Fantasy Football Podcast 2016 - Early RB Rankings, Fantasy News & Mailbag

majorly behind the stat numbers that you put out there. But I'm not projecting that reception total to increase. I have it decreasing a little bit over the course of a full 16 game season. I still have it a little lower than last year. And that puts him at number 10. He is super reliable to me. He's a guy that if I could somehow end up with him in the second round after drafting an upside running back in the first round, I would do dances all over the place, right all over my CJ Spiller fathead.

I would dance all over that. Because Mark Ingram's great. And he did. He gives hope to anybody who wants to project receptions for a running back that's never had them before. Because he wasn't that guy. Everybody kept saying last year, oh, it's C.J. Spiller. They brought him. Even the Saints said it. The Saints said we need to bring in a pass catching back. That, you know, it's not Darren Sproles. It's not Pierre Thomas anymore. We need to bring in C.J. Spiller. And, well, you didn't. Because Ingram went out there and showed he could do it.

And I'm with you, man. Teams that bring in that third down back and it guarantees a certain type of a play. It's more so you don't have the option to do that like efficient draw play with a good guy like Ingram between the tackle guy because he's off the field. So I hate taking guys off the field. I hate taking AP off the field.

That being said, Sean Payton's pretty much always used three backs. Yeah. The last several years, it's been a long time since, you know, Deuce McAllister was the end-all-running-back. The horse of the... Yeah. Yeah, and I completely agree with your negatives on him, and especially the injury. Only one season. He's played one full season, and the rest of them are under 13, or 13 games are under. And so it's...

That's a risk, but that's the risk I will take. Arguments about Arian Foster last year for similar reasons. So I know the way it feels to have that, you know, you're projecting and predicting health to a degree. That being said, there are certain situations like this one where you, if you draft Mark Ingraham, I don't think Tim Hightower is going to be the type of guy assuming he gets resigned that is even drafted unless it's drafted by the...

Mark Ingram owner. And if you own Mark Ingram, then you have who proved to be a really good capable handcuff that you can get. Sometimes, you know, in years past, it's like, oh, I'm going to get this guy. Now I've got to take their handcuff, but it's going to cost me an eighth round pick. Or their handcuff is trash, and you know you're not going to get anything. Right. Kyrie was probably in the same category last year, too. Yes. So you're right. That is nice to have a guy that's potential top five pick like Mike has him that has a handcuff that's affordable.

Yep. And it's not like... And he is going... Mark Ingram right now is going in the back of the second round. That's just a great value. Well, and that is an encouragement to those that would like to draft Antonio Brown or Julio Jones in the first round as well. You pair those two? That's your starting roster. That's ridiculous. That would be really nice. You know who else is going to the back of the second round? The next guy on our list? But the next guy on our list will not be on this show. Stick around. Because we are doing... We're going to break this up.

We thought we might get through more, but we're going to do the next six on Thursday's show for this early running back rankings because we are getting towards the end of the show and we want to get some mailbag questions answered on this show. That's a surprise even to me, Foot Clan. It is. It's a surprise, a television style. I like it. Teaser. Oh, man.

We got the next six on the Thursday show. The next six, we're going to get some heated debate. That's right. So stay tuned for that. You've got your overview on our top six running back consensus rankings. If you have a question for the show, you can send it in. The Fantasyfootballers.com, submit a question. We're trying to answer as many as we can of those questions that come in. So we're going to get into the mailbag right now. Mailbag. Mailbag.

Oh, yeah, it's time. Let's go ahead and jump into the voicemail. Voicemail, right? And we're going to answer a voicemail question first. You can call us 302-464 TFFB if you want to leave us a voicemail question. Keep those brief to the point. It lets us put more of them on the show, obviously, as opposed to very long ones that are maybe in a train tunnel. Yeah. All right, here we go. Hey, guys, Huff Daddy in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Killer Podcasts, specifically liked your political show.

which is fitting since my question is how to lobby for a rule change in the way we do waivers in a league that I'm in. It's a 16-team redraft league with 18-man rosters, so it's pretty deep. They currently do orders, excuse me, they currently do their waiver order in a way where every week it resets and the team with the worst record always has top priority, even if they draft or they burn their waiver every week.

My argument is this isn't really fair if you start the year off like I did, thanks to your show, 9-0 last year. You know, you never really get a chance to make a pick off of waivers because with that many people, 16 teams, there's three or four guys every week and they're always gone. So I'm trying to lobby for a fab-type bidding system or possibly, you know, at minimum every week. If you burn your waiver priority, you at least have to drop to the bottom so other people get a chance.

to bid on somebody throughout the season. So help me make the argument to switch the waiver process. What do I need to say to convince the commissioner to do so? Thanks, guys. It's a great question. Yeah, and I had to do that in one of my leagues. My friend is the commissioner, and he was, it took some time to get him on the Fab train. And the biggest, the biggest pro of Fabb is that,

It's fair. It's equal. Everyone has a chance. If you, you are not, you don't receive a benefit from losing. Say, why should we give someone who has lost a better advantage when it can be an equal thing across all of the teams? Now, that's a good point, but I will say this. As someone who, when I first started playing fantasy football, like, you know, 20 years ago, I don't know how long it was.

proponent for this garbage system he has set up where the worst record gets refreshed every week where every week the worst record gets it because I thought that was good for parity for fairness for everybody you know what I mean like like let the bad teams get the good guys so that the whole league stays better then I realized that doesn't help as much but my point here is he's talking about lobbying right the the political aspect and what happens is you will have players who think this is good

for letting everybody be involved. And the reality is I think that the way you focus your argument is on strategy, is on the fun and the fact that it just adds so much more strategy into your fantasy league for everybody. And it's really a fun feature in the sense that...

