The premise is simple: I'll tell you what players you can confidently start the season with, and what players should cause your stomach to wobble if you have to start them.
Jacksonville Jaguars
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Maurice Jones-Drew (RB): Jones-Drew's 2006 rookie season was ridiculous. He rushed for 941 yards and 13 TDs with an incredible 5.7 yards per attempt. He also had 436 yards and 2 TDs receiving. This is why despite splitting carries with Fred Taylor (231 carreis for 1,146 yards and 5 TDs with a 5.0 average), Jones-Drew was actually one of the top fantasy scorers in 2006 (and I haven't even factored in his 860 yards, 1 TD, and a 27.7 average on kick returns). He was the #2 back, and he was phenomenal. He may be the #2 back again, but I expect him to be phenomenal again. The former Bruin has shown remarkable explosiveness and versatility.
Fred Taylor (RB): He's a weak #2 RB, but he's still a possible fantasy start.
Defense: 4th in points, 2nd in yards, 6th in interceptions, 6 games holding opponents to 10 points or less: this is a defense you can confidently start.
Josh Scobee (K): Scobee had 119 points last season, making him one of the decent kickers you can start.
I think we should expect the Jaguars to be good this season: they were a lot better than their 8-8 record last season. The Jags were 9th in points scored and 4th in points allowed, 11th in offensive yards and 2nd in defensive yards. According to Football Outsiders' metric, the Jaguars were 6th in team efficiency ratings, measured by DVOA. They're a good team that was very inconsistent (see their variance, according to FO) and suffered with poor quarterback play (see FO's DPAR rankings).
They have a chance to be really good, and it's possible that as the season rolls along more offensive players will emerge as viable fantasy starters. I'm ready to give up on Reggie Williams as a viable fantasy WR (sadly, it took me too long last season to accept his mediocrity), but players like Matt Jones, Marcedes Lewis, and Byron Leftwich might make your starting lineup at some point during the season.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Explaining Football
In football, an offense has a ground attack and an air attack (or aerial assault), and has various offensive weapons. At any rate, the team has a plan of attack to use these weapons. The team’s success might depend on whether it can win the turnover battle, or it might depend on how it plays in the trenches. The quarterback is the field general, and he throws bombs, bullets, missiles, and darts. The quarterback may have a cannon for an arm, he may have a rocket arm, or he may have a gun. At any rate when he sees an open receiver he pulls the trigger. The quarterback might hand off to a tank at running back. The offense marches down the field, and its goal is to invade the end zone.
The defense will try to break through or penetrate the enemy line, or the front line. It may attempt to do so with a blitz. For the defense to succeed, it must also play well in the trenches, as the linemen engage in trench warfare. But the secondary might have a head hunter or an assassin that stops the offense, too. The offense may have to develop a counter attack to deal with the defense’s schemes. It must attack the defense’s weaknesses.
And on special teams there is a gunner that must also launch himself at the ball carrier.
Or, if that doesn't sound fun...
On offense, the defense is going to try get penetration. But you have to just keep pounding it up the middle. You need a running back to hit the hole hard if you're going to succeed. It might not work at first, but you have to keep pounding it.
The defense will try to break through or penetrate the enemy line, or the front line. It may attempt to do so with a blitz. For the defense to succeed, it must also play well in the trenches, as the linemen engage in trench warfare. But the secondary might have a head hunter or an assassin that stops the offense, too. The offense may have to develop a counter attack to deal with the defense’s schemes. It must attack the defense’s weaknesses.
And on special teams there is a gunner that must also launch himself at the ball carrier.
Or, if that doesn't sound fun...
On offense, the defense is going to try get penetration. But you have to just keep pounding it up the middle. You need a running back to hit the hole hard if you're going to succeed. It might not work at first, but you have to keep pounding it.
Blizzard: football isn't that far away.
USA Today releases its preseason Power Ranking, and the Vikings are tied for 25th. Matt Mosley of Hashmarks provides his Power Ranking up to ten. During the season the only Power Ranking I pay attention to is Dr. Z's, and that not for the order but for the amusing commentary. But it's July, and preseason Power Rankings mean that the real season isn't too far away.
Michael Fabiano of NFL.com looks team-by-team at fantasy wide receivers.
