By Trent Modglin
Dec. 1, 2004

A lot of fantasy football banter gets tossed about at Pro Football Weekly’s home base, but to get a good feel for the rest of the media circuit, we decided to seek the opinions of other influential fantasy football scribes to get a better overall glimpse of just what we’ve seen this year and what we can expect down the road.

Below is the online portion of a two-part poll in which participants answered questions involving the present and future of fantasy football. (The print portion, with different questions, can be found in the current print edition of Pro Football Weekly, available at newsstands, by mail if you phone 1-800-FOOTBALL, or online at PFWstore.com.) Contributors included: Russell Bliss (KDUS Radio, Phoenix), Adam Caplan (FootballInjuries.com), Tristan Cockcroft (ESPN.com), Michael Fabiano (CBS Sportsline.com), Pat Fitzmaurice (ProFootballWeekly.com’s Fantasy Inner Circle), John Hansen (FantasyGuru.com), Ryan Houston (FantasyAsylum.com), K.C. Joyner (TheFootballScientist.com), Tom Kessenich (FantasySportsMag.com), Jack Pullman (AllProPublishing.com) and James Quintong (SportsIllustrated.com).

1. Name three young players who have to be considered for keeper leagues.

Bliss: Steven Jackson — He’s a bigger version of a young Marshall Faulk next year. Roy Williams — Until the high ankle sprain, Williams was looking better than Anquan Boldin from last year and as dominant a WR as Randy Moss. Williams is going to be special. Eli Manning — If he turns out to be anything like his brother, he’s a fantasy franchise QB for the next decade.

Caplan: LaDainian Tomlinson, Antonio Gates, Michael Clayton.

Cockcroft: Eli Manning, who showed enough poise in his debut to suggest he'll be ready to make a fantasy impact by 2005. Willis McGahee, who should be a top-10 back, if not top-five. And Larry Fitzgerald, who would have been a top option this year with a better quarterback.

Fabiano: Steven Jackson, Chris Brown and Roy Williams are three of the league's most impressive young players. All warrant serious consideration.

Fitzmaurice: Willis McGahee, Michael Clayton, Antonio Gates. Of all these guys, Clayton will probably be the best value, just because he hasn’t caught a lot of TD passes. I think he’ll be a top-five receiver within two years.

Hansen: Antonio Gates, Michael Clayton, Roy Williams.

Houston: Chris Brown — Despite nagging injuries, Brown looks like a top-five RB in years to come. Willis McGahee — Move over Travis Henry, there is a new star in town. Julius Jones — Hopefully the Thanksgiving performance was an eye opener for you, but this kid has solid skills and will be the Cowboys’ starting RB in 2005.

Joyner: Michael Clayton, Kevin Jones, Kyle Boller. Clayton is a superstar in the making. Mooch has always had a strong running game, and if he addresses the O-line in the offseason, Jones could start putting up some numbers. Now that the Ravens are getting players back from injuries, Boller is starting to show why Billick thinks so highly of him.

Kessenich: Willis McGahee, Steven Jackson and Julius Jones.

Pullman: Pass.

Quintong: Ben Roethlisberger — Pretty obvious, although I'm still waiting for the breakout fantasy game. Julius Jones — He's coming on very, very late and is in a run-friendly Dallas offense. Steven Jackson — He may be the main man in St. Louis sooner rather than later.

2. Whom would you draft first next August: Matt Hasselbeck, Chad Pennington, Byron Leftwich or David Carr?

Bliss: Byron Leftwich.

Caplan: Matt Hasselbeck. He has an excellent offensive line, solid running game and a solid group of receivers to work with.

Cockcroft: That's so close it's almost impossible to call today. But if it's already August, I'm taking Carr, just because I think he has the most untapped upside.

Fabiano: I happen to be a big fan of Leftwich, who has taken steps in his second season and should be a top-10 fantasy quarterback next season.

Fitzmaurice: Leftwich. With Hasselbeck and Pennington, the bloom is off the rose, so to speak. Pennington has officially earned the “injury-prone” tag. Leftwich is easily the best pure passer of the bunch. I think he’s going to be putting up Warren Moon-type numbers in the years to come. I like Carr, but he seems sort of TD-challenged.

Hansen: Hasselbeck.

Houston: Byron Leftwich. I'd consider Carr a close second option, with Hasselbeck and Pennington further down the line. The Jaguars will continue to get better on both sides of the ball and put weapons around Leftwich. The Texans will do the same, but Carr took a step back over the last three weeks. Hasselbeck and Pennington scare me, as both teams will be facing cap problems and Hasselbeck may be looking at a team without Shaun Alexander running behind him.

