Respectfully Calling Out Wood, Wimer, Haseley, Norton, Tremblay (1 Viewer)

[LHUCKS]

I noticed you don't have arguably the best WR of all time ranked in your top 75 WRs?

Assuming you are aware of his 13 TD 1260 yard 2009 season(age 32), clearly you are justifying your non-ranking of Mr. Moss solely on the basis of his 2010 "transitional" year.

What say ye Mr. Wood? Mr. Wimer? Mr. Haseley? Mr. Norton? Mr. Tremblay?

Defend thy self!!

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I noticed they didn't have Jerry Rice in their top 75 either.

What a sham.

 

[LHUCKS]

I noticed they didn't have Jerry Rice in their top 75 either.What a sham.

I didn't realize Jerry Rice put up 1250 and 13 in 2009.

 

[Couch Potato]

I noticed you don't have arguably the best WR of all time ranked in your top 70?Assuming you are aware of his 13 TD 1260 yard 2009 season, clearly you are justifying your non-ranking of Mr. Moss solely on the basis of his 2010 "transitional" year.What say ye Mr. Wood and Mr. Wimer?Defend thy self!!

Hi LHUCKS,I know they can answer for themselves, but I've asked this sort of question in the past and the answer I've received is that many do their rankings based on facts known now, not in anticipation of things still to unfold over the off season. So, once Moss finds a team he'd be ranked based on where he lands.I assume (hope?) this is also why a guy like Brandon LaFell, for example, is unranked by everyone but Tefertiller even though Steve Smith will not be a Panther when the season begins and LaFell's value will see a large increase when Smith's status changes.To me, rankings ought to reflect a best guess RIGHT NOW as to end of 2011 results, including speculation as to future player movement, since this is all about speculation anyway. That would obviously include Moss in there somewhere.

 

[LHUCKS]

I noticed you don't have arguably the best WR of all time ranked in your top 70?Assuming you are aware of his 13 TD 1260 yard 2009 season, clearly you are justifying your non-ranking of Mr. Moss solely on the basis of his 2010 "transitional" year.What say ye Mr. Wood and Mr. Wimer?Defend thy self!!

Hi LHUCKS,I know they can answer for themselves, but I've asked this sort of question in the past and the answer I've received is that many do their rankings based on facts known now, not in anticipation of things still to unfold over the off season. So, once Moss finds a team he'd be ranked based on where he lands.I assume (hope?) this is also why a guy like Brandon LaFell, for example, is unranked by EVERYONE even though Steve Smith will not be a Panther when the season begins and LaFell's value will see a large increase when Smith's status changes.To me, rankings ought to reflect a best guess RIGHT NOW as to end of 2001 results, including speculation as to future player movement, since this is all about speculation anyway. That would obviously include Moss in there somewhere.

Perfect, no wonder why the drafting has been so atrocious in the SSLs. Let's hope the rankings remain and I can continue to draft Randy Moss as the 200th player off the board and as my WR#5.

 

[Go deep]

I noticed you don't have arguably the best WR of all time ranked in your top 75 WRs?

What are you talking about, they all have Greg Jennings ranked in their top 20?

 

[Couch Potato]

This raises the larger question of rankings philosophy in general.

Does one rank based on expected end of season stats?

Or does one rank based on beginning of season role and opportunity?

Last year I was railing against so many of the staff giving a high ranking to Jabar Gaffney, and I proposed that while he seemed like the best Bronco to have to begin the season, he'd be supplanted before long and become just a minor complementary guy. As it turned out he had 5 or more catches in 4 of the first six weeks and not another 5 + catch game the rest of the year. Those who drafted him as a top 20 WR and held him blew it. Those who did so and then dealt him before he lost value, or avoided him altogether, were much better off.

I've always wanted to look beyond week 1 and deeper into the season. A nominal starter like Gaffney last year isn't going to help you come playoff time. He finished WR43 but did most of that in Weeks 3-6.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

He isn't worth top 75.

He is a cancer. A cancer with diminished skills.

Go Deep has him at 182 in his dynasty listing, maybe you could bump em up to about 100 in redraft.

Sure his name has value, but he is a sinkhole on your roster.

 

[Jason Wood]

LHUCKS,

You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog.

Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.

But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.

Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup.

Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

 

[Couch Potato]

He isn't worth top 75.He is a cancer. A cancer with diminished skills.Go Deep has him at 182 in his dynasty listing, maybe you could bump em up to about 100 in redraft.Sure his name has value, but he is a sinkhole on your roster.

I'm guessing he's top 40, maybe with the Jets.

 

[Couch Potato]

But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.

Jason, just so I'm clear... is this a requirement of all who do rankings, presumably mandated by Dodds or somebody, or is it a judgment left to the individual doing the rankings?

 

[LHUCKS]

LHUCKS,You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog. Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup. Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

thanks for the explanation.

 

[LHUCKS]

FTR, I have Moss ranked #33.

 

[radballs]

I noticed you don't have arguably the best WR of all time ranked in your top 70?Assuming you are aware of his 13 TD 1260 yard 2009 season, clearly you are justifying your non-ranking of Mr. Moss solely on the basis of his 2010 "transitional" year.What say ye Mr. Wood and Mr. Wimer?Defend thy self!!

Hi LHUCKS,I know they can answer for themselves, but I've asked this sort of question in the past and the answer I've received is that many do their rankings based on facts known now, not in anticipation of things still to unfold over the off season. So, once Moss finds a team he'd be ranked based on where he lands.I assume (hope?) this is also why a guy like Brandon LaFell, for example, is unranked by EVERYONE even though Steve Smith will not be a Panther when the season begins and LaFell's value will see a large increase when Smith's status changes.To me, rankings ought to reflect a best guess RIGHT NOW as to end of 2001 results, including speculation as to future player movement, since this is all about speculation anyway. That would obviously include Moss in there somewhere.

Perfect, no wonder why the drafting has been so atrocious in the SSLs. Let's hope the rankings remain and I can continue to draft Randy Moss as the 200th player off the board and as my WR#5.

So did I.

 

[Jason Wood]

But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.

Jason, just so I'm clear... is this a requirement of all who do rankings, presumably mandated by Dodds or somebody, or is it a judgment left to the individual doing the rankings?

Yes, it's how we, as a rule, are asked to do our rankings. Been that way for more than a decade FWIW.

 

[Couch Potato]

But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.

Jason, just so I'm clear... is this a requirement of all who do rankings, presumably mandated by Dodds or somebody, or is it a judgment left to the individual doing the rankings?

Yes, it's how we, as a rule, are asked to do our rankings. Been that way for more than a decade FWIW.

Thank you sir.

 

[Dez]

I loved when everyone said Moss was left for dead after his 2006 season. I drafted him in the 4th/5th rounds of 8 straight leagues that year winning 4 titles thanks to his historic perforamce.

Owens was supposed to be dead last year. He was well worth the 14th round pick I took him at.

 

[Jason Wood]

I loved when everyone said Moss was left for dead after his 2006 season. I drafted him in the 4th/5th rounds of 8 straight leagues that year winning 4 titles thanks to his historic perforamce.Owens was supposed to be dead last year. He was well worth the 14th round pick I took him at.

