in the thread. I happen to agree with you about those 2. My point was that if Jeff disagrees, that's okay.