FOX Sports: Best RB Packages
 

Skins at #11

[url]http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2555938[/url]

I think we should be a bit higher than 11th but Minnesota and St. Louis should be at #1 and #2 with the slight edge going towards Minnesota.

Yeah, if Faulk is healthy, they're pretty damn lethal with Gordon and super-rook Jackson. All three can catch out of the backfield well too.

I'd say that the Bills and Steelers were seriously underated.

[QUOTE=Carnage]I'd say that the Bills and Steelers were seriously underated.[/QUOTE]

steelers r kinda on the bubble cuz bettis,even though he's a tough son of a gun, is definitely in a decline. I had similar thoughts about the bills, but I know I for one need proof Mcgahee is back to full strength before I think about rating them too high. plus henry, like ahman green, fumbles a lot and that should lower their value atleast a little.

wow, the bengals do have a pretty good picture at RB... i wish we kept watson, he's not a superstar, but he's solid...

the rankings do seem a bit off (i'd think the saints would be above the iggles, among other things), but i guess 9 of 32 isn't so terrible... considering we were competing for last place before portis came to town ;)

bengals are too high. Rookie backup, and rudi johnson had a decent year, 4.4 or 4.6 average, not quite 1,000 yards, hes a good back dont get me wrong, but i think they are a little too high. I like how the cowboys are so low...hehehe

yeah, i agree with the cowboys, and skins at 11, i must of been smoking crack when i said 9, sorry... eeb-kab (error exists between keyboard and brain... old IT dept slang)

I think the Bills should have been a bit higher.

[QUOTE=Carnage]I'd say that the Bills and Steelers were seriously underated.[/QUOTE]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you regarding the Steelers. Duce Staley is certainly a solid back, but Jerome Bettis is 50% what he used to be. If he averages more than 3.3/carry I think I'd be surprised.

I think he should be relegated to short yardage/goal line situations at this point in his career, a la Gerald Riggs in '91.

Bills should be a bit higher but who would you move down? I vote for the EAGLES!

Who thought it would be this tough to rank running backs?

Eagles should move down. theyre running backs are overrated. Neither of their running backs are stars, they are solid.

I like that we're 11, but I hope we play like top 5. I predict Betts is going to have a big impact, 7-10 tds.

[QUOTE=Drift Reality]I'm not entirely sure I agree with you regarding the Steelers. Duce Staley is certainly a solid back, but Jerome Bettis is 50% what he used to be. If he averages more than 3.3/carry I think I'd be surprised.

I think he should be relegated to short yardage/goal line situations at this point in his career, a la Gerald Riggs in '91.[/QUOTE]

Even if that's true, is there a better short yardage runner in the game today?

It's remarkable, though I suppose not surprising, to see teams with Emmitt Smith and Eddie George at the bottom of the rankings. Seems like only yesterday they were the league's elite

Maybe it's me, but these seem like the top premier backs in the league, with whatever trash backs them up =p

saints should be higher, iggles lower... (sorry, i like deuce:D)

I like how he puts in a good word for Betts and Morton backing up Portis (while trashing Spurrier :D ).

What's with them using the spear logo? I like it, but the retro uni's are two years ago.....get up to date!