I too grabbed Owens in nearly every league last year, and was one of the few who ranked him highly. That said, I think we have to look at each year and player in its own light. Moss got traded by the Pats, and then they went on to dominate the league from that point forward. Moss then went "home" and managed to get kicked off the team in the blink of an eye. He then went to the Titans and did, almost literally, nothing. That's three teams in one year, and let's remember the Titans were one of the few teams considered a viable destination for him anyway. If Moss signs with the Jets, will he deserve a draft pick because of the upside? Of course. But he could be looking for work just as easily. You've also got the likes of Chad Ochocinco, Terrell Owens, Plaxico Burress, Santana Moss, Braylon Edwards, Steve Smith, and Mike Sims-Walker either officially looking for new jobs and/or likely looking for new jobs.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think Randy Moss will be the WR4 for some NFL team. He's not in my top 70 no matter where he signs.

 

[Sudoku_in_the_Bathtub]

Only way Randy's fantasy relevant is if he pleas his way back to NE.

I don't see the Colts/Packers/Saints/Chargers having a need for him. If the lockout goes into camp, he'll be lucky to see the field with any team outside of NE IMO.

I think Plax/Randy are in the same boat. Someone will give them a chance (with no guarantees and may both end up nothing more than camp bodies). I think both would be well served to go back to NYG and NE respectively (if they're options)

 

[Holy Schneikes]

LHUCKS,You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog. Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup. Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

 

[We Tigers]

I loved when everyone said Moss was left for dead after his 2006 season. I drafted him in the 4th/5th rounds of 8 straight leagues that year winning 4 titles thanks to his historic perforamce.Owens was supposed to be dead last year. He was well worth the 14th round pick I took him at.

I seem to remember last year's TO spotlight thread being chock full of 1000-1100 yard and 7-8 TD predictions. Wasn't the conventional wisdom that Cincinnati was a hugely improved destination for him over Buffalo?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

I think the difference is, is that Holmes and Smith will certainly have clearly defined roles no matter where they potentially end up, while Kolb (traded or backup to Vick?), McNabb (does anyone want him as a starter) and Moss (does anyone want him at all?) do not.Doing projections for Kevin Kolb is basically pointless at this time. We have no idea if he'll even get traded and if so to where.

 

[Couch Potato]

Doing projections for Kevin Kolb is basically pointless at this time. We have no idea if he'll even get traded and if so to where.

Of course we do. There's probably not a worse kept secret this offseason than that a Kolb deal to Arizona has already been done. It just can't be admitted to or put on paper yet.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

I think the difference is, is that Holmes and Smith will certainly have clearly defined roles no matter where they potentially end up, while Kolb (traded or backup to Vick?), McNabb (does anyone want him as a starter) and Moss (does anyone want him at all?) do not.Doing projections for Kevin Kolb is basically pointless at this time. We have no idea if he'll even get traded and if so to where.

I'm not sure how you would assume clearly defined roles for Holmes and Smith (or ANY FA for that matter). Holmes for example could be an offensive focal point, or he could be a role player depending on where he lands. It certainly wouldn't be easy to project Kolb or McNabb, but I'm not sure it's any easier to project Holmes. Sure, you can say he's talented so he'll produce no matter what. But you can say that about Kolb (or McNabb) too IF you are a believer.There is always uncertainty about particular guys going into a season - there is just a lot more this year than most. What I struggle with is how you would go about determining who is "worth projecting" and who is not. Where do you draw the line? Most of the staffers consider McNabb and Kolb projectable for example. The margin of error is huge of course, but they are out there anyway.That's why I say keep it simple. If you THINK (guess, whatever) they will score enough points to be ranked at the end of the season, rank them now. Or, don't do rankings at all until you have all of the info you need. Could be a while though...A quick follow up thought. In my mind, the whole point of rankings NOW is for players/owners who are drafting NOW or soon. Those are admittedly pretty rare birds, but regardless, I wouldn't think rankings that precluded some players with unknowns and not others would be as helpful to them as rankings with all of the players ranked. The fact that we we don't know everything we "need to know" about Kolb to make an accurate rankings for him, doesn't really matter to a guy wanting to know where it makes sense to draft him tomorrow. Should he be ignored in every draft? Of course not. He's a potential starting QB to SOME people. Now if you don't believe he'll be a starter, and rank him accordingly, so be it. I'm just saying don't hide behind unknowns - it doesn't do anyone any good.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Doing projections for Kevin Kolb is basically pointless at this time. We have no idea if he'll even get traded and if so to where.

Of course we do. There's probably not a worse kept secret this offseason than that a Kolb deal to Arizona has already been done. It just can't be admitted to or put on paper yet.

The rumors are ceratinaly strong enough to think that there's "fire" there, but we really don't know that it will certainly happen at this point.I actually think re-draft rankings should be put on a temporary hiatus, if they are going to be done piece-meal (I don't think any drafts are taking place yet - but I guess the site doesn't have much of a choice.

 

[Jason Wood]

LHUCKS,You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog. Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup. Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

No offense taken, and it opens the door for a broader conversation that may be helpful to people.In the cases of Steve Smith and Holmes, as you note, they're tendered and I HIGHLY suspect that 2011 will not see major changes to the free agency rules. Even if we rush to get a new CBA done, I suspect it'll leave 2011 free agency in place as we've known it, and then transition to whatever new terms they mutually agree to.With no real offseason occurring, we have to make judgment calls. There will be mistakes, and once we have clarity I will immediately change them as needed. In this case, I assume (right or wrong we'll later see) that both Holmes and Steve Smith will be with their respective clubs this year. You'll notice, however, that I have Steve Smith (CAR) without any projections currently because it seems that both sides are being very clear that he's likely heading elsewhere. Obviously once Steve Smith lands somewhere, his projections will be meaningful.As to Hasselbeck, again what you're seeing is really just my best attempt at combining several different scenarios. Unlike players such as McNabb, who I think are gone no matter what role they land elsewhere, I think both the Seahawks and Hasselbeck have left the door open for his return. If he DOES return, I honestly think he'll be the starter in SEA. So, for now, I have Hasselbeck playing 10 games and Whitehurt with 6. But to say I have much confidence in that breakdown would be lie.You mention that Vick and Manning are free agents. While in point of fact they are, they've both been tendered Franchise tags and -- again -- I think there's almost no scenario where we have football in 2011 and they're not playing for their current teams. Both players are acting that way, as are the teams.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.

You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.

Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.

Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

I think the difference is, is that Holmes and Smith will certainly have clearly defined roles no matter where they potentially end up, while Kolb (traded or backup to Vick?), McNabb (does anyone want him as a starter) and Moss (does anyone want him at all?) do not.Doing projections for Kevin Kolb is basically pointless at this time. We have no idea if he'll even get traded and if so to where.

I'm not sure how you would assume clearly defined roles for Holmes and Smith (or ANY FA for that matter). Holmes for example could be an offensive focal point, or he could be a role player depending on where he lands. It certainly wouldn't be easy to project Kolb or McNabb, but I'm not sure it's any easier to project Holmes. Sure, you can say he's talented so he'll produce no matter what. But you can say that about Kolb (or McNabb) too IF you are a believer.There is always uncertainty about particular guys going into a season - there is just a lot more this year than most. What I struggle with is how you would go about determining who is "worth projecting" and who is not. Where do you draw the line? Most of the staffers consider McNabb and Kolb projectable for example. The margin of error is huge of course, but they are out there anyway.

