Fantasy Football: Top Quarterbacks

[BBFF]

Whats up Gang,

I haven't been to the Warpath in awhile, I have been working on all of my fantasy football preseason cheat sheets, but those are about wrapping up, so lets discuss some fantasy football.

We just posted our Top 44 QBs for the 2006 season, on the site. You guys should check it out, and make comments on the site or this thread. The link is www.bbfantasyfootball.com

Brunell graded out towards the bottom tier of starting QB's, he was 23rd. Some of the writers are concerned by his fragile body, but the Bruno Boys feel if he stays healthy, he will have a better year than his ranking.

What do you guys think of the list? Need answers, just ask questions!!

[That Guy]

he should be above carr and simms. also, roth is too high, his FF stats (yardage) aren't super, and his #2 WR is a either a rookie or a #3 type talent. not bad though.

[GTripp0012]

Brunell has to be one of the hardest QBs to rank. I could make a case for him in the top 10, and one for him not in the top 20. McNabb is kinda high, he wasn't much of a statistical beast before T.O. got there and I don't think Reggie Brown is at that level just yet. I guess the rest of the list is quite good.

Carr, like Brunell is a good sleeper choice.

[MTK]

I have faith that Brunell can put up similar numbers to last year or even top them, but at the same time you won't see me drafting him as my starter. He'll make a great backup though.

[724Skinsfan]

I disagree with ranking players based off of possible future injury. I know Qb's are the hardest to rank but assuming he is going to get injured makes no sense to me. Of course 16 thru 24 are all pretty much interchangeable as far as fantasy points are concerned. I think rather than having a straight ranking system you should use a tiered approach and then sort each tier based on perceived strength of schedule.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I disagree with ranking players based off of possible future injury. I know Qb's are the hardest to rank but assuming he is going to get injured makes no sense to me. Of course 16 thru 24 are all pretty much interchangeable as far as fantasy points are concerned. I think rather than having a straight ranking system you should use a tiered approach and then sort each tier based on perceived strength of schedule.

I feel like, in quite a few cases, you really can almost rely on some guys to get injured and I do think that it should affect where you rank them.

I know that last year I was in a position in the first round where I felt like I had to draft Priest even though I knew he'd get injured. I had him ranked below a bunch of other guys, but I guess everyone in front of me did too. What really sucked was that I waited too long on LJ and he went one round before I planned to take him.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

I feel like, in quite a few cases, you really can almost rely on some guys to get injured and I do think that it should affect where you rank them.

I know that last year I was in a position in the first round where I felt like I had to draft Priest even though I knew he'd get injured. I had him ranked below a bunch of other guys, but I guess everyone in front of me did too. What really sucked was that I waited too long on LJ and he went one round before I planned to take him.

Yes but how does a QB who finished as the #13th ranked fanatsy QB get ranked down to #24? Brunell has an upgraded receiving core, a better blocking TE, an offensive line that has no personnel changes and a new offensive coordinator that previously produced a consistent 4,000 yard passer.

Last year's Brad Johnson was the #24 ranked qb with 1800 passing yards, 12 TDs and 4 INTs. In 2004, Kyle Boller was #24 with 2500 passing yards, 13 TDs and 11 INTs. This is what we can expect Brunell will be getting?

[724Skinsfan]

Just double-checked, I should have used the #23 rankings. Sorry about that, but I still stand by the post.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Yes but how does a QB who finished as the #13th ranked fanatsy QB get ranked down to #24? Brunell has an upgraded receiving core, a better blocking TE, an offensive line that has no personnel changes and a new offensive coordinator that previously produced a consistent 4,000 yard passer.

Last year's Brad Johnson was the #24 ranked qb with 1800 passing yards, 12 TDs and 4 INTs. In 2004, Kyle Boller was #24 with 2500 passing yards, 13 TDs and 11 INTs. This is what we can expect Brunell will be getting?

Good point. But I guess they're worried that Brunell's age is going to catch up to him and that's he's not going to be around all season.
But like you said, he may be protected even better this year than he was last.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Yes but how does a QB who finished as the #13th ranked fanatsy QB get ranked down to #24? Brunell has an upgraded receiving core, a better blocking TE, an offensive line that has no personnel changes and a new offensive coordinator that previously produced a consistent 4,000 yard passer.

Last year's Brad Johnson was the #24 ranked qb with 1800 passing yards, 12 TDs and 4 INTs. In 2004, Kyle Boller was #24 with 2500 passing yards, 13 TDs and 11 INTs. This is what we can expect Brunell will be getting?

That's been the theme of this offseason, everyone hating on Brunell. Should be fun to see him prove everyone wrong... again.

[BBFF]

Guys,

Thanks for all the responses. I would love if you could post these comments on the website, so some of my writers can also respond to your questions/comments?

Just use the comments link after the articles. The writers have very good insight and love to help everyone out.

Redskins724, we somewhat used the tier approach by having the overall consensus rank, right next to the official ranking. We kind of explained it in our heading.

As for Brunell, he is very dificult to pinpoint his numbers for 2006, Saunders could lead to Portis seeing more actioon, but Trent Green did throw for over 4000 yards 4 straight seaosns under Saunders. It's one of those wait and see type things.

Thanks again, as always