A few weeks ago, I suggested it was absurd to claim Peyton Manning's contract hurts the Colts, considering they've won three division titles (averaging 13 wins per season) and a Super Bowl in the three seasons since he signed his contract. USA Today now provides 2006 NFL salaries and cap numbers. In 2006, there were four QBs (Tom Brady, Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, and Brett Favre) with bigger cap numbers than Peyton Manning, the best quarterback in the league and Super Bowl MVP. Can you really claim Manning's contract is a major problem for the Colts?
Cold, Hard Football Facts looks at the best duos in NFL history. One thing I love about CHFF is that they don't pretend that pro football began with Super Bowl I: a lot of their great duos dominated football before the Super Bowl era.
Skol Vikes comments on the early gambling odds for the Vikings.
Finally, I wanted to address the allegations of dog fighting on Michael Vick's property (regardless of who was or wasn't involved). Rather than repeat my own statements, I will just provide the information federal investigators have alleged in the court documents they filed. This information is taken from the AP article by Hank Kurz, Jr. and Michael Felberbaum picked up in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
According to Kurz and Felberbaum, the federal investigators allege in the documents that:
“The property was used as the ‘main staging area for housing and training the pit bulls involved’ in a dogfighting operation”
“prize money from the dogfighting climbed into the thousands of dollars, people came from as far away as Texas and sheepish pit bulls were killed.”
“dogfights have been sponsored by ‘Bad Newz Kennels’ at the property since at least 2002. For the events, participants and dogs traveled from South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, New York, Texas and other states.”
“Fifty-four pit bulls were recovered from the property during searches in April, along with a ‘rape stand,’ used to hold dogs in place for mating; an electric treadmill modified for dogs; and a bloodied piece of carpeting”
“the fights usually occurred late at night or in the early morning and would last several hours.”
“Before fights, the participating dogs of the same sex would be weighed and bathed […] Opposing dogs would be washed to remove any poison or narcotic placed on the dog's coat that could affect the other dog's performance.”
“Sometimes, dogs weren't fed to ‘make it more hungry for the other dog.’”
“Fights would end when one dog died or with the surrender of the losing dog, which was sometimes put to death by drowning, strangulation, hanging, gun shot, electrocution or some other method.”
“During a June search of the property, investigators uncovered the graves of seven pit bulls that were killed by members of ‘Bad Newz Kennels’ following sessions to test whether the dogs would be good fighters”
“Members of ‘Bad Newz Kennels’ also sponsored and exhibited fights in other parts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey and other states”
The information provided is rather detailed, suggesting that the investigators have a fair amount of evidence. Certainly the investigators are not omniscient; they could be wrong, and you are free to distrust the allegations. But it is not detrimentally biased or irrational to believe that somebody was organizing a dog fighting operation on the property.
Michael Fabiano of NFL.com looks team-by-team at fantasy wide receivers.
A few weeks ago, I suggested it was absurd to claim Peyton Manning's contract hurts the Colts, considering they've won three division titles (averaging 13 wins per season) and a Super Bowl in the three seasons since he signed his contract. USA Today now provides 2006 NFL salaries and cap numbers. In 2006, there were four QBs (Tom Brady, Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, and Brett Favre) with bigger cap numbers than Peyton Manning, the best quarterback in the league and Super Bowl MVP. Can you really claim Manning's contract is a major problem for the Colts?
Cold, Hard Football Facts looks at the best duos in NFL history. One thing I love about CHFF is that they don't pretend that pro football began with Super Bowl I: a lot of their great duos dominated football before the Super Bowl era.
Skol Vikes comments on the early gambling odds for the Vikings.
Finally, I wanted to address the allegations of dog fighting on Michael Vick's property (regardless of who was or wasn't involved). Rather than repeat my own statements, I will just provide the information federal investigators have alleged in the court documents they filed. This information is taken from the AP article by Hank Kurz, Jr. and Michael Felberbaum picked up in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
According to Kurz and Felberbaum, the federal investigators allege in the documents that:
“The property was used as the ‘main staging area for housing and training the pit bulls involved’ in a dogfighting operation”
“prize money from the dogfighting climbed into the thousands of dollars, people came from as far away as Texas and sheepish pit bulls were killed.”
“dogfights have been sponsored by ‘Bad Newz Kennels’ at the property since at least 2002. For the events, participants and dogs traveled from South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, New York, Texas and other states.”
