Official "it's not too early to start talking about Fantasy Football"

[chaseUdown]

"You sound like you have been burned by McGahee before."

I have. I mainly think he has already peaked so I will not draft him.

[A S U]

Bush, McGahee, Portis, Edge

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
"You sound like you have been burned by McGahee before."

I have. I mainly think he has already peaked so I will not draft him.

[/ QUOTE ]

He hasn't peaked, he was stuck behind the 6th worst O-line according to FO and a rookie/2nd yr QB who is still learning.

McNair is over the hill, but that line is way, way better than in Buffalo. I see Willis doing better than Edge, and I have both guys on my team often - in fact I had both in this league last year!

I agree Bush is the likely pick. I have a coin flip for this spot I think, so if I lose it'll be btw Portis/Willis/Edge. The other guy has Addai and I know he'll take Bush, assuming Bush isn't already gone instead of Rudi or Westbrook, who would still be gone before me.

[A S U]

[ QUOTE ]
"just for fun" league I joined just to get the feel for drafting again. Not sure if I think my team is any good or not.

10) Rudi Johnson
11) Willis McGahee
30) TJ Houshmandzadeh
31) Marc Bulger
50) Andre Johnson
51) Santana Moss
70) Brandon Jacobs
71) Vincent Jackson
90) Trent Greent
91) Alge Crumpler
110) Lamont Jordan
111) Green Bay
130) Ladell Betts
131) Brandon Stokely
150) Josh Scobee

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Bulger (31) is a bit of a reach. IMO the Trent Green (90) and Green Bay picks (111) are not very good. I like your 1-3, 5, 7 picks the best.

[ProfessorBen]

I spent most of the day at work drafting and reading through this topic. When does Gates fall so low that you should take him?

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You sound like you have been burned by McGahee before."

I have. I mainly think he has already peaked so I will not draft him.

[/ QUOTE ]

He hasn't peaked, he was stuck behind the 6th worst O-line according to FO and a rookie/2nd yr QB who is still learning.

McNair is over the hill, but that line is way, way better than in Buffalo. I see Willis doing better than Edge, and I have both guys on my team often - in fact I had both in this league last year!

I agree Bush is the likely pick. I have a coin flip for this spot I think, so if I lose it'll be btw Portis/Willis/Edge. The other guy has Addai and I know he'll take Bush, assuming Bush isn't already gone instead of Rudi or Westbrook, who would still be gone before me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say if both stay healthy Edge will have the better year.
Balt line isn't that great and their offense is pretty tame with a old QB.

AZ has vastly improved their line and Edge will be running behind a solid FB in Grimm/Whisenhunt system.

The Cards offense is explosive and ML is no longer a rook so teams are def going to have to respect the pass.
While WM could surprise, he has more gamebreaking ability, I'd say Edge is a more solid pick and WM is a bigger gamble

[A S U]

[ QUOTE ]
I spent most of the day at work drafting and reading through this topic. When does Gates fall so low that you should take him?

[/ QUOTE ]

4th round if you've at least gone 2 RB's, 1 WR. IMO he doesn't fall enough where I want to take him, but I have never drafted a TE before the 8th round IIRC.

[ProfessorBen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I spent most of the day at work drafting and reading through this topic. When does Gates fall so low that you should take him?

[/ QUOTE ]

4th round if you've at least gone 2 RB's, 1 WR. IMO he doesn't fall enough where I want to take him, but I have never drafted a TE before the 8th round IIRC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I did 8-9 drafts today and in one of them he fell to 40+ and I got so used to not even considering him and scrolling through WR/RB that I got screwed. Thanks. I assume the same logic applies with Peyton if you've picked up 2 good back and he falls to round 3?

[A S U]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume the same logic applies with Peyton if you've picked up 2 good back and he falls to round 3?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that will ever happen.

[XChamp]

I really got into Fantasy Football last year, but some things still confuse me.

Why is there such a focus on RBs? Is this because most leagues don't count receptions/completions into the scoring?

The scoring in my league is 1pt/20yards and 1pt/reception for WR/TE/RB. QBs get 1pt/completion and 1pt/50 yards. TDs are 6 points. The positions are: QB, WR, WR, WR, RB, RB, W/R, TE, K, DEF, BN, BN, BN, BN.

With this scoring, if you rank the top RBs & WRs in the league last year, the first 4 are RBs and then of the next 21 only 4 are RBs, the rest are WRs. It was similar in 2005. This tells me that top tier RBs are awesome...but after that WRs are just as good.

Also, why draft QBs so late in the draft? With completions counting as 1 pt, the QBs dominate the league. A top tier QB (Manning, Brees, Bulger, Palmer, etc) scores about 12 pts more than a middle tier QB per game. Meanwhile a top tier RB (LT, Jackson, Westbrook) score only about 8pts more per game than a middle tier. Obviously, the top tier QBs also score a lot more per game than top tier RB.

So, why should I not take a top QB first over a RB? Why should I load up on mid tier RBs when WRs are seemingly just as important (if not more so). It seems like none of you guys do these things, so I think I am missing something. Why am I wrong?