Who has more dynasty value Faulk or A. Green? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Who has more dynasty value Faulk or A. Green?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby FootballRulez » Sat Feb 01, 2003 1:04 am

Great insight guys, thanks! So let me ask you this then, where do you rank Faulk against all other RB's in a dynasty league? I currently have him 7th:

1) Williams
2) Holmes
3) Portis
4) Tomlinson
5) McAllister
6) Alexander
*7) Faulk

The other guys who I rank highly are A. Green, Henry, Barber, W. Green, Lewis, and Edge. Do you think I have Faulk in the right place?

FootballRulez

PS
Feel free to comment on my other player rankings as well.
FootballRulez
Water Boy
Water Boy

User avatar

Posts: 32
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Homeless » Sat Feb 01, 2003 1:55 am

FootballRulez wrote:Great insight guys, thanks! So let me ask you this then, where do you rank Faulk against all other RB's in a dynasty league? I currently have him 7th:

1) Williams
2) Holmes
3) Portis
4) Tomlinson
5) McAllister
6) Alexander
*7) Faulk

The other guys who I rank highly are A. Green, Henry, Barber, W. Green, Lewis, and Edge. Do you think I have Faulk in the right place?

FootballRulez

PS
Feel free to comment on my other player rankings as well.


No, and heres why.

You have two choices when it comes to rating faulk.
1) You rate him over the past 4 years, in which case you have to have him at number 1 or two (behind an uninjured Holmes)

2) You rate him based on his most recent performance and he doesnt make your list at all.

I dont think there is any middle ground here. Having him at 7th doesnt make sense to me. He was the number one pick this past year as he has been for the past 3 yrs, therefore, to put him at 7th means you think he will play the 03 season without serious injury problems. If thats the case, he surely deserves a much higher rating.

The only reason to consider downgrading him is if you think he will be injured again OR you place to much emphasis on the QB situation at the Rams.

I agree with your other selections, but wouldnt have Ricky as #1 that has to be Holmes followed by Faulk, then Williams, then Tomlinson followed by the others in almost any order.

Assuming ALL are fit.

Thats how I see it :-)
Homeless
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 10011
Joined: 21 Aug 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: I could be anywhere! and so could my SILK scarf! M&M's anyone ?

Postby Slingblade » Sat Feb 01, 2003 3:14 am

Hey footballrulez,
your order in backs is pretty good just switch faulk and holmes...and then switch tomlinson and ricky
Slingblade
General Manager
General Manager

Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3174
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Home Cafe: Football

Postby ScreamingWeasel » Sat Feb 01, 2003 5:52 am

But there's the injury question just hanging out there and, once that happens, I think it forces you to downgrade as a fantasy owner.
No matter what the player and coach say (who will spin it for all it's worth until you don't know what is true).

I have LT and R Williams #1/2, simply because they're the work horse for both their teams, young and so far injury free.
After that, you just gotta go Holmes/Faulk based on what they've done the last few years. It's just too much. Injury or not.

#1 L Tomlinson
#2 R Williams
#3 M Faulk
#4 P Holmes


My 2 cents, anyway.
~SW
Image
ScreamingWeasel
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders ChampionPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 2073
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: NashTN

Postby Dazedncnfz » Sat Feb 01, 2003 11:41 am

Without knowing the true status of Holmes its tuff to rank him...Faulk is tuff to rank based on the QB situation and the fact he has been injured 2 years in a row now( ya I know the year before last was not that bad but...) look what it lead to this season, and what will it lead to for next?? Holmes is in that same limbo as Faulk, unitl we know whats wrong with him and when he will be back to full strenght you can't rank him at 1 or 2...Ricky, LT, Duece, and Portis are all work horses any of these 4 can be a ligit #1, and look at that 4 backs that can rank 1-4 with any of them being Faulk or Holmes....this tells me that you don't have to get all nerved up(not that Im saying you or anyone else is) if you don't get either one....looks to me like this year willhave many more stud backs then the previous years...I haven't even mentioned the man who always gives Faulk a run for his money...Edge, yes Edge....this will be his 2nd year removed from surgery...history tells us that evey back that has had some type of knee surgery is always back to his norm the 2nd year back...
Image

T.S. - "You don't have to love me, but you will [b]RESPECT[/b] me"
Dazedncnfz
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5783
Joined: 6 Nov 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The Bada Bing

Postby FootballRulez » Sun Feb 02, 2003 8:43 am

Slingblade wrote:... then switch tomlinson and ricky


ScreamingWeasel wrote:#1 L Tomlinson
#2 R Williams
#3 M Faulk
#4 P Holmes


My 2 cents, anyway.
~SW


;-D You guys are right, with receptions counting for one point Tomlinson is definately seems like better option then Ricky. Anyone disagree?
Last edited by FootballRulez on Sun Feb 02, 2003 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
FootballRulez
Water Boy
Water Boy

User avatar

Posts: 32
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby FootballRulez » Sun Feb 02, 2003 8:49 am

Homeless wrote:
No, and heres why.

You have two choices when it comes to rating faulk.
1) You rate him over the past 4 years, in which case you have to have him at number 1 or two (behind an uninjured Holmes)

2) You rate him based on his most recent performance and he doesnt make your list at all.

I dont think there is any middle ground here. Having him at 7th doesnt make sense to me. He was the number one pick this past year as he has been for the past 3 yrs, therefore, to put him at 7th means you think he will play the 03 season without serious injury problems. If thats the case, he surely deserves a much higher rating.

The only reason to consider downgrading him is if you think he will be injured again OR you place to much emphasis on the QB situation at the Rams.

I agree with your other selections, but wouldnt have Ricky as #1 that has to be Holmes followed by Faulk, then Williams, then Tomlinson followed by the others in almost any order.

Assuming ALL are fit.

Thats how I see it :-)


You bring up a valid point. The reason I had Holmes at #2 was that I had heard that his injury was healed and he was playing in the Pro Bowl. So as far as I saw it, it was a healthy Holmes (giving him #2), and Faulk on a bad ankle (thus #7). But in reading more about Holmes apparently its not healing very well and it concerns me. I am going to move Faulk up and Holmes down based on what I have read and what you guys have written.
FootballRulez
Water Boy
Water Boy

User avatar

Posts: 32
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Previous

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 1:33 hours
(and 45 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact