Garner or E George

[T-BONE]

I have the 2nd pick in a 12 team league. No point per reception.

My first pick will be Portis.

I am thinking about the 2nd round. As I know the other players, the worth rbs available would be garner and george.


Is Garner much better ??

Is a good strategy to grab Moulds ( I suppose the best WR available after the big 3) and them George in the 3.02 ??

[dgroundhog_ffc]

I'd take George. Garner doesn't get the goal line carries, and since nobody is talking about the Raiders collapsing due to age this year, I think they finally will. I'd look at W Green as well over Garner.

I'm not sure I'd even take a WR other than Owens/Harrison/Moss in the first 26 picks, which is your 3.02 pick. Maybe in the absolute worst case scenario. There's 19 RB, 3 WR and 2 QB I'd take in the first 24 picks. If all of them are gone, I guess I'd look at Moulds. If you can start 3 RB I'd maybe take 3. If Moss or McNabb is there with the 2.11 pick I'd take him. I'd consider Culpepper with the 3.02 pick if no other RB I liked was available.

[The Guru]

George over Garner easy. Eddie had 344 attempts last year which was 3rd in the NFL. Garner loses goal-line carries.

Also if you take Moulds with your second pick, then George probably won't be there available with your third pick.

[Rodge]

I also would take Eddie George over Charlie Garner. While George's skills are declining, he still has enough left in the tank to put up decent numbers. George will get all of the Titans goal-line carries, where Garner will not get the Raiders goal-line carries. Everyone talks about Eddie George getting old, but Charlie Garner is actually a year and a half older than George. Also, the age of the Raiders may start to affect the teams success this year.

[kentric]

Everyone said the Raiders were too old last year too. I put in a vote for Garner as he'll put up more all purpose yards and has the potential to produce substantially more points than EG.

[T-BONE]

I'm not sure I'd even take a WR other than Owens/Harrison/Moss in the first 26 picks, which is your 3.02 pick. Maybe in the absolute worst case scenario. There's 19 RB, 3 WR and 2 QB I'd take in the first 24 picks. If all of them are gone, I guess I'd look at Moulds. If you can start 3 RB I'd maybe take 3. If Moss or McNabb is there with the 2.11 pick I'd take him. I'd consider Culpepper with the 3.02 pick if no other RB I liked was available.

My league starts 2RB / 2WR / 1QB / 1TE / 1D / 1K

I'm almost sure that the first 20 picks will be:

(The order doesnt matter, but these players will be gone by the 20th pick)


1. LT
2. Portis
3. RW
4. Faulk
5. Holmes
6. sAlex
7. Deuce
8. Edge
9. Harrison
10. McNabb
11. Henry
12. A. Green
----------------
13. TO
14. Culpeper
15. JLewis
16. Dillon
17. Moss
18. Taylor
19. Barber
20. W Green
21. ???
22. S Davis
23. my pick
24.



So the choice between George or Garner will be up to the guy with the 21 pick. I will grab the one left behind.

So, in the 3rd round McNabb, Culpepper or a big WR won't be available. That's why I'm considering Moulds or maybe Manning.

[brdmaverick]

I'd take George over Garner, ESPECIALLY since you don't get points per reception.

[Ousmagic]

eddieeeeeeeee

[tjhksig]

Steady Eddie. Dude scored 14 times last year. Then grab the best available WR, hopefully Moulds; if not him then one of the Pitt boys or Toomer.

[Guest]

I would take Garner without question before a lot of those backs, he's so underrated, I took him as my second back and I'm very happy, he's more consistent than most other backs since he catches and runs well, he may score less TD's but he'll rack up close to 2000 yards again. There won't be a lot of difference in the numbers between Dillon, George, W. Green, S. Davis, Garner, T. Barber in my opinion and I would stay away from F. Taylor until after these guys are gone. You want consistency out of your second back, not boom or bust like Dillon was for me last year and S. Davis and George will be this year when they face strong run defences - Garner isn't affected by this, he gets his yards no matter what.