Joyner: David Carr. None of the others have a receiver as young and as good as Andre Johnson.

Kessenich: David Carr.

Pullman: Leftwich.

Quintong: I'd take Carr because he has one stud receiver in Andre Johnson, a solid pass-catching back in Domanick Davis and a bunch of decent other targets. He's due for a breakout next year.

3. Two sentences on what we should expect from Michael Vick next season.

Bliss: Vick will throw for more than 3,000 yards. Vick will score more than 25 combined touchdowns.

Caplan: In his second season in the Falcons' version of the West Coast offense, Vick should show more maturity and discipline. This will help him make more plays, and he should be more accurate. He already has an excellent tight end in Alge Crumpler and a solid running game to set up the passing game.

Cockcroft: I see about 3,000 passing yards, 800 rushing yards and around 22 combined touchdowns. I think his ability as a runner is actually detracting from the fact that he has quite a talented arm, and once he loses a little mobility, as he should the next few years, we'll finally begin to see what he can really do.

Fabiano: Vick needs to incorporate the West Coast offense with his skills as a runner, a la Steve Young. If he does that, he will be a solid second- or third-round selection.

Fitzmaurice: More of the same from Mr. Erratic. He can win or lose games for you single-handedly. He’ll never be accurate enough as a passer to be a truly elite fantasy performer.

Hansen: If healthy, he'll be more consistent and will carry fantasy owners 4-5 times. He'll finish as a top-five fantasy QB.

Houston: I believe you will see further development and exceptional play from Vick next year. The coaching staff will continue to develop a system around their superstar that will take advantage of mismatches and allow Vick to do what he does best: make plays.

Joyner: We'll find out if he's the next Randall Cunningham or the next Steve Young.  It'll be a damn shame if they settle for him becoming the next Cunningham because Vick is talented enough to be the next Young.

Kessenich: More of the same. Until he demonstrates a consistent ability to throw the football effectively, he'll be more hype than production.

Pullman: Better passing. Less rushing.

Quintong: He'll pick up the West Coast offense a little more and actually win games using his arm. However, he'll still find a number of ways to win with his legs, which may unfortunately also lead to another big injury.

4. Who is the most underrated fantasy player?

Bliss: Jimmy Smith. What does this guy have to do to get the respect he earns almost every week?

Caplan: Believe it or not, Shaun Alexander. He went anywhere from No. 3 to No. 8 in drafts, yet he's probably as consistent as any back and never misses any playing time.

Cockcroft: I think it just might be Trent Green, who never seems to be considered among the top-five fantasy picks at his position. Nevertheless, while everyone else talks about Priest Holmes, Green is on pace for his third straight year of at least 3,600 passing yards and 24 touchdowns.

Fabiano: Shaun Alexander is an absolute stud, but he receives few accolades because he plays in Seattle. He could be more valuable than Priest Holmes next season.

Fitzmaurice: Jimmy Smith. Every year, every league I’m in, he’s drafted too low. Hence, I’ve probably had him on about half of my fantasy teams over the last 5-6 years, and I’ve never been disappointed. This will be his eighth 1,000-yard season in nine years, and he would have been 9-for-9 if not the drug suspension last year. And he’s usually good for 7-8 TD catches a year. Yet for some reason, fantasy owners have never embraced this guy. I don’t get it.

Hansen: Tom Brady.

Houston: Curtis Martin. The guy has been getting it done for years, and every year he keeps dropping in the draft. He'll drop next year despite a huge season simply because of his age.

Joyner: Any top-level No. 3 receiver (Brandon Stokley, Javon Walker, Marcus Robinson, etc.).  Everyone gets so wrapped up in low-level RBs that these guys frequently get passed over, and these are players who can give you 10- to 20-point performances when their matchups are favorable.

Kessenich: Brett Favre. I'm always amazed how late I can get Favre in Expert League drafts. Why people were taking guys like Vick, Hasselbeck and even Pennington ahead of him this year was something I never understood. He's a lock for 30 TDs a season, even with Ahman Green being a focal point of the offense. And you know he never misses a game, which is an added bonus.

Pullman: Trent Green.

Quintong: Derrick Mason. He's not as electrifying as Randy Moss or Terrell Owens, but he always seems good for about 80-90 yards and a score, and he'll have enough 100-yard games to catch your attention.

5. Who has been the best fantasy rookie?

Bliss: Michael Clayton. Easily.

Caplan: Michael Clayton. He has already proved that you don't have to run fast to be effective.

