They cover a lot of players and QB/WR/RB/TE positions. They use stats to back up their picks.
How have these fared over the last few weeks? I primarily ask because they are recommending starting Kevan Barlow over Fred Taylor and while it makes sense and I've considered it, I decided that you just don't bench players of Fred's caliber for players of Barlow's caliber.
This could actually swing me the other way if they've been good. Do they keep an archive? I didn't see one, but then again I didn't look too hard...
i'd like to hear the answer to biju's question as well... Goings as one of only two "must start studs"? I mean, yeah, he's got a nice matchup, but really? They seem to be more comfortable going out on a limb than other sites in general, not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
FFPlayinMoFo, ha ha ha. Laughing my ass off at your quote: "Every week, I pray to God that one of my guys isn't the Start of the Week." I hear ya there. Whoever they choose there seems to flop big.
"Sometime during the Pats game last week, I decided that Tomlinson was the best overall running back of my lifetime. There's nothing he can't do: deadly receiver, tough inside runner, explosive to the outside, you name it." - ESPN's Bill Simmons
Cooner wrote:i'd like to hear the answer to biju's question as well... Goings as one of only two "must start studs"?
Yeah, I noticed that, too. Kinda weird. I like the Freaks rankings but it looks like they have 3 or 4 guys doing the rankings - probably they are divvying up the research. What happens some times is you'll get one reviewer make sort of a rash judgement on his own(seems like it anyway). Other times you'll get reviewers disagreeing, where one guy will say "gut check" and another "strong start". Overall I like their rankings, though.