FanNation - The Republic of Sport

CCC- i see 9-1 coming here! lol good luck

It depends, if your in a keeper league I would take Peterson #2 in a heartbeat

NO WAY! but why type somethin out here, I put it all down here http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/233835

It depends on what you are looking for. Last year, Westbrook had more points than Peterson, but with Peterson missing 2 games, and the last 2 games it was obvious the Vikings decided to barely play him, Peterson averaged more points per game when he played otherwise, and for those weeks, a different player could have started instead of Peterson and overall the value would be higher than Westbrook. In leagues where value is assigned per catch, Westbrook should definately be the #2 back, Peterson #3. Keeper has Peterson at #2, and other leagues it is personal choice. Hindsight is always 20-20, and Peterson has shown that he has the potential to be the highest scoring player in fantasy football if he stays healthy, so where he goes in the draft is based on personal choice. The high risk/high payoff people might pick him as the #1 pick (I don't agree with this, but it does happen in some leagues). People who like some risk pick him at #2, and people who like consistency would pick Westbrook before Peterson. To say what should be done or not done can only be said in hindsight, and predictions like this are pointless, as there just is no way to know. Shame on you, CCC.

Brian Westbrook at 2

My draft is at 5am Pacific Time (damn my east coast friends) tomorrow. I have the 3rd pick though

AP is injury prone, and he also follows up 200 yard games with 20 yard games. What's more, touchdowns are what really matter in FFB, and he only had 12. I'd take Westbrook AND Steven Jackson before him at #2.

AP is injury prone, and he also follows up 200 yard games with 20 yard games. What's more, touchdowns are what really matter in FFB, and he only had 12. I'd take Westbrook AND Steven Jackson before him at #2.
Favrefan says GO USA!! | 08/30/08, 12:02 PM

Only had 12! That was the second most rushing TD's in all of football.

12 TOTAL TDs. He is not a threat as a receiver. He is injury prone. He is inconsistent. If it wasn't for his one huge game against Sand Diego, none of us would be high on him. It takes more than one game to get me on the bandwagon. If he's healthy for a year and shows to be more than just a breakaway threat, I'll jump on.

Look I am not here to defend the guy, but the statement made no sense. He was 6th in the NFL in total TD's with 13 and 3rd among all running backs. More than Westbrook has ever had in a season. I still have Westbrook ahead of him but not for the TD reason.

Jackson had one good year himself, then got hurt. I don't want to here about his injury being why they didn't play well the Rams were 3 and 9 with Jackson and played like crap before he got hurt. The O-Line is pitiful and I just don't see how Jackson can be any higher than Peterson. Both have a lot to prove. No O-line means no where to run.

What exactly does team success have to do with fantasy football? Jackson was hurt last year but has no other history of injury in his college or pro career. AP was hurt all through college and missed two more games in his first pro season. Furthermore, Jackson is a much bigger receiving threat than AP, who is useless on anything more than screens.

What's more, the Vikings have no passing offense and thus teams are stacking the box, whereas the Rams still have some semblence of passing ability. I'd take Jackson over Peterson, and I can promise Jackson will have a better year.

This is all completely relative to the scoring system of the league you're in. Not to mention the fact that predicting whoever will be the "second best Fantasy player" (whatever that means) is as arbitrary as it gets. I bet no one had Randy Moss as the top WR in the league last year, either. I'll bet it won't be Adrian Peterson simply because it could be anyone.

In saying that, it could be AP, it could be Ahmad Bradshaw for all we know right now.

Well, yes that is true but not too beneficial in the sake of argument. This isn't about settling an argument, this is about exploring one. Or something deep and philosophical like that.

So if AP falls in the woods, does anyone in Green Bay care? That kinda thing?

I'm a firm believer that drafting stand alone starting RB's (no platoon) and #1 WR's no matter how bad the team is - is the way to do well in any league. It's why Westbrook is far more valuable than AP in my opinion. And also why LDT is the sure #1 pick. Just my thoughts.

Even though I just drafted Peterson. I agree, CCC. I wanted Westbrook, but he was taken at 2.

Yes, I agree, I would take Westbrook over Peterson, but I don't think Peterson's only going to get 140 touches this year like he did last year. He's versatile and has good receiving skills, the Vikings just didn't use him on third downs.

Peterson had 257 touches, and you can expect him to get a similar amount this year in a platoon offense with Chester Taylor. Furthermore, he has done nothing to display good receiving skills at any level. He's not an all purpose back, at least not yet.

"Yes, I agree, I would take Westbrook over Peterson, but I don't think Peterson's only going to get 140 touches this year like he did last year."

What are you talking about Cooz? Peterson carried the ball 238 times last year. As far as "good receiving skills" I think you have him confused with the other Adrian Peterson...

"Only had 12! That was the second most rushing TD's in all of football."

Meaningless. 6 of the 12 came in his two 220+yd games. All that really did was pile on points for his owners who were likely going to win their week just off his yards alone. He didn't score at all in 7 of his 14 games. In the seven games he didn't score, he also only surpassed 70 yards once. I can't use the 2nd overall pick on a guy who is going to do virtually nothing for my team in half the games he plays in.