Cockcroft: I'm tempted to say San Diego kicker Nate Kaeding, but I think the most fantasy owners have benefited from Larry Fitzgerald's fine first season.

Fabiano: Roy Williams has been solid, but injuries have hindered his statistics. I'll go with Michael Clayton, who has quietly been the best rookie in fantasy football.

Fitzmaurice: It definitely isn’t Ben Roethlisberger. He’s a much better real-life quarterback than fantasy quarterback. I’ve gotta go with Michael Clayton, who’s going to finish with 1,000 yards and 5-6 TDs. None of the rookie running backs have made a splash, which is sort of unusual.

Hansen: Michael Clayton.

Houston: Michael Clayton. You can make a case for a few others, but Clayton has been the focal point of the Bucs’ offense. If the Bucs continue to revamp their offense, there is no reason to believe he won't become the next Javon Walker.

Joyner: Either Roy Williams or Willis McGahee. It's probably Williams right now, but it will likely be McGahee by the end of the year.

Kessenich: Michael Clayton.

Pullman: Fitzgerald (in an weak overall showing by rookies).

Quintong: Despite his ups and downs, it's still Roy Williams, although that could change by the end of the year. Ben Roethlisberger has been consistent, but he hasn't done anything eye-popping.

6. Will the emergence of several tight ends (Antonio Gates, Eric Johnson, Jason Witten, etc.) this year dramatically impact how you'll view the position in the future?

Bliss: No. I’ve held to a philosophy of waiting until the mid-to-late rounds to get a TE each year, and with the emergence of several more that are putting up numbers this season, I feel it’s even better to wait to get one. There’s always going to be a hidden gem. All three (Gates, Johnson and Witten) could have been had in the last half of every draft this past August.

Caplan: It proves that you can wait until at least the seventh round to get one. It's a position that's deeper than ever.

Cockcroft: Yes. With so many good tight ends now available, it makes picking one even less important until the later rounds of your draft. No longer will we see Tony Gonzalez picked in the second or third round.

Fabiano: Absolutely. Some of the better tight ends will produce numbers similar to that of a wide receiver, so I'll be looking to secure the position earlier than in the past. 

Fitzmaurice: Somewhat differently. I think it slightly devalues the top guys. Before, having Tony Gonzalez was a huge advantage if your league required you to use a tight end. Now, if you don’t get one Gonzalez or Antonio Gates, you’ll still be able to pick up Crumpler, Witten, Clark, Shockey, Winslow, etc. Gonzalez and Gates still have a lot of value, but there’ll be a little less incentive to spend an early pick on one of them.

Hansen: Not really. I never take Gonzalez, etc. I always target guys who fit Gates' profile.

Houston: Definitely. It used to be that Gonzalez and Heap were the only "commodities" at this position. The resurgence at the position makes it paramount that you have a solid option to counter your opponent’s points at that position.

Joyner: It's still a top-heavy position with a bunch of drop-off after that. You still have Gates and Gonzo and possibly Crumpler and Witten as the best, then Johnson and possibly Shockey if the Giants ever learn how to get him the ball. One change I've seen is that I've had a number of subscribers tell me they are in leagues that emphasize TE performance over WR performance. One subscriber is in a league that actually gives triple value to the TE yardage. It's obviously imperative you get a top TE in those leagues.

Kessenich: I probably won't wait until the very end of the draft to take a TE next year (which is where I got guys like Gates and McMichael this year), but I still won't reach early for one. If anything, the number of talented TEs emerging this year means there will be more depth at the position in 2005, which will push players lower in the draft so you won't have to reach too early to get a good one. My philosophy will basically be the same — you can wait on TEs — I just probably won't wait quite as long as I typically prefer to do.

Pullman: If you don't get a good one, you'll be sorry.

Quintong: I don't think so. I always thought there are a couple of major studs, followed by a handful of decent threats. Many of these guys are still inconsistent from a week-to-week basis, so it's best not to go too overboard on them. Remember, Todd Heap was among the stud tight ends entering this year.

7. Do you prefer individual defensive players (IDPs) or team defenses, and why?

Bliss: I prefer IDPs because it adds another element of strategy to drafts, auctions and free agency. Team defenses are easier to deal with, but IDPs allow you to have good players from bad team defenses. It also makes you focus more on knowing which players on a defense are important to their teams’ success. Just like there are good NFL quarterbacks who don’t necessarily make good fantasy quarterbacks, there are good NFL defensive tackles and ends who don’t make good fantasy ones. And there’s always going to be some owners in a fantasy league who don’t recognize that. That’s an advantage I can exploit.

