clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Fantasy Player Rankings

I received an email not too long ago from a reader asking me how to draft a good team. I'm not a bad FF player, but not a terribly great one either, so I didn't have much of an answer. However, since I recently ranted against FF, and BnG announced the Hogs Haven Fantasy Football League, why not throw up some Redskins relevant running back Fantasy rankings, complements Pro Fantasy Sports?

Clinton Portis, #17th RB

Without a doubt, one of the biggest fantasy disappointments of 2006 was Portis. Injuries limited Portis to eight games and he rushed for a lackluster 523 yards and seven touchdowns - a big dropoff from previous years. The biggest Redskin development wasn't his injuries or struggles, but the emergence of Ladell Betts. Betts showed he can be a quality running back in this league, which may impact the amount of carries Portis will get.

Lassan says: It's hard to argue with Portis' past success, and the fact is, he's still young enough to be a 1,000-plus yard rusher every year. Betts will cut into his carries, but I think he'll bounce back to a 1,200-yard level in 2007.

Ladell Betts #40th RB
Clinton Portis' injury was Betts big gain last year. With Portis limited to eight games, Betts rushed for 1,154 yards and four touchdowns, while catching 53 passes for 445 yards. Needless to say, Betts' strong season has opened up more carries for him in 2007, and the Redskins won't be afraid to use him more this year.

Lassan says: Look for Betts to steal carries away from Portis, but he won't top 1,000 yards again. If Portis suffers more injuries, then Betts would be a great starter for any fantasy roster.

My opinion is that Portis is too low, specifically he should be above Edge, McGahee, and Ronnie Brown. Betts is fine, though if you plan on drafting CP as your RB you'd do well to draft Betts also, should any of those injuries linger (which they won't). By the way, in limited starts Ladell Betts had 1,599 rushing/receiving yards. Anyone who claims that we aren't one of the deepest backfields in the NFL is wrong.