Here is a mix of interesting questions I received from fantasy players this past week, and the response provided. If you have a question for the HTH Mailbag, just drop me an email.

Note that not all questions will be answered because it just isn't possible to respond to them all. Also there are no certainties in fantasy football. The responses represent one opinion to consider in your final decision managing your fantasy team. Overall, I just Hope This Helps...

Eric Johnson is a FA in our WCOFF league and we could use a TE. What do you think we would have to bid on him there? I can't see spending a lot on TE, but it is a definite weak spot on our team. We only have Jeb Putzier from Denver, who I still think should produce decent numbers. - Chris

Tough call. The bidding does tend to vary wildly from league to league. I was always fairly conservative on the bidding (didn't want to blow my wad on one or two players) but did pretty well acquiring guys over the course of the season. Sometimes it was the benefit of being in early though. I remember winning Domanick Davis last year for $117, which was way overbid at the time I got him, but then he was going for $400-$500 in other leagues where he was still available just a week or two later.

For Johnson I'd think something like $71-$81 would be a solid bid. A number you are comfortable paying, but if someone bid more than that you'd consider it overpaying. Of course check the other teams to see what their need is at TE. Actually, I'm in a couple AntSports $50 leagues for kicks. They use blind bidding, same scoring rules and $100 bidding dollars. Let me check... Johnson went for $17 in one and $6 in the other. You could somewhat equate that to a WCOFF bid of $170 and $60. I can't tell if there were any competing bids on Johnson. In another one of my leagues with blind bidding, Johnson just went for $15 ($100 cap). Someone could very well bid $150 or more. I would consider that too much for a TE. I like the idea of $71 or $76.

I agree with you on Putzier. He will get used more as Plummer and he get more comfortable with each other. Johnson is still a high injury risk

Mike, Love your site and insight and have a few questions for you:

• The 2004 Ron Dayne: will he shine or split carries all season?
  
  
• Tai Streets has an opportunity in Detroit with Charles Rogers going down. Will he seize it or be the forgotten man?
  
  
• Marcus Robinson: past ignored, is he the # 2 receiver in Minnesota or not?
  
  
• Finally, is there a player you have you eye on these days, even this early in the season? Is there a Dominick Davis of 2004 brewing?

Thanks, Phil

P.S. Jim Brown was on my fantasy team in '64.

Hi Phil. Thanks! Glad you like the site. Wow! You've been playing since 1964?!? I should be asking you these things! :)

Here is one man's opinion on your questions:

1. Ron Dayne will split carries. He isn't good enough to be a starting RB in the NFL. Further complicating things for Dayne, when the Giants fall behind he doesn't fit the game plan nearly as well as when they are tied or leading, trying to wear down the defense and/or grind out the clock. It would appear the Giants are going to be playing from behind A LOT this year.

2. Tai Streets will be okay as a backup for most fantasy teams. He is worth picking up and taking a chance on. I don't think he will exceed his prior year fantasy numbers of 47-595-7 though. Maybe he can push it closer to the 72 catches, 756 yards from his 2002 season, but I expect fewer TDs for him.

3. Marcus Robinson did okay in week 1; better than Nate Burelson who is his main competition. Robinson should hold off Burelson for the #2 receiver spot as long as he can stay healthy, which has been his Achilles' heal his entire career.

4. This week I like ReShard Lee for Dallas. I watched him in preseason against the Titans and I was impressed with what I saw (8-21, 1 6-yard TD) and I was impressed with his output in week 1 (5-35, 1 TD) with Julius Jones out and Eddie George on the sideline. I don't necessarily trust Bill Parcells that he will absolutely go with Julius Jones as his guy. He will go with the guy who is producing, and so far Lee has done pretty well when given a chance. Plus Jones seems a bit brittle.

Now don't get me wrong, I still strongly think Jones will be the guy, but Lee is someone worth taking a shot on while we see how this plays out if you have room on your roster. Parcells will get production out of a runner one way or another. Heck, Troy Hambrick had almost 1,000 yards and 5 TD last season. Other than Lee, none have really come to light...yet! ;)

Hi Mike, I enjoy your articles. I was wondering if you could give me some advice on trade. I've been offered Tom Brady in exchange for Trent Green. Should I pull the trigger? Thanks, Joe

Hi Joe. I kind of see it as a wash really, so go with whichever guy you are more comfortable with. Certainly Brady looks to be the better option after week 1, and you have to wonder if opposing teams will disrespect the Chiefs receivers as much as the Broncos did, taking Gonzo away from Green, but I don't like to let a single week influence me too much. I think Green bounces back fine. Brady should continue to be solid although they could mix in Dillon a little more going forward depending on the matchup. I sure wouldn't be against the deal and just might do it myself (to get Brady). He is the younger of the two with a better group of receivers with not as much reliance on a single teammate or two.

I have an off the wall question for you. A friend of mine and I have been arguing back and forth about the validity of player's "listed" weights. For example, we started talking about Quentin Griffin, and my friend commented to the fact that even though he is short, he didn't really understand why everyone was questioning his durability since he was listed at 195 pounds. My reply was that I think it's quite common for players' "listed" weights to not exactly be accurate. In other words, I remember hearing quite often that the big guys are exaggerated down at times, and the little guys exaggerated up. Who is correct? - Trent

Hi Trent. Definitely there is some fudging the numbers between the listed weights and the actual weights. Perhaps some on purpose, and perhaps others just because the weight can fluctuate a fair bit with pro athletes. It is difficult to even find consensus weights for players across different media sources, likely for these reasons.

I'm not sure about the general idea that big guys exaggerate down and vice versa, but I think that has some validity to it. That is what you often hear on the broadcast that so-and-so offensive lineman is listed at X, at which time the colour commentator says, "there's no way he is only X." Exactly how much fudging goes on I'm not too sure.

While your friend might think 195 is plenty for a RB, he does understand that opposing LB, and not to mention DT, make a 195 guy seem like a featherweight? I just checked the Bills' LB and they are all listed in the 240-250 range. That's a pretty significant difference if they get up a head of steam. Travis Henry is listed at 215 so he has a good advantage on Griffin in the weight department as a more typical RB.

When it comes to durability though, it isn't all going to be about weight. It seems center of gravity has something to do with it (lower the better), and ability to make people miss so they don't get a "clean" hit on you, a la Barry Sanders. Griffin does seem to possess some of those qualities. Actually, I haven't heard too much negative about Griffin's durability, especially since his good showing week 1, but people do like to knock smaller players as not being "prototypical" RBs, who can't carry a full season load. Here is a good article on Brian Westbrook (same idea) by one of our writer's Matt Waldman where he tries to debunk some of these traditional theories It's a good read and I think it will be of some interest to you.