Caplan: Defensive players because you can learn about defenses and players better by playing in these types of leagues, and it's also challenging.

Cockcroft: Team defenses. I feel like this game is decided enough by luck, and trying to pick which defender is going to be his team's leader in sacks or who is going to get the game's only interception makes it even more of a crapshoot. It's no fun to have more spots to do research on each week if you know you'd have just as good a chance guessing.

Fabiano: IDP leagues are a lot of fun, but I prefer the team defense and special teams. No real reason, I guess I'm just a traditionalist!

Fitzmaurice: Neither. But if defenses need to be involved, I prefer team defenses.

Hansen: No preference.

Houston: Individual defensive players. Anybody can choose a defense and anybody can choose the defense playing against the Dolphins each week. When it comes to IDPs, you have to bring some solid skill to the table, as they are nearly as important as RBs and WRs in most leagues. There is nothing that can match a full IDP-based league.

Joyner: Team defense. I don't like IDP simply because you don't end up choosing the best players. Any league that gives more points to a team having Ahmad Carroll over Champ Bailey strikes me as being out of whack.

Kessenich: Team defense, although I don't have a strong preference either way to be honest. I'd pick team defense probably because I'm more used to team defense leagues as opposed to IDP ones.

Pullman: Team defense. I have enough to do without tracking IDPs.

Quintong: For tracking purposes, I like team defenses, since it's easier to draft, count up points, etc. However, it's a variable position, and scoring big points is usually contingent on scoring TDs, which the best defenses don't always do. IDPs are good, but those stats can sometimes get inflated based on where you're playing. Interceptions are easy enough to count, but tackles and sacks can be at the whim of the local scorekeeper.

8. Other than the Colts, which team offers the most fantasy talent in the league?

Bliss: Tough call, but I’d say the Minnesota Vikings. QB, multiple RBs (if they could just choose one), 3-4 WRs worth considering and a TE.

Caplan: You can make an argument for a lot of teams, but it would be hard to argue with the talent that the Vikings have on offense. They really don't have a weakness at any position.

Cockcroft: New England still offers quality fantasy starters at every position, although San Diego and Green Bay aren't far behind in depth.

Fabiano: The Packers have a lot of talent and come a distant second to the Colts. Brett Favre remains solid, Ahman Green is a productive back, Javon Walker and Donald Driver have become an incredible duo, Bubba Franks still has value as a starter and Ryan Longwell remains a nice option at the kicker position.

Fitzmaurice: Good lord … it’s the Chargers. Who’d have imagined? LaDainian Tomlinson and Antonio Gates are two of the 12 most valuable fantasy performers in the league. Drew Brees, Keenan McCardell and Nate Kaeding are solid starters.

Hansen: Vikings.

Houston: Green Bay Packers. I know many will argue Minnesota; however, Brett Favre, Ahman Green, Javon Walker, Donald Driver and occasionally Bubba Franks offer you a lot of talent at every key position.

Joyner: I'd have to say the Packers in a photo finish with the Vikings. I choose the Pack because of Ahman Green vs. the Vikings' ongoing merry-go-round at RB. If anyone can figure out who Mike Tice is really going to start, please call me and let me know.

Kessenich: Chiefs. They have a great RB when Holmes is healthy, two underrated fantasy WRs in Morton and Kennison, a stud TE in Gonzalez, plus a terrific QB in Green. If the Vikings ever picked one RB and went with him, though, I'd give them the edge due to Moss' talent at WR and the emergence of Wiggins at TE. 

Pullman: Chiefs, just ahead of the Broncos.

Quintong: When on their game, the Packers provide a bunch of decent options. Obviously, there's Brett Favre, but Ahman Green and Javon Walker are among the tops at their positions. Donald Driver and even Robert Ferguson have their moments, and you can get decent production from Bubba Franks as well.

9. With the rash of injuries and the lackluster numbers from some supposed stars, do you think the general emphasis on drafting running backs early will change at all?

Bliss: No. The premium will always be on RBs until it becomes optional in every league to only start one instead of it being mandatory to start two. There just isn’t that many to go around.

Caplan: Probably not because there is still a huge talent drop-off after the top 12-15.

Cockcroft: That's the primary reason there is an emphasis on drafting running backs early. After all, Peyton Manning and Daunte Culpepper are still the only two clear-cut top quarterbacks, so who are you going to take, Drew Brees based on one good year or Shaun Alexander?

Fabiano: In leagues where owners are rewarded for receptions, I think wide receivers and tight ends will be more prominent than in the past. But overall, the lack of true featured backs still makes the position important in the early rounds.