That's why I say keep it simple. If you THINK (guess, whatever) they will score enough points to be ranked at the end of the season, rank them now. Or, don't do rankings at all until you have all of the info you need. Could be a while though...

I'd disagree with that. He's either going back to the Jets or is going to be paid really well - one way or the other we "know" he'll have a big enough role. Same with a guy like Smith to a lesser degree. If a team trades for him, they are going to use him.The difference right now is that Kolb and McNabb could be NFL backsups next season.

To put in another way, which of those players would you be most comfortable drafting right now?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

LHUCKS,You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog. Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup. Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

No offense taken, and it opens the door for a broader conversation that may be helpful to people.In the cases of Steve Smith and Holmes, as you note, they're tendered and I HIGHLY suspect that 2011 will not see major changes to the free agency rules. Even if we rush to get a new CBA done, I suspect it'll leave 2011 free agency in place as we've known it, and then transition to whatever new terms they mutually agree to.With no real offseason occurring, we have to make judgment calls. There will be mistakes, and once we have clarity I will immediately change them as needed. In this case, I assume (right or wrong we'll later see) that both Holmes and Steve Smith will be with their respective clubs this year. You'll notice, however, that I have Steve Smith (CAR) without any projections currently because it seems that both sides are being very clear that he's likely heading elsewhere. Obviously once Steve Smith lands somewhere, his projections will be meaningful.As to Hasselbeck, again what you're seeing is really just my best attempt at combining several different scenarios. Unlike players such as McNabb, who I think are gone no matter what role they land elsewhere, I think both the Seahawks and Hasselbeck have left the door open for his return. If he DOES return, I honestly think he'll be the starter in SEA. So, for now, I have Hasselbeck playing 10 games and Whitehurt with 6. But to say I have much confidence in that breakdown would be lie.You mention that Vick and Manning are free agents. While in point of fact they are, they've both been tendered Franchise tags and -- again -- I think there's almost no scenario where we have football in 2011 and they're not playing for their current teams. Both players are acting that way, as are the teams.

The only way for those tenders to be meaningful this year would be if the 2010 rules are still in effect in 2011. I don't get the impression that many people on either "side" of the "labor dispute" issue think that is likely. We will EITHER have a new CBA, or we will have some weird "free market" system. Either way, it is unlikely that 6th year players (like Holmes) would be subject to restricted free agency. For all intents and purposes, he'll be an unrestricted free agent IF there is football in 2011. Sure, he could be signed by the Jets, but that is far from a guarantee. And if he doesn't sign with the Jets, he'll still play and will still have value - maybe more, maybe less.However, I do now understand that you are placing some emphasis on the likelihood that a player will remain with their current team vs heading somewhere else. I still don't understand WHY that makes such a huge difference though. In some cases, (say D Williams for example) leaving would likely be a good thing. Again, not that something like that is going to be easy to project for, but I can't see just not ranking him at all (and of course, you don't do that in his case). You do seem to drop him significantly though, which I don't understand either.I get the issue you guys are facing this year. There are a lot more "holes" than usual in our understanding of who will be where. It's damn near impossible to project some of these guys.That said, since you are releasing rankings now, IMO they may as well include everyone who you think will be somewhere on the list at season's end, no matter how outlandish your prediction may end up. Otherwise, you may as well just wait until after there is a free agency period and do rankings then.I can see doing it either way, but it seems odd to do it "part way" and project some highly questionable guys and not others, or to drop guys with question marks even if those question marks could end up positives as easily as negatives.Still worth talking about though, and that's something at this point in a very confusing offseason.

 

[D.J.]

LHUCKS,You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog. Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup. Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

No offense taken, and it opens the door for a broader conversation that may be helpful to people.In the cases of Steve Smith and Holmes, as you note, they're tendered and I HIGHLY suspect that 2011 will not see major changes to the free agency rules. Even if we rush to get a new CBA done, I suspect it'll leave 2011 free agency in place as we've known it, and then transition to whatever new terms they mutually agree to.With no real offseason occurring, we have to make judgment calls. There will be mistakes, and once we have clarity I will immediately change them as needed. In this case, I assume (right or wrong we'll later see) that both Holmes and Steve Smith will be with their respective clubs this year. You'll notice, however, that I have Steve Smith (CAR) without any projections currently because it seems that both sides are being very clear that he's likely heading elsewhere. Obviously once Steve Smith lands somewhere, his projections will be meaningful.As to Hasselbeck, again what you're seeing is really just my best attempt at combining several different scenarios. Unlike players such as McNabb, who I think are gone no matter what role they land elsewhere, I think both the Seahawks and Hasselbeck have left the door open for his return. If he DOES return, I honestly think he'll be the starter in SEA. So, for now, I have Hasselbeck playing 10 games and Whitehurt with 6. But to say I have much confidence in that breakdown would be lie.You mention that Vick and Manning are free agents. While in point of fact they are, they've both been tendered Franchise tags and -- again -- I think there's almost no scenario where we have football in 2011 and they're not playing for their current teams. Both players are acting that way, as are the teams.

The only way for those tenders to be meaningful this year would be if the 2010 rules are still in effect in 2011. I don't get the impression that many people on either "side" of the "labor dispute" issue think that is likely. We will EITHER have a new CBA, or we will have some weird "free market" system. Either way, it is unlikely that 6th year players (like Holmes) would be subject to restricted free agency. For all intents and purposes, he'll be an unrestricted free agent IF there is football in 2011. Sure, he could be signed by the Jets, but that is far from a guarantee. And if he doesn't sign with the Jets, he'll still play and will still have value - maybe more, maybe less.However, I do now understand that you are placing some emphasis on the likelihood that a player will remain with their current team vs heading somewhere else. I still don't understand WHY that makes such a huge difference though. In some cases, (say D Williams for example) leaving would likely be a good thing. Again, not that something like that is going to be easy to project for, but I can't see just not ranking him at all (and of course, you don't do that in his case). You do seem to drop him significantly though, which I don't understand either.I get the issue you guys are facing this year. There are a lot more "holes" than usual in our understanding of who will be where. It's damn near impossible to project some of these guys.That said, since you are releasing rankings now, IMO they may as well include everyone who you think will be somewhere on the list at season's end, no matter how outlandish your prediction may end up. Otherwise, you may as well just wait until after there is a free agency period and do rankings then.I can see doing it either way, but it seems odd to do it "part way" and project some highly questionable guys and not others, or to drop guys with question marks even if those question marks could end up positives as easily as negatives.Still worth talking about though, and that's something at this point in a very confusing offseason.

Most of what I have heard indicates that if.no new cba is done and the owners lift the lockout (by force or choice) it is likely they will use the 2010 rules. The owners want restrictions and the best way that they can apply them with a minimum of antitrust issues is to use rules that have been previously used. I dont see a truely free market being applied by the owners unless it is.forced on them by law, which (i dont think) could happen by september.