There's a whole new element where every week you're getting to try to blindly compete. Yeah, it's competition and fun. There's another day where you get to see the reveal of who got players off of their off of fat. Did you make a good call on your budget? And then, of course, it is still fair. And there's parity because if you spent for the big guy, now you're out of money. Right.

So I love the fact. It's like a baby draft. Yeah. So I do like Jason's perspective on the lobbying there. It is better strategy. And you're not giving an advantage to good teams either. You're just evening the playing field and making people responsible for themselves. And in a league where you only got 12 games, you know, in a season, giving the worst team the best picks for the first three or four isn't fair. It's not fair to the rest of the league. All right, Zach and Des Moines, I have the ninth overall pick and can keep two of the following, A.B or OBJ in the first round.

Lev Bell second round, Greg Olson's seventh round, Doug Martin, 9th, Ivory 12th, or Lockett 14th. Two many appealing combos. Any help would be great. Ten team PPR. Man. Yes, sir. All right. So, to me, there are four possible choices out of his... This is pretty easy and obvious to me. I think it's a home run. I'm taking Brown or Beckham, and I personally would take Antonio Brown.

And then you have Lev Bell in the second versus Dougie in the ninth. A massive value of Doug Martin, who is likely a running back one. So do you want the best running back in the second, or do you want a guy who's in the middle of the running back ones, but you get him in the ninth? I'm going to take both of those guys. I'm going to take Love Bell in the second.

and Doug Martin in the ninth. Levion Bell, you can argue, should be the first pick in the, in the whole draft, in the first round, and you're getting them in the second round, and then you get Doug Martin in the ninth. You're not getting any value for, I mean, I... I didn't think anyone was going to bring that option up, and that was what I was going to do as well. It gives you flexibility in the first round. You could take a grunt in the first if you wanted to, or you take... Or one of these two guys. You know Antonio Brown and OBJ are going back in.

There's probably some other wide receivers. So for me, I think you keep your first round pick. You keep Levian Bell, who's worth a first round pick. And Doug Martin in the ninth is like, that's just easy pickings. Yep. It's hard to give up Antonio Brown and OBJ there, but that's what I would do. In a PPR. Well, Levy on a Bell and a PPR is just as. I would take Bell and Brown. Okay. Are we up to Sam here? Sam Holt and Topeka can exist. Bell and Brown, even though they're both on the same team? Yep. Don't have.

Don't care. Okay. I can keep Rawls for $10 in Big Ben for 15 or potentially package them together and trade for a $15 clear cut wide receiver 1, like ODB or Hopkins. What would you do? So Rawls. Would you rather have Rawls in Big Ben or would you rather have, so starting in an auction league, or would you rather have ODB or Hopkins just by themselves? And you've got to factor in the auction value. So Big Ben and Rawls for $25 or $15 for.

Beckham or Hopkins. Give me... I take a $15. Give me Beckham for $15. Unanimous. All right, and that's a half-point PPR league too. Neil Hudson in Golden, Colorado. I've had a lot of success with this in daily fantasy sports, but since you guys are buying into a single game script rather than an entire season, I've avoided it in the season long. That being said, while mocking, I found myself with Brandon Marshall on my roster and Decker on the board way later than he should be, or...

Alan Robinson and Hearns in the same situation. It's hard to pass up on that value, but is it too much risk having guys on the same team? Do your thoughts for this change at all for a wide receiver and running back duo, which is a perfect follow-up question for the Bell Brown? Generally speaking, I don't prefer to have a wide receiver and a running back on the same team. That said, there are a few instances that break up that rule.

when it's on a really high-powered offense, like the Steelers, the Cardinals, generally the Packers, maybe Patriots, like if you're talking Edelman Lewis, or even Gronk Lewis, because you're talking just past catcher. So there are teams where I won't shy away from it. And as far as owning a wide receiver 1 and 2 from the same team,

It's the same deal. It's like a team dependent situation dependent. It's not a rule. I do shy away from that. Yes. I do because I don't like all the potential scenarios that can play out for my team when I have both, which is, okay, I play the one and I don't play the two, and the two every third week surpasses the one and I hate myself. It would be so frustrating. Or I play them both and you cap the total production unless you have a perfect, gorgeous matchup. I mean, playing Marshall Decker all last year would have been fine.

But there aren't very many situations like that, so I tend to avoid it. Yeah, and I would just throw out one last thing. Sometimes there is an argument here made that, well, you've got the handcuff, right? So if either guy gets injured, the other guy is better. But that's not always the case for wide receivers. We saw that last year with Jordy Nelson going down and Randall Cobb not being able to really fill that number one role. Now he's got the number one defense. It's not always...

that easy when it comes to wide receivers thinking you've got, you know, a hand cut. And that's another pair. Cobb, Jordy, back during the Manning years, Sanders, Thomas. I mean, there's, there are teams where you have two great wide receivers and they put up enough points. That's Gerald Bolden. Yeah. Back in the day. And I think the rule of thumb there is, are you going to start both of these guys? Yep. If you're going to draft these guys and say, I want to start both every week, then you're fine doing it. Here's an interesting one because this one will involve.

Speculation. You're in a PPR. Jarvis Landry and Devante Parker. Would you be willing to draft both of those guys? Yes, I would because of the value I'd get on Parker. Yeah, if you're getting a guy late. Because then you're playing into him having this tremendous upside, but you're not risking as much. But that's Parker. That puts him in the Decker range from last year. I think Parker will be a ninth round. Yeah, and I would do that, yes, for the upside.