yellowcard01778

I think that receptions shouldn't count in most leagues just because you want to have your running backs be the most productive and consistent player on your team. For instance, throughout a season a great WR gets 90 receptions and a great RB gets 30 catches. If receptions are worth 1 point, and TD's are worth 6 points, the WR is adding 10 touchdowns to his stats, which is way too much for a WR. There should be a reason why RB's are taken in the first couple rounds. Does anybody else think otherwise? I'm just wondering why receptions are so valuable to be worth something in a fantasy league. receptions

Worse: Manning Mushin Muhammed T.J. whatever from cincy Better: Portis Koren Robinson Bulger

If the Pats end up 7-9 I will buy you your life.

My fault. I knew they switched but I wasn't sure if it was 3-4 or 46.

How do you think teams that are adapting the 3-4 will fare fantasy wise. I know that a few teams like Dallas and Baltimore have switched to this scheme and I wonder if you guys think it will work out for these teams and how it affects the fantasy players on there team. For example, if the Dallas D begins to return to its 20th century form with their new athletic and young defense, should julius jones be a very valuable option for fantasy owners.

I like the original list except I don't like Doug Jolley at ten. I would include someone like Daniel Graham or Putzier