 

[Jason Wood]

LHUCKS,You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog. Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup. Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

No offense taken, and it opens the door for a broader conversation that may be helpful to people.In the cases of Steve Smith and Holmes, as you note, they're tendered and I HIGHLY suspect that 2011 will not see major changes to the free agency rules. Even if we rush to get a new CBA done, I suspect it'll leave 2011 free agency in place as we've known it, and then transition to whatever new terms they mutually agree to.With no real offseason occurring, we have to make judgment calls. There will be mistakes, and once we have clarity I will immediately change them as needed. In this case, I assume (right or wrong we'll later see) that both Holmes and Steve Smith will be with their respective clubs this year. You'll notice, however, that I have Steve Smith (CAR) without any projections currently because it seems that both sides are being very clear that he's likely heading elsewhere. Obviously once Steve Smith lands somewhere, his projections will be meaningful.As to Hasselbeck, again what you're seeing is really just my best attempt at combining several different scenarios. Unlike players such as McNabb, who I think are gone no matter what role they land elsewhere, I think both the Seahawks and Hasselbeck have left the door open for his return. If he DOES return, I honestly think he'll be the starter in SEA. So, for now, I have Hasselbeck playing 10 games and Whitehurt with 6. But to say I have much confidence in that breakdown would be lie.You mention that Vick and Manning are free agents. While in point of fact they are, they've both been tendered Franchise tags and -- again -- I think there's almost no scenario where we have football in 2011 and they're not playing for their current teams. Both players are acting that way, as are the teams.

The only way for those tenders to be meaningful this year would be if the 2010 rules are still in effect in 2011. I don't get the impression that many people on either "side" of the "labor dispute" issue think that is likely. We will EITHER have a new CBA, or we will have some weird "free market" system. Either way, it is unlikely that 6th year players (like Holmes) would be subject to restricted free agency. For all intents and purposes, he'll be an unrestricted free agent IF there is football in 2011. Sure, he could be signed by the Jets, but that is far from a guarantee. And if he doesn't sign with the Jets, he'll still play and will still have value - maybe more, maybe less.However, I do now understand that you are placing some emphasis on the likelihood that a player will remain with their current team vs heading somewhere else. I still don't understand WHY that makes such a huge difference though. In some cases, (say D Williams for example) leaving would likely be a good thing. Again, not that something like that is going to be easy to project for, but I can't see just not ranking him at all (and of course, you don't do that in his case). You do seem to drop him significantly though, which I don't understand either.I get the issue you guys are facing this year. There are a lot more "holes" than usual in our understanding of who will be where. It's damn near impossible to project some of these guys.That said, since you are releasing rankings now, IMO they may as well include everyone who you think will be somewhere on the list at season's end, no matter how outlandish your prediction may end up. Otherwise, you may as well just wait until after there is a free agency period and do rankings then.I can see doing it either way, but it seems odd to do it "part way" and project some highly questionable guys and not others, or to drop guys with question marks even if those question marks could end up positives as easily as negatives.Still worth talking about though, and that's something at this point in a very confusing offseason.

Most of what I have heard indicates that if.no new cba is done and the owners lift the lockout (by force or choice) it is likely they will use the 2010 rules. The owners want restrictions and the best way that they can apply them with a minimum of antitrust issues is to use rules that have been previously used. I dont see a truely free market being applied by the owners unless it is.forced on them by law, which (i dont think) could happen by september.

Exactly. We're all flying blind here, but as I sat down to do my initial projections, my thoughts were either we have the same rules as last year, or a new CBA. The idea that we'll have a wild west this year just doesn't seem like a high probability outcome.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

LHUCKS,You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog. Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup. Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

No offense taken, and it opens the door for a broader conversation that may be helpful to people.In the cases of Steve Smith and Holmes, as you note, they're tendered and I HIGHLY suspect that 2011 will not see major changes to the free agency rules. Even if we rush to get a new CBA done, I suspect it'll leave 2011 free agency in place as we've known it, and then transition to whatever new terms they mutually agree to.With no real offseason occurring, we have to make judgment calls. There will be mistakes, and once we have clarity I will immediately change them as needed. In this case, I assume (right or wrong we'll later see) that both Holmes and Steve Smith will be with their respective clubs this year. You'll notice, however, that I have Steve Smith (CAR) without any projections currently because it seems that both sides are being very clear that he's likely heading elsewhere. Obviously once Steve Smith lands somewhere, his projections will be meaningful.As to Hasselbeck, again what you're seeing is really just my best attempt at combining several different scenarios. Unlike players such as McNabb, who I think are gone no matter what role they land elsewhere, I think both the Seahawks and Hasselbeck have left the door open for his return. If he DOES return, I honestly think he'll be the starter in SEA. So, for now, I have Hasselbeck playing 10 games and Whitehurt with 6. But to say I have much confidence in that breakdown would be lie.You mention that Vick and Manning are free agents. While in point of fact they are, they've both been tendered Franchise tags and -- again -- I think there's almost no scenario where we have football in 2011 and they're not playing for their current teams. Both players are acting that way, as are the teams.

The only way for those tenders to be meaningful this year would be if the 2010 rules are still in effect in 2011. I don't get the impression that many people on either "side" of the "labor dispute" issue think that is likely. We will EITHER have a new CBA, or we will have some weird "free market" system. Either way, it is unlikely that 6th year players (like Holmes) would be subject to restricted free agency. For all intents and purposes, he'll be an unrestricted free agent IF there is football in 2011. Sure, he could be signed by the Jets, but that is far from a guarantee. And if he doesn't sign with the Jets, he'll still play and will still have value - maybe more, maybe less.However, I do now understand that you are placing some emphasis on the likelihood that a player will remain with their current team vs heading somewhere else. I still don't understand WHY that makes such a huge difference though. In some cases, (say D Williams for example) leaving would likely be a good thing. Again, not that something like that is going to be easy to project for, but I can't see just not ranking him at all (and of course, you don't do that in his case). You do seem to drop him significantly though, which I don't understand either.I get the issue you guys are facing this year. There are a lot more "holes" than usual in our understanding of who will be where. It's damn near impossible to project some of these guys.That said, since you are releasing rankings now, IMO they may as well include everyone who you think will be somewhere on the list at season's end, no matter how outlandish your prediction may end up. Otherwise, you may as well just wait until after there is a free agency period and do rankings then.I can see doing it either way, but it seems odd to do it "part way" and project some highly questionable guys and not others, or to drop guys with question marks even if those question marks could end up positives as easily as negatives.Still worth talking about though, and that's something at this point in a very confusing offseason.

Most of what I have heard indicates that if.no new cba is done and the owners lift the lockout (by force or choice) it is likely they will use the 2010 rules. The owners want restrictions and the best way that they can apply them with a minimum of antitrust issues is to use rules that have been previously used. I dont see a truely free market being applied by the owners unless it is.forced on them by law, which (i dont think) could happen by september.

