A:

I’m not sure there are any running backs who are sure to be selected in the first round. I see that LaMichael James says he’s returning to Oregon. Mark Ingram has won a Heisman, but I don’t think he’s even the best back on his college team. Unless a back is special – an Adrian Peterson type guy – you don’t take him with a top-20 pick. The smarter model seems to be selecting running backs in the second and third rounds – going into the late first if they’re a little better than those guys. So it doesn’t really matter where NFL teams finish, since all clubs have the ability to move around in that draft area to pick up the player they want (as the Lions did last year, when they traded up into the late first round to select Jahvid Best). The more compelling issue is need – which teams are most interested in adding a running back? In no particular order, I see the following teams as potentially interest in a first- or second-string running back in the first three rounds of the draft: Miami, New England (tends to prefer veterans), Jets (Tomlinson is 31), Baltimore (McGahee might not be back), Cincinnati, Kansas City (Thomas Jones is 32), Giants, Washington, Chicago (Chester Taylor is 31), Green Bay, New Orleans, St. Louis (a No. 2), Atlanta (maybe a No. 2 back), San Francisco (Frank Gore is starting to get older) and Seattle (probably as a No. 2). Cleveland and Houston also need help at the position, but have good starters and selected players in the second round last year who were hurt all season. Some of these holes, of course, will be filled by veterans. DeAngelo Williams won’t be back in Carolina, and he’s better than anybody in the draft. The Cowboys have three runners, so they could unload one of them (Marion Barber, most likely). Of the group of teams I mentioned, teams potentially most in need of a new starting running back – a butt-kicker who can carry the ball 15-20 times per game – would be Washington and Miami. Seattle hasn't been able to run the ball, but I think the line is the bigger concern -- Marshawn Lynch should be their starter, and he's fine.

• Comments
• Add Comment

A:

Thanks for the nice words. I am not a big Tebow fan, but I find him to be an interesting prospect in fantasy terms because of that running ability. Most fantasy scoring systems are hopelessly slanted in favor of running quarterbacks, with that rushing production typically doubled. And in the case of Tebow, we have a guy who’s very similar physically to David Garrard, but with more of a running mentality. Based on the way he plays and the way he ran the offense in Florida, I think there’s a chance he’ll score half of his team’s rushing touchdowns next year. I think he easily could run for 600 yards and 8 TDs next year, and that gives him a big edge against less mobile quarterbacks. Sam Bradford, for example, maybe passes for 240 yards per game next year, with 24 TDs. But Bradford does nothing as a runner. Under that scenario, if Tebow posts the rushing numbers I mentioned, he would need to average only 180 passing yards, with 12 TD passes, to be a better fantasy quarterback. I’m not dissing Bradford, and I’m not at this point saying Tebow will be better in 2011. Durability must be considered (Tebow is far more likely to be injured or pulled from the starting line). But that ball is in play. Running quarterbacks do bring an extra dimension to the offense.

• Comments
• Add Comment

A:

I think Bradford will outperform Brady this week; I know the Patriots usually play their regulars in these kind of games, but I just fear that Brady might sit down at halftime or early in the third quarter. I would be more comfortable riding with Bradford for a full game against a struggling Seattle defense (or picking up a good free agent, like Stephen McGee of Dallas). At running back, don’t underestimate Hillis’ production as a pass catcher; I think that puts him ahead of Jacobs. At wide receiver, Colston underwent knee surgery, so he’s not a factor. I think it’s Manningham and Austin.

• Comments
• Add Comment

A:

1987 was our first year, so you’re one of the originals – thank you. If you want to get into total points, rather than head to head, you’ll probably have more luck with the national contests. I think that’s where a lot of the serious players go, rather than the guys who simply want to enjoy to comraderie of talking with some smack around the water cooler.

• Comments
• Add Comment

A:

At wide receiver, it looks pretty easy. Mario Manningham is the clear go-to guy for the Giants now, and it doesn’t look like Andre Johnson will play, so I think Jacoby Jones is the other starter. The wild card is Calvin Johnson if it looks like he’s reasonably healthy on Sunday, you could squeeze him in there. But I’m not counting on that. At quarterback, my tentative plan would be to go with Stephen McGee. Jon Kitna hasn’t been practicing, so McGee looks certain to start, and that’s a game where you have the Dallas starters going against a Philadelphia team that’s holding out a bunch of regulars. McGee looked pretty solid last week, completing 11 of 17 passes, with a touchdown, in a half, and he’s also a willing and able scrambler – I think he might run for 30-40 yards. So he’s kind of this week’s Tim Tebow. Shaun Hill and Sam Bradford would be the other guys I would be thinking about in the hours before kickoffs, but I believe it will be McGee. In the wild and wacky Week 17, with teams playing with different agendas, I think he could be a top-5 quarterback.

• Comments
• Add Comment

A:

Congrats on a great season (actually three of them). Always nice to get correspondence from the neighborhood (even if they have way too many speed traps in Lake Forest Park).

• Comments
• Add Comment

A:

Looks like your guys finished with 176 more total yards. My guys finished with 5 more touchdowns. Sorry Rashad Jennings didn’t give you more – I thought he would really light it up against that defense. Hope it worked out OK for you.

• Comments
• Add Comment