Vince Young got the same score as his Wonderlic

...He wishes. V.Y. got a six.

yea, i pretty much don't agree with any of the posts here except wess and scott c's (except the point about garrard - i do think he is too high here considering he only had one good year that was just above average.)
warner was either #1 or #2 last year in points, and he's coming back to the same (or even slightly improved) offense. i think moving a top-2 guy to #12 is far enough to slide him down based on his age and durability.
bulger's the type of guy that you only play because of injuries and bye weeks at this point (i purposely said "and" rather than "or"...he's not even a first back-up).
someone said matt ryan only had one good year, but it was HIS ROOKIE YEAR! he just got into the league and hasn't even had a chance to develop and he was keeping up fantasy-wise with guys like big ben, schaub and elisha last year. totally warranted to expect greatness and reach the top tier within a year or two at this point.
just because a guy starts on an nfl team doesn't mean he's a good fantasy starter. i would rather have a high upside guy with potential to be great further down the line than a guy like delhomme on the end of my bench. you just never use guys like that unless you get murdered by injuries (or your team sucks).
finally, i agree that cassel is a system qb as well, but he just got traded into a similar system to the one he thrived in. not that he's a great qb by any stretch, but i like his ranking here (if garrard were toward the bottom of tier 5).

Great dynasty rankings. The only one I'd call on a little is Mike Vick. The media-hate circus and the fantasy nay-sayers who have always pointed out (rightfully so) that Vick isn't much of a passer often forget that fantasy and real life are quite different. In fantasy leagues, he's always been a stud and avg'ed high numbers because of his wheels. I think that he can re-enter the league with the same value as the likes of Stafford and Sanchez. Good buy low because you could get him for peanuts and the naysayers are dealing in real life terms, not fantasy production. Not to mention he never had a stud WR in his time. He's going to emerge in San Fran and be "the story of the year", be it this year or next.

Awesome rankings.

Some aspects of value depend upon how much your league trades. For example, this coming year Garrard has an incredibly easy schedule while Cassel has a brutally difficult one. If they're the same caliber QB (which is my evaluation), then at this time next year Garrard will be perceived as a much better QB than Cassel. (Garrard will also be operating in an improved offense in '09 while Cassel, as Wess pointed out in his article yesterday, is moving into a decimated one.)

Long term, Cassel has more value because he should continue to improve and has the skillset to be highly successful in the spread(ish) offense the Chiefs will eventually have the pieces to run. But by this time next year, Cassel will be seen as a bust. If you're interested in acquiring Cassel, you should be patient through the awful year he's about to have and pick him up next year at pennies on the dollar.

These are great rankings - I always like the Sons of the Tundra rankings - but the one guy I think is way out of position is Kyle Orton.

Orton is a guy who managed to drag himself out of the cesspool that is the Bears offensive philosophy and put together a decent year with no weapons, no playcalling, and crappy weather. Orton is another guy who has a brutal '09 schedule. (The AFC West has maybe the toughest non-division schedule in football, mitigated somewhat by getting to play each other twice - but the Broncos essentially have the 1st place schedule because Indy and NE also finished second.) However, his long term picture is at least two tiers higher than where he's ranked.

When you adjust for caliber of offense around them, Orton was at least as impressive as Cassel last year. Then he goes to a team with Marshall and Royal (and better peripheral pieces) while Cassel goes to a team with Dwayne "Stone Hands" Bowe and complete and utter garbage.

At worst, Orton should be at the top of Tier 4. Joe Flacco is a long way from showing NFL accuracy and lacks receivers in a run-first offense. His '09 value is minimal and long term is predicated mostly on the fact that he started and his team excelled when he was a rookie. His personal performance was not impressive. Trent Edwards has always been a vastly overrated reality quarterback and worthless fantasy QB. (His game last year against the Browns may have been the worst non-Leaf start in NFL history.) I love Lee Evans so I hope the acquisition of TO and rumored move to the no-huddle makes things work in Buffalo, but I'm not holding my breath.

Basically, you've got to believe the Broncos draft a first round QB in 2010 in order to rank any of those guys above Orton.

Wess,

In my dynasty league, we don't have the luxury of projecting 5 years out because we have player contracts that max out at 5 years. The point that I was trying to make was that when I think of what makes a player valuable from a dynasty perspective, you have to factor in a player's age. I have no problem with the "win now" idea, but that's more of a re-draft mindset. Isn't the whole concept of a dynasty league to build a team of players that are going to be good for years to come, so you can win now as well as for the next several years?

I'm not disagreeing with the rankings for Manning/Brady/Brees, and I definately see your point on Delhomme. It just seems like these rankings don't differ very much from a re-draft rankings list.

Wess -

1. Brees vs. Manning. Can't go wrong, but I'd take Brees. To each his own.

2. Ryan vs. Cutler/Rivers. Again, to each his own. You simply love Ryan more than I do. Not saying he's not good, just saying I think Rivers and Cutler are safer bets. Certainly I'm bummed Cutler went to Chicago. But if I'm not mistaken you were super high on Cutler last year (admittedly when he was at Denver) so the "head case" comment can't be much of a factor for you. Bottom line, we have a much larger sample size with Rivers and Cutler than Ryan, which makes them safer.

3. Warner vs. Palmer. As I said, you should happily plug in Warner if the rest of your team was ready to win now. But if it's not, it's silly to pass on Palmer for Warner (unless you can assume that you'll be able to trade Warner to a contender for more, and I don't know enough about your dynasty leagues to comment on that).

4. Garrard. No, no contradiction here. If Garrard was "consensus top 12," that's just another way of saying he's a bench QB. If you're starting Garrard, your team is in trouble. It's not because of last year's stats, it's because he'll never be a high fantasy scorer. As I said, it's one thing to take an older guy like Warner who can help you win now, but it must be one crazy dynasty league where the champ starts Garrard. As you say, when you're talking about a bench QB, why not go with youth and potential rather than a guy who is 32 and playing for a team that will never pass that much?

5. Personally, I think Quinn sucks and would be happy for every golder domer to struggle, but I can recognize that there is some percentage chance that I am wrong. Since again we are talking about bench QBs (we're now in QB3 land), why not take Quinn's upside over a stable but very very mediocre Hasselbeck?

6. Career stats:
Delhomme -- yards per game of 207.9, yards per attempt of 7.3, QB rating of 85.1, completion % of 59.7%, 1.51 TD/int ratio.
Hasselbeck -- yards per game of 165.8, yards per attempt of 7.0, QB rating of 84.5, completion % of 60.1%, 1.56 TD/int ratio.
They're the same dude. I think Delhomme even slept with Elizabeth Hasselbeck.
They're both past their prime and not real good. But at least Delhomme has better weapons.

8. As I said, I'm not a believer either, but when you're getting down into JaMarcus territory, you reach a point where the cost is so low that he's worth a shot. It was only about 9 months ago that some ill-informed pundits were jumping on the Campbell bandwagon. They were wrong, but there's some percentage chance that we're wrong too.