The 2010 rules ARE illegal without an agreement in place to support them. I don't think anyone on either side would dispute that. IF the NFL lifted the lockout (and they won't if they don't have to unless there is a new CBA). They would HAVE to operate under standard "non-collusive" business practices. Nearly all of the rules we are talking about here - restricted free agency, the draft, franchise tags etc. are almost by definition collusive (and thus illegal without the AGREEMENT by the players to enter into that collusive environment).Teams have been covering their bases with respect to tags and tenders, but I don't think even they (the teams using them) expect the tenders to mean the same thing they did in 2010 going forward. Franchise tags may or may not have any point, but the RFA tenders placed on 5th and 6th year players almost certainly aren't going to be a part of any new agreement. And WITHOUT that agreement, they will be illegal. Either way, they don't mean much.That is of course unless I am completely missing a 2011 season possibility.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

LHUCKS,You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog. Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup. Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

No offense taken, and it opens the door for a broader conversation that may be helpful to people.In the cases of Steve Smith and Holmes, as you note, they're tendered and I HIGHLY suspect that 2011 will not see major changes to the free agency rules. Even if we rush to get a new CBA done, I suspect it'll leave 2011 free agency in place as we've known it, and then transition to whatever new terms they mutually agree to.With no real offseason occurring, we have to make judgment calls. There will be mistakes, and once we have clarity I will immediately change them as needed. In this case, I assume (right or wrong we'll later see) that both Holmes and Steve Smith will be with their respective clubs this year. You'll notice, however, that I have Steve Smith (CAR) without any projections currently because it seems that both sides are being very clear that he's likely heading elsewhere. Obviously once Steve Smith lands somewhere, his projections will be meaningful.As to Hasselbeck, again what you're seeing is really just my best attempt at combining several different scenarios. Unlike players such as McNabb, who I think are gone no matter what role they land elsewhere, I think both the Seahawks and Hasselbeck have left the door open for his return. If he DOES return, I honestly think he'll be the starter in SEA. So, for now, I have Hasselbeck playing 10 games and Whitehurt with 6. But to say I have much confidence in that breakdown would be lie.You mention that Vick and Manning are free agents. While in point of fact they are, they've both been tendered Franchise tags and -- again -- I think there's almost no scenario where we have football in 2011 and they're not playing for their current teams. Both players are acting that way, as are the teams.

The only way for those tenders to be meaningful this year would be if the 2010 rules are still in effect in 2011. I don't get the impression that many people on either "side" of the "labor dispute" issue think that is likely. We will EITHER have a new CBA, or we will have some weird "free market" system. Either way, it is unlikely that 6th year players (like Holmes) would be subject to restricted free agency. For all intents and purposes, he'll be an unrestricted free agent IF there is football in 2011. Sure, he could be signed by the Jets, but that is far from a guarantee. And if he doesn't sign with the Jets, he'll still play and will still have value - maybe more, maybe less.However, I do now understand that you are placing some emphasis on the likelihood that a player will remain with their current team vs heading somewhere else. I still don't understand WHY that makes such a huge difference though. In some cases, (say D Williams for example) leaving would likely be a good thing. Again, not that something like that is going to be easy to project for, but I can't see just not ranking him at all (and of course, you don't do that in his case). You do seem to drop him significantly though, which I don't understand either.I get the issue you guys are facing this year. There are a lot more "holes" than usual in our understanding of who will be where. It's damn near impossible to project some of these guys.That said, since you are releasing rankings now, IMO they may as well include everyone who you think will be somewhere on the list at season's end, no matter how outlandish your prediction may end up. Otherwise, you may as well just wait until after there is a free agency period and do rankings then.I can see doing it either way, but it seems odd to do it "part way" and project some highly questionable guys and not others, or to drop guys with question marks even if those question marks could end up positives as easily as negatives.Still worth talking about though, and that's something at this point in a very confusing offseason.

Most of what I have heard indicates that if.no new cba is done and the owners lift the lockout (by force or choice) it is likely they will use the 2010 rules. The owners want restrictions and the best way that they can apply them with a minimum of antitrust issues is to use rules that have been previously used. I dont see a truely free market being applied by the owners unless it is.forced on them by law, which (i dont think) could happen by september.

Exactly. We're all flying blind here, but as I sat down to do my initial projections, my thoughts were either we have the same rules as last year, or a new CBA. The idea that we'll have a wild west this year just doesn't seem like a high probability outcome.

I think the new CBA is by far the most likely outcome IF there is to be a 2011 season, followed by the unlikely possibility of a total free for all if the players "win", which might be followed by minuscule possibility of some version of the 2010 rules being in force and legal. And in the most likely case (new CBA), Holmes and Smith won't be RFAs. That is an assumption, but I think a fairly safe one.

 

[D.J.]

LHUCKS,You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog. Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup. Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

No offense taken, and it opens the door for a broader conversation that may be helpful to people.In the cases of Steve Smith and Holmes, as you note, they're tendered and I HIGHLY suspect that 2011 will not see major changes to the free agency rules. Even if we rush to get a new CBA done, I suspect it'll leave 2011 free agency in place as we've known it, and then transition to whatever new terms they mutually agree to.With no real offseason occurring, we have to make judgment calls. There will be mistakes, and once we have clarity I will immediately change them as needed. In this case, I assume (right or wrong we'll later see) that both Holmes and Steve Smith will be with their respective clubs this year. You'll notice, however, that I have Steve Smith (CAR) without any projections currently because it seems that both sides are being very clear that he's likely heading elsewhere. Obviously once Steve Smith lands somewhere, his projections will be meaningful.As to Hasselbeck, again what you're seeing is really just my best attempt at combining several different scenarios. Unlike players such as McNabb, who I think are gone no matter what role they land elsewhere, I think both the Seahawks and Hasselbeck have left the door open for his return. If he DOES return, I honestly think he'll be the starter in SEA. So, for now, I have Hasselbeck playing 10 games and Whitehurt with 6. But to say I have much confidence in that breakdown would be lie.You mention that Vick and Manning are free agents. While in point of fact they are, they've both been tendered Franchise tags and -- again -- I think there's almost no scenario where we have football in 2011 and they're not playing for their current teams. Both players are acting that way, as are the teams.

The only way for those tenders to be meaningful this year would be if the 2010 rules are still in effect in 2011. I don't get the impression that many people on either "side" of the "labor dispute" issue think that is likely. We will EITHER have a new CBA, or we will have some weird "free market" system. Either way, it is unlikely that 6th year players (like Holmes) would be subject to restricted free agency. For all intents and purposes, he'll be an unrestricted free agent IF there is football in 2011. Sure, he could be signed by the Jets, but that is far from a guarantee. And if he doesn't sign with the Jets, he'll still play and will still have value - maybe more, maybe less.However, I do now understand that you are placing some emphasis on the likelihood that a player will remain with their current team vs heading somewhere else. I still don't understand WHY that makes such a huge difference though. In some cases, (say D Williams for example) leaving would likely be a good thing. Again, not that something like that is going to be easy to project for, but I can't see just not ranking him at all (and of course, you don't do that in his case). You do seem to drop him significantly though, which I don't understand either.I get the issue you guys are facing this year. There are a lot more "holes" than usual in our understanding of who will be where. It's damn near impossible to project some of these guys.That said, since you are releasing rankings now, IMO they may as well include everyone who you think will be somewhere on the list at season's end, no matter how outlandish your prediction may end up. Otherwise, you may as well just wait until after there is a free agency period and do rankings then.I can see doing it either way, but it seems odd to do it "part way" and project some highly questionable guys and not others, or to drop guys with question marks even if those question marks could end up positives as easily as negatives.Still worth talking about though, and that's something at this point in a very confusing offseason.