Fitzmaurice: Yeah, I think we’ll see a slight change. The top guys — Holmes, Tomlinson, Alexander — will still be highly coveted, but Manning and Culpepper (and maybe McNabb, too) will be drafted earlier than ever before, partly because of what they’re doing this season, partly because there will be fewer “sure thing” RBs heading into next year’s draft.

Hansen: Yes, I think you have to get the best players available, regardless of position. That, to me, means taking Manning or Culpepper in the first if need be.

Houston: No. What lesson I have learned is to quit worrying about guys with potential (Kevan Barlow) and don't be afraid to take someone with some history (Curtis Martin).

Joyner: I think this year has shown the need for quality depth, and that will change a lot of minds about being RB heavy. I have some subscribers who are still in two-RB/two-WR leagues, but I have a number of others who are in leagues that allow a WR/RB position, and many of them are choosing WRs.

Kessenich: Doubtful. Given the success of guys like Muhsin Muhammad and Reggie Wayne, that only reinforces the belief you can find quality WRs later in your drafts. And despite what we're seeing from Manning, Culpepper and to a lesser extent McNabb, I doubt many people will back off the belief that you can find a quality QB later as well. I would expect the run on RBs to be fast and furious again next year.

Pullman: In my "experts league" (the one in which I took Portis No. 3 overall) I got Manning with the 26th overall pick (second round). I think most experts are too RB crazy.

Quintong: I don't think so. There's still a supply-and-demand issue with consistent stud running backs, and you're better off starting with somewhat sure things rather than hoping that a Reuben Droughns shows up.

10. Who starts at RB in Week One for St. Louis next year?

Bliss: Steven Jackson.

Caplan: Steven Jackson. They'll reduce Marshall Faulk's role to third down and passing situations.

Cockcroft: Steven Jackson. Marshall Faulk is nearing the end of the line.

Fabiano: No doubt about it, Jackson. Faulk has been a great running back and will grace the halls of Canton someday, but Jackson must become the focal point of the offense.

Fitzmaurice: Marshall Faulk, only because Mike Martz is too stubborn and/or stupid to do the right thing and start Steven Jackson.

Hansen: Steven Jackson.

Houston: Marshall Faulk. While I would love to believe that Steven Jackson is the starter, as long as Mike Martz is the coach, there is no reason to believe they would move Marshall Faulk to the second RB spot. It will not happen. If Faulk gets traded or let go in the offseason, then all bets are off and Jackson will be a stud in 2005.

Joyner: Marshall Faulk if he doesn't retire. They won't make him become a bench player, but they will keep spelling him frequently.

Kessenich: Steven Jackson.

Pullman: Jackson.

Quintong: Steven Jackson. As much as I like Marshall Faulk, you've got to wonder how much he really has left, or what the Rams are willing to do to keep him.

11. If you were running behind the Kansas City offensive line against the Saints' defense, how many yards could you get with 25 carries?

Bliss: Heck, if I survived more than five hits I’d be amazed! But watching the way the Saints get blown off the ball, if I could stay healthy for 25 carries, I’d say I could get about 75 yards total.

Caplan: Probably 75. By watching (the Chiefs), you just have to let the play develop.

Cockcroft: Let's be realistic. I've never played organized football and the pizza, beer and ice cream surely haven't helped over the years. I'd say one carry of five yards before an injury, which really isn't as bad as it sounds, and if you had to force me to take the next 24, deduct a yard for each.

Fabiano: With a reconstructed right knee that's needed two surgeries (yes, some fantasy experts actually play sports), I think I'd make one cut on the turf and fall like Jamal Anderson.

Fitzmaurice: Assuming that my padding was augmented by a thick Nerf coating, allowing me to avoid excessive bodily harm, I think I could get 50 yards.

Hansen: 50. I'm not lying.

Houston: I'd get about nine carries, and when my yards-per-carry average was 1.0, they would decide they'd need to throw more.

Joyner: The NFL average for yards per carry is about 4.0. I figure I could get at least half of that just by falling down. 75 yards.

Kessenich: 195. You meant through three quarters, right?

Pullman: Minus-10.

Quintong: Let's say 235 yards — I might get stopped at the five a couple of times, leading to some short-yardage TDs and bringing down the average.

For more questions and answers from the above fantasy experts, read the current print edition (Vol. XIX, No. 21, dated Dec. 6, 2004) of Pro Football Weekly. The print edition is available online at  PFWstore.com, at newsstands or by mail if you phone 1-800-FOOTBALL.