2009 Rookie Rankings

[WebHamster]

This thread contains comments on the Cafe's "2009 Rookie Rankings", which were posted in the Cafe's Player Rankings section by R.J. White on May 3, 2009. The full article can be read here.

[The Lung]

It's a little disappointing to see that this article is currently only getting 2.6 stars out of 5 from Cafe members. He obviously put a lot of time and effort into this, and the rankings are just as good as any I've seen. In fact, we did a rookie dynasty league draft this weekend and players were going off the board pretty darn close to these rankings. So great job R.J., and boo to those who are rating this article poorly.

[daullaz]

It's a little disappointing to see that this article is currently only getting 2.6 stars out of 5 from Cafe members. He obviously put a lot of time and effort into this, and the rankings are just as good as any I've seen. In fact, we did a rookie dynasty league draft this weekend and players were going off the board pretty darn close to these rankings. So great job R.J., and boo to those who are rating this article poorly.

Thank ya sir.

[Cowboys 4 life]

It's a little disappointing to see that this article is currently only getting 2.6 stars out of 5 from Cafe members. He obviously put a lot of time and effort into this, and the rankings are just as good as any I've seen. In fact, we did a rookie dynasty league draft this weekend and players were going off the board pretty darn close to these rankings. So great job R.J., and boo to those who are rating this article poorly.

I agree. I slipped and hit 4 but meant 5 for the same reason listed above. I went to correct it but it was too late.

Thats a lot of writing that will be very helpful to those who read it.

[dream_017]

It's a little disappointing to see that this article is currently only getting 2.6 stars out of 5 from Cafe members. He obviously put a lot of time and effort into this, and the rankings are just as good as any I've seen. In fact, we did a rookie dynasty league draft this weekend and players were going off the board pretty darn close to these rankings. So great job R.J., and boo to those who are rating this article poorly.

I'm guessing people rated it low because they disagreed with the rankings, but that kind of misses point.

What use are other people's rankings if they're the same or very similar to your own? Reading rankings and opinions that differ from your own cause you to challenge them, and the more you debate (even with yourself) on a player's value, the better overall picture you will have, and you will have a more informed opinion on him.

Rating someone's rankings high because they validate ones self and not because they are thought provoking is nothing but **** stroking.

Mod edit: language

[madaslives911]

Nice piece of work there R.J. Don't mind the number of stars!

[iamgregg]

Mod edit: language

Oops sorry, didn't realsie that was stepping over the line

[LS2throwed]

I didn't see any problem with the rankings, but i'm used to some people getting worked up over that...I seem to remember last year everytime somebody stepped up to do a sit or start or a rankings for the week they would always get blasted after they did the work to do it.


I think the fact that you went 80 deep deserves some major props, alot of people don't know those guys past the top 25 or so that's useful going into drafts especially IDP rookie drafts...Good write-up, I agreed with most of the analysis.