Most of what I have heard indicates that if.no new cba is done and the owners lift the lockout (by force or choice) it is likely they will use the 2010 rules. The owners want restrictions and the best way that they can apply them with a minimum of antitrust issues is to use rules that have been previously used. I dont see a truely free market being applied by the owners unless it is.forced on them by law, which (i dont think) could happen by september.

The 2010 rules ARE illegal without an agreement in place to support them. I don't think anyone on either side would dispute that. IF the NFL lifted the lockout (and they won't if they don't have to unless there is a new CBA). They would HAVE to operate under standard "non-collusive" business practices. Nearly all of the rules we are talking about here - restricted free agency, the draft, franchise tags etc. are almost by definition collusive (and thus illegal without the AGREEMENT by the players to enter into that collusive environment).Teams have been covering their bases with respect to tags and tenders, but I don't think even they (the teams using them) expect the tenders to mean the same thing they did in 2010 going forward. Franchise tags may or may not have any point, but the RFA tenders placed on 5th and 6th year players almost certainly aren't going to be a part of any new agreement. And WITHOUT that agreement, they will be illegal. Either way, they don't mean much. Can't imagine using them as a basis for ranking or projection.

I disagree. While the owners may risk an antitrust lawsuit by applying rules under a lack of cba, neither side wants the wild wild west. The only way the owners can be found to violate antitrust is through another lawsuit. I'm not saying there won't be lawsuits, but it would be hard for a player to claim the rules are unfair today if they aged to them last year. Also, these lawsuits will take a lot of time and, hopefully, there will be a cba in place by the time they are settled, hopefully leading to all lawsuits being dropped. The lack of cba in an active year will not result in "no rules." but thats why the nfl HAD to lockout after decertification. They don't want to apply any rules until they have to, to delay the inevitable antitrust lawsuit

 

[Jason Wood]

LHUCKS,You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog. Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup. Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

No offense taken, and it opens the door for a broader conversation that may be helpful to people.In the cases of Steve Smith and Holmes, as you note, they're tendered and I HIGHLY suspect that 2011 will not see major changes to the free agency rules. Even if we rush to get a new CBA done, I suspect it'll leave 2011 free agency in place as we've known it, and then transition to whatever new terms they mutually agree to.With no real offseason occurring, we have to make judgment calls. There will be mistakes, and once we have clarity I will immediately change them as needed. In this case, I assume (right or wrong we'll later see) that both Holmes and Steve Smith will be with their respective clubs this year. You'll notice, however, that I have Steve Smith (CAR) without any projections currently because it seems that both sides are being very clear that he's likely heading elsewhere. Obviously once Steve Smith lands somewhere, his projections will be meaningful.As to Hasselbeck, again what you're seeing is really just my best attempt at combining several different scenarios. Unlike players such as McNabb, who I think are gone no matter what role they land elsewhere, I think both the Seahawks and Hasselbeck have left the door open for his return. If he DOES return, I honestly think he'll be the starter in SEA. So, for now, I have Hasselbeck playing 10 games and Whitehurt with 6. But to say I have much confidence in that breakdown would be lie.You mention that Vick and Manning are free agents. While in point of fact they are, they've both been tendered Franchise tags and -- again -- I think there's almost no scenario where we have football in 2011 and they're not playing for their current teams. Both players are acting that way, as are the teams.

The only way for those tenders to be meaningful this year would be if the 2010 rules are still in effect in 2011. I don't get the impression that many people on either "side" of the "labor dispute" issue think that is likely. We will EITHER have a new CBA, or we will have some weird "free market" system. Either way, it is unlikely that 6th year players (like Holmes) would be subject to restricted free agency. For all intents and purposes, he'll be an unrestricted free agent IF there is football in 2011. Sure, he could be signed by the Jets, but that is far from a guarantee. And if he doesn't sign with the Jets, he'll still play and will still have value - maybe more, maybe less.However, I do now understand that you are placing some emphasis on the likelihood that a player will remain with their current team vs heading somewhere else. I still don't understand WHY that makes such a huge difference though. In some cases, (say D Williams for example) leaving would likely be a good thing. Again, not that something like that is going to be easy to project for, but I can't see just not ranking him at all (and of course, you don't do that in his case). You do seem to drop him significantly though, which I don't understand either.I get the issue you guys are facing this year. There are a lot more "holes" than usual in our understanding of who will be where. It's damn near impossible to project some of these guys.That said, since you are releasing rankings now, IMO they may as well include everyone who you think will be somewhere on the list at season's end, no matter how outlandish your prediction may end up. Otherwise, you may as well just wait until after there is a free agency period and do rankings then.I can see doing it either way, but it seems odd to do it "part way" and project some highly questionable guys and not others, or to drop guys with question marks even if those question marks could end up positives as easily as negatives.Still worth talking about though, and that's something at this point in a very confusing offseason.

Most of what I have heard indicates that if.no new cba is done and the owners lift the lockout (by force or choice) it is likely they will use the 2010 rules. The owners want restrictions and the best way that they can apply them with a minimum of antitrust issues is to use rules that have been previously used. I dont see a truely free market being applied by the owners unless it is.forced on them by law, which (i dont think) could happen by september.

Exactly. We're all flying blind here, but as I sat down to do my initial projections, my thoughts were either we have the same rules as last year, or a new CBA. The idea that we'll have a wild west this year just doesn't seem like a high probability outcome.

I think the new CBA is by far the most likely outcome IF there is to be a 2011 season, followed by the unlikely possibility of a total free for all if the players "win", which might be followed by minuscule possibility of some version of the 2010 rules being in force and legal. And in the most likely case (new CBA), Holmes and Smith won't be RFAs. That is an assumption, but I think a fairly safe one.

That's fine. Again, all I can do is tell you why I chose to do it the way I did. I still believe that, when the dust settles, Steve Smith will be back with the Giants and Holmes will be a Jet (with Braylon Edwards moving on). I think the bigger questions for those two are Smith's health, and whether the Jets entertain someone of Randy Moss or Chad Ochocinco's ilk and what that would mean for their workloads.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

LHUCKS,You are the master at fishing expeditions disguised as legitimate dialog. Believing this is firmly in the former and not the latter, I was going to avoid this thread.But for those who maybe aren't clear about things, we ranks players on our expectations for their FULL YEAR rankings. Many of us, myself included, do detailed player by player projections and use those to create our rankings.Given the labor situation, there are many players unsigned and/or potentially without clear roles. I have elected to hold off ranking anyone I think has a completely uncertain role with their current team, but don't know where they'll end up. For example, I suspect that when the dust settles, QBs like Matt Hasselbeck, Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb will have important roles somewhere, and that will reflect in my rankings once we know where they end up. But for now? Hasselbeck has a shot at staying in Seattle so I'm projecting him but McNabb isn't staying in DC and Kolb is Vick's backup. Now as to Moss specifically? I've been as big a Moss defender as anyone on Earth but I have serious questions about where he's going to play, if anywhere, this year. If he signs somewhere, I'll re-evaluate.

