Rate my FF Draft!!!

[wh1t3bread]

10 team league. Normal Yahoo-type scoring. 1 QB, 3 WR, 2 RB, 1 WR/RB, TE, DEF, K.

Thanks in advance....

1. (8) D. McAllister
2. (13) D. Davis
3. (28) S. Jackson
4. (33) J. Walker
5. (48) A. Boldin
6. (53) C. Williams
7. (68) Ro. Williams
8. (73) J. Plummer
9. (88) L. Evans
10. (93) J. Bettis
11. (108) E. Kennison
12. (113) C. Palmer
13. (128) Da. Clark
14. (133) Cincinnati
15. (148) L. Suggs
16. (153) B. Cundiff

My 6th round pick is a mistake that I will point out right away. I ran out of time and couldn't make up my mind and just took the highest "Yahoo Ranked" RB available at that spot. Bennett/Suggs were still available and I think I should have taken one of them instead. Still grabbed one much later at least.

[brettbrettr]

Suggs and Cadillac look like good picks. Stephen Jackson looks like a reach there. The Cincy D was def a waste. Jake looks like a reach, Carson could be a good pick there. Kennison?

[Wes ManTooth]

I think...
3. (28) S. Jackson
6. (53) C. Williams
11. (108) E. Kennison
were taken too early, but perhaps during the season you will be able to trade and upgrade for better QB

[McGahee]

You drafted Plummer 4 rounds ahead of Palmer?

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]
You drafted Plummer 4 rounds ahead of Palmer?

[/ QUOTE ]

You think Palmer is a better fantasy QB then Plummer?

Plummer: 4089 Yards, 27 TD's
Palmer: 2897 Yards, 18 TD's

[wh1t3bread]

I agree about Jackson and Cadillac maybe a bit too early. But I'm not sure about the Kennison pick being too early.

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]
Suggs and Cadillac look like good picks. Stephen Jackson looks like a reach there. The Cincy D was def a waste. Jake looks like a reach, Carson could be a good pick there. Kennison?

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking the Cincy D was probably a mistake. I probably shouldn't have even drafted a DEF at all.

Alot of Kennison hate here, he is the Chiefs #1 receiver isn't he? I also had to keep bye weeks in mind, this was a big reason I took him there.

The next QB's off the board (after Plummer) were: Roethlisberger, Delhomme, Pennington, and Brooks. Is Plummer really worse (fantasy wise) then those guys?

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You drafted Plummer 4 rounds ahead of Palmer?

[/ QUOTE ]

You think Palmer is a better fantasy QB then Plummer?

Plummer: 4089 Yards, 27 TD's
Palmer: 2897 Yards, 18 TD's

[/ QUOTE ]

Admittadly I was not aware the discrepancy was that great last year, but I do expect the gap to close by a lot if not entirely with Palmer entering his 2nd season with a good supporting cast.
Of course every fantasy magazine seems to disagree with me as well; and Plummer does play 25% of his games against the Raiders and Chiefs.

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]

Admittadly I was not aware the discrepancy was that great last year, but I do expect the gap to close by a lot if not entirely with Palmer entering his 2nd season with a good supporting cast.
Of course every fantasy magazine seems to disagree with me as well; and Plummer does play 25% of his games against the Raiders and Chiefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent points about who Denver plays and who Cincy plays. I also expect Palmer to close that gap, which is a big reason I drafted him. Having both rostered should be a good thing. Thanks for the comments.

[SossMan]

1. (8) D. McAllister ----nice value there
2. (13) D. Davis ----nice pick
3. (28) S. Jackson ---- def a reach here, there should have been a good rec available or better RB
4. (33) J. Walker ---good value
5. (48) A. Boldin ---meh..i'm not high on him, but ok
6. (53) C. Williams -- I like this pick, actually
7. (68) Ro. Williams -- decent
8. (73) J. Plummer -- decent
9. (88) L. Evans -- meh
10. (93) J. Bettis -- good
11. (108) E. Kennison -- boom/bust it's okay
12. (113) C. Palmer -- wow, great value there
13. (128) Da. Clark -- very nice
14. (133) Cincinnati -- eeeew
15. (148) L. Suggs -- very nice
16. (153) B. Cundiff -- had to be better options, right?