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

No offense taken, and it opens the door for a broader conversation that may be helpful to people.In the cases of Steve Smith and Holmes, as you note, they're tendered and I HIGHLY suspect that 2011 will not see major changes to the free agency rules. Even if we rush to get a new CBA done, I suspect it'll leave 2011 free agency in place as we've known it, and then transition to whatever new terms they mutually agree to.With no real offseason occurring, we have to make judgment calls. There will be mistakes, and once we have clarity I will immediately change them as needed. In this case, I assume (right or wrong we'll later see) that both Holmes and Steve Smith will be with their respective clubs this year. You'll notice, however, that I have Steve Smith (CAR) without any projections currently because it seems that both sides are being very clear that he's likely heading elsewhere. Obviously once Steve Smith lands somewhere, his projections will be meaningful.As to Hasselbeck, again what you're seeing is really just my best attempt at combining several different scenarios. Unlike players such as McNabb, who I think are gone no matter what role they land elsewhere, I think both the Seahawks and Hasselbeck have left the door open for his return. If he DOES return, I honestly think he'll be the starter in SEA. So, for now, I have Hasselbeck playing 10 games and Whitehurt with 6. But to say I have much confidence in that breakdown would be lie.You mention that Vick and Manning are free agents. While in point of fact they are, they've both been tendered Franchise tags and -- again -- I think there's almost no scenario where we have football in 2011 and they're not playing for their current teams. Both players are acting that way, as are the teams.

The only way for those tenders to be meaningful this year would be if the 2010 rules are still in effect in 2011. I don't get the impression that many people on either "side" of the "labor dispute" issue think that is likely. We will EITHER have a new CBA, or we will have some weird "free market" system. Either way, it is unlikely that 6th year players (like Holmes) would be subject to restricted free agency. For all intents and purposes, he'll be an unrestricted free agent IF there is football in 2011. Sure, he could be signed by the Jets, but that is far from a guarantee. And if he doesn't sign with the Jets, he'll still play and will still have value - maybe more, maybe less.However, I do now understand that you are placing some emphasis on the likelihood that a player will remain with their current team vs heading somewhere else. I still don't understand WHY that makes such a huge difference though. In some cases, (say D Williams for example) leaving would likely be a good thing. Again, not that something like that is going to be easy to project for, but I can't see just not ranking him at all (and of course, you don't do that in his case). You do seem to drop him significantly though, which I don't understand either.I get the issue you guys are facing this year. There are a lot more "holes" than usual in our understanding of who will be where. It's damn near impossible to project some of these guys.That said, since you are releasing rankings now, IMO they may as well include everyone who you think will be somewhere on the list at season's end, no matter how outlandish your prediction may end up. Otherwise, you may as well just wait until after there is a free agency period and do rankings then.I can see doing it either way, but it seems odd to do it "part way" and project some highly questionable guys and not others, or to drop guys with question marks even if those question marks could end up positives as easily as negatives.Still worth talking about though, and that's something at this point in a very confusing offseason.

Most of what I have heard indicates that if.no new cba is done and the owners lift the lockout (by force or choice) it is likely they will use the 2010 rules. The owners want restrictions and the best way that they can apply them with a minimum of antitrust issues is to use rules that have been previously used. I dont see a truely free market being applied by the owners unless it is.forced on them by law, which (i dont think) could happen by september.

The 2010 rules ARE illegal without an agreement in place to support them. I don't think anyone on either side would dispute that. IF the NFL lifted the lockout (and they won't if they don't have to unless there is a new CBA). They would HAVE to operate under standard "non-collusive" business practices. Nearly all of the rules we are talking about here - restricted free agency, the draft, franchise tags etc. are almost by definition collusive (and thus illegal without the AGREEMENT by the players to enter into that collusive environment).Teams have been covering their bases with respect to tags and tenders, but I don't think even they (the teams using them) expect the tenders to mean the same thing they did in 2010 going forward. Franchise tags may or may not have any point, but the RFA tenders placed on 5th and 6th year players almost certainly aren't going to be a part of any new agreement. And WITHOUT that agreement, they will be illegal. Either way, they don't mean much. Can't imagine using them as a basis for ranking or projection.

I disagree. While the owners may risk an antitrust lawsuit by applying rules under a lack of cba, neither side wants the wild wild west. The only way the owners can be found to violate antitrust is through another lawsuit. I'm not saying there won't be lawsuits, but it would be hard for a player to claim the rules are unfair today if they aged to them last year. Also, these lawsuits will take a lot of time and, hopefully, there will be a cba in place by the time they are settled, hopefully leading to all lawsuits being dropped. The lack of cba in an active year will not result in "no rules." but thats why the nfl HAD to lockout after decertification. They don't want to apply any rules until they have to, to delay the inevitable antitrust lawsuit

We are getting pretty far afield here and into that other thread, but while I agree that the wild west is not a likely scenario (but possible) the one you are describing is even less likely.We already know the NFL won't lift the lockout unless they are forced to or we have a new CBA. If we have a new CBA, obviously the scenario you are talking about obviously won't happen.That leaves us with, "The NFL is forced to lift the lockout". IF that happens, there will be no CBA to play under. LAST year, there was, so what happened then is mostly irrelevant. The CBA expired this past March. Until then, all was kosher and AGREED TO BY ALL PARTIES. You are right about why the NFL HAD to enforce the lockout, without the lockout, very odd (and very undesirable for the NFL) things happen. If the NFL attempts to enforce obviously collusive rules against the players in 2011, there simply wouldn't be any question that it would be illegal, so I don't even think the NFL would even bother trying MOST of these rules. If they did, they would be sued, they would lose, and they would be liable REGARDLESS of what happened in terms of a future CBA. I agree that nobody wants to go there, but that's where it would HAVE to go if there IS a season WITHOUT a CBA. That's why both parties are fighting so hard over the lockout. The NFL NEEDS it to stick, and the while the players don't necessarily WANT to go to the wild West scenario, they would gain huge negotiation leverage just because of the threat of it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The 2010 rules ARE illegal without an agreement in place to support them. I don't think anyone on either side would dispute that.

The owners are in fact taking the contrary position in the Brady lawsuit. The 2010 rules are okay as long as the nonstatutory labor exemption is in place. The owners argue that the nonstatutory labor exemption can survive decertification — especially sham decertification.I don't think even the owners believe they are correct on that point, but they don't necessarily have to be. It will be years before any monetary judgment in the Brady lawsuit can be executed; so the league has years to settle the suit by agreeing to a new CBA. If they violate a few laws between now and then, it may not be a huge deal.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The only way the owners can be found to violate antitrust is through another lawsuit. I'm not saying there won't be lawsuits, but it would be hard for a player to claim the rules are unfair today if they aged to them last year.

There's already a lawsuit.Also, the players agreed to these rules in 2006, the same time the owners did. The owners are now claiming that the 2006 deal was unfair (hence the opt-out), so I don't see why the players can't claim the same thing. (Not that "unfair" really matters. "Illegal without an antitrust exemption" is what matters.)

 

[Holy Schneikes]

The 2010 rules ARE illegal without an agreement in place to support them. I don't think anyone on either side would dispute that.

The owners are in fact taking the contrary position in the Brady lawsuit. The 2010 rules are okay as long as the nonstatutory labor exemption is in place. The owners argue that the nonstatutory labor exemption can survive decertification — especially sham decertification.I don't think even the owners believe they are correct on that point, but they don't necessarily have to be. It will be years before any monetary judgment in the Brady lawsuit can be executed; so the league has years to settle the suit by agreeing to a new CBA. If they violate a few laws between now and then, it may not be a huge deal.

Given that, a couple of questions.Do you believe if the NFL is forced to lift the lockout and play in 2011, they will use all of the 2010 rules as a "baseline" (for lack of a better word) for the 2011 season, including the RFA status of 5th and 6th year players?Wouldn't that open them to MORE lawsuits (on which they would be on highly dangerous ground at best) that would NOT necessarily be resolved by a new CBA? Seems like every player unfairly restricted (which would include all rookies, all RFAs, and potentially even all unrostered UFAs - specifically the ones NOT on teams due to "collusive" roster size restrictions) would have a very good chance in a lawsuit against them. Sure, it might take a couple of years, but would they really be willing to accept that risk? Some of those guys aren't even going to give a damn about a future CBA and might not be included in it. Seems crazy to me, but I admittedly don't know all of the ins and outs.I just have a very hard time accepting that any organization would put themselves in that position (doing things that pretty much everyone knows are illegal, in hopes that it all gets resolved by the time the piper needs to be paid).Maybe they are ballsier than I give them credit for, but they have a LOT to lose by doing that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Do you believe if the NFL is forced to lift the lockout and play in 2011, they will use all of the 2010 rules as a "baseline" (for lack of a better word) for the 2011 season, including the RFA status of 5th and 6th year players?

It's hard to know. They could do that. If I were advising them, I'd have them get rid of RFA status entirely. I'd be more okay with keeping franchise tags in place, though. (Even if they are ultimately found to be illegal, the damages wouldn't be huge. Especially since guys like Peyton Manning will probably sign a long-term deal instead of playing under the franchise tag, and the long-term deal would likely waive any antitrust claims. For the guys who do play under the tag, damages wouldn't be huge since they're paid a lot anyway.)

Wouldn't that open them to MORE lawsuits (on which they would be on highly dangerous ground at best) that would NOT necessarily be resolved by a new CBA? Seems like every player unfairly restricted (which would include all rookies, all RFAs, and potentially even all unrostered UFAs - specifically the ones NOT on teams due to "collusive" roster size restrictions) would have a very good chance in a lawsuit against them. Sure, it might take a couple of years, but would they really be willing to accept that risk? Some of those guys aren't even going to give a damn about a future CBA and might not be included in it. Seems crazy to me, but I admittedly don't know all of the ins and outs.

I think all of that is covered by the current lawsuit. I don't think there will be more lawsuits. I think pretty much everybody who could sue is already suing as part of the class. The exception may be future incoming rookies; but that's not an issue unless this drags into the 2012 season.

 

[Sweet Love]

Not trying to offend, but that guideline seems inconsistently applied, both by the staff as a whole and even within your own rankings. For example, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith are in VERY dynamic situations. Both are "tendered", but it seems unlikely those tenders will hold up under any circumstances we might find ourselves in next year (new CBA, no CBA etc.) So, basically, we don't know where they will be playing or what role they will have there. But you rank both.

You admit you have ranked Hasselbeck under similar circumstances as well, and both Manning and Vick are free agents.

Point is, it sure seems like for some players you seem to be just using your best guess as to where a player will end up for purposes of a ranking. Yet for Kolb, McNabb, and Moss, you claim you need more info before placing them anywhere in your rankings, and you seem to indicate that's what you do in general. In the end, it's all guess work (in the best sense, not a criticism). Why not just make your best guess (like you do with other players) and roll with it? Then maybe note it with the note tool in the rankings, like Wimer does. In my personal opinion, if you think a guy will be playing next year (and will score in the top 75 or whatever the cutoff is), he should be ranked. Of course, I have NO problem if you don't rank Moss because you don't think will put up enough numbers to be relevant.

Again, no offense intended - just an observation/opinion.

I think the difference is, is that Holmes and Smith will certainly have clearly defined roles no matter where they potentially end up, while Kolb (traded or backup to Vick?), McNabb (does anyone want him as a starter) and Moss (does anyone want him at all?) do not.Doing projections for Kevin Kolb is basically pointless at this time. We have no idea if he'll even get traded and if so to where.

I think that there are a good deal of players who fall into this. In the Mark Sanchez spotlight, I gave three separate projected numbers (one with both Holmes and Edwards, one with just one, and one with neither). I think for the time being, we literally need to project where the person will be for our actual projections...If I had to do projections for Holmes, I would base one on his being with the Jets, one his his being with a team with an established QB and one based on his being on a team with a QB "in transition"...no other way to do it at this point.

 

[Skeletore Eh]

So for the sake of discussion, with all these rumors currently out there, what does everyone think of Moss' potential if he does end up with the Jets?

 

[Jason Wood]

So for the sake of discussion, with all these rumors currently out there, what does everyone think of Moss' potential if he does end up with the Jets?

It will depend on what they do with Holmes and Edwards.If somehow Moss signs but neither younger WR stays, then I think you can start justifying a decent bounce back season. But if they keep either Holmes or Edwards (as I think they will), then I think Moss would be a situational player at this point, and whether he's got the maturity to handle a non-starring role would probably be enough for me to pass him up.

 

[Andrew Garda]

So for the sake of discussion, with all these rumors currently out there, what does everyone think of Moss' potential if he does end up with the Jets?

As a Jets fan I really wouldn't like that much. I'd be worried because Sanchez DEFINITELY takes a while to get in synch with his WRs (as you could see looking at Holmes last year and Edwards over the past two) and Moss would - IMO - become very frustrated. Also, it would depend on who comes back - the offense looks different with Holmes/Moss than with Edwards/Moss. I don't know it's a good fit - I think Ryan could get something out of him but I don't know how much there is left.On THAT note - I have Moss as 60 in my rankings so I'm really not much more convinced than some of these guys. I think he's worth a flier as 60th off the board (that might include the Jets) but I wouldn't want to rely on him consistently. The lack of effort last year was a bit shocking and I don't feel confident that a guy that age can just turn it back on.

 

[LHUCKS]

So for the sake of discussion, with all these rumors currently out there, what does everyone think of Moss' potential if he does end up with the Jets?

He's automatically the most talented WR on the roster, will be starting and likely a top 25 WR statistically by year's end.

 

[Andrew Garda]

So for the sake of discussion, with all these rumors currently out there, what does everyone think of Moss' potential if he does end up with the Jets?

He's automatically the most talented WR on the roster, will be starting and likely a top 25 WR statistically by year's end.

I'd have to respectfully say .Although I will say it depends on who comes back.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Maybe some of you get points based off of 2009 statistics, but all the leagues I play in only reward performance for the current season.

 

[WVU Alum]

I do my rankings by randomly throwing darts at other people's rankings.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I do my rankings by randomly throwing darts at other people's rankings.

This only works after a few dozen

 

[Couch Potato]

I do my rankings by randomly throwing darts at other people's rankings.

This only works after a few dozen

I won my league last year by turning Garda's rankings upside down and then drafting. Awesome results!