“Fifty-four pit bulls were recovered from the property during searches in April, along with a ‘rape stand,’ used to hold dogs in place for mating; an electric treadmill modified for dogs; and a bloodied piece of carpeting”
“the fights usually occurred late at night or in the early morning and would last several hours.”
“Before fights, the participating dogs of the same sex would be weighed and bathed […] Opposing dogs would be washed to remove any poison or narcotic placed on the dog's coat that could affect the other dog's performance.”
“Sometimes, dogs weren't fed to ‘make it more hungry for the other dog.’”
“Fights would end when one dog died or with the surrender of the losing dog, which was sometimes put to death by drowning, strangulation, hanging, gun shot, electrocution or some other method.”
“During a June search of the property, investigators uncovered the graves of seven pit bulls that were killed by members of ‘Bad Newz Kennels’ following sessions to test whether the dogs would be good fighters”
“Members of ‘Bad Newz Kennels’ also sponsored and exhibited fights in other parts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey and other states”
The information provided is rather detailed, suggesting that the investigators have a fair amount of evidence. Certainly the investigators are not omniscient; they could be wrong, and you are free to distrust the allegations. But it is not detrimentally biased or irrational to believe that somebody was organizing a dog fighting operation on the property.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Fantasy Preview: the Indianapolis Colts
The premise is simple: I'll tell you what players you can confidently start the season with, and what players should cause your stomach to wobble if you have to start them.
Indianapolis Colts
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
The time has come to write about the greatest fantasy football juggernaut in the NFL today. It's quite possible that the '00s Colts have been the greatest overall fantasy juggernaut in fantasy football history.
Peyton Manning (QB): The best fantasy QB: Manning's played 9 seasons and NEVER thrown for fewer than 3,700 yards or 26 TDs.
Marvin Harrison (WR): The most dependable fantasy WR: in the last eight seasons, Harrison's always had at least 1,100 yards and 10 TDs.
Reggie Wayne (WR): Based on his last three seasons, you can wonder if Wayne is catching Harrison as the Colts' #1 WR.
Dallas Clark (TE): I feel like Clark is just ready to burst as a dominant TE in the Colts' offense.
Joseph Addai (RB): With feature back carries, it's possible Addai will start doing what Edgerrin James used to do.
Adam Viniateri (K): I don't care about Viniateri; you always want a kicker on a dominating offense like this.
Here's a basic fantasy football rule: draft Colts.
Indianapolis Colts
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
The time has come to write about the greatest fantasy football juggernaut in the NFL today. It's quite possible that the '00s Colts have been the greatest overall fantasy juggernaut in fantasy football history.
Peyton Manning (QB): The best fantasy QB: Manning's played 9 seasons and NEVER thrown for fewer than 3,700 yards or 26 TDs.
Marvin Harrison (WR): The most dependable fantasy WR: in the last eight seasons, Harrison's always had at least 1,100 yards and 10 TDs.
Reggie Wayne (WR): Based on his last three seasons, you can wonder if Wayne is catching Harrison as the Colts' #1 WR.
Dallas Clark (TE): I feel like Clark is just ready to burst as a dominant TE in the Colts' offense.
Joseph Addai (RB): With feature back carries, it's possible Addai will start doing what Edgerrin James used to do.
Adam Viniateri (K): I don't care about Viniateri; you always want a kicker on a dominating offense like this.
Here's a basic fantasy football rule: draft Colts.
Suspicion, Presumption of Innocence, and Michael Vick
Michael Vick was involved in a seemingly legitimate business breeding pit bulls. During this time, an illegal dog fighting operation involving pit bulls appeared to be occurring at a property Vick owned (in fact, 17 dead pit bull bodies have been dug up on the property; there is fairly good evidence that serial animal torture was occurring). For five years, dog fighting activities seem to have been going on at a property Vick owned. Is that evidence? No, and apparently the Feds don’t have enough evidence to indict. But does that make it reasonable to be suspicious that Vick was in fact involved in an illegal dog fighting ring? I think so.
There’s now pretty strong evidence that dog fighting was taking place on the property. Hopefully lack of evidence tying Vick to the operation of animal torture means he really wasn’t involved. Given that the Feds say dog fighting has been occurring there since 2002 (and during part of this time Vick owned a dog breeding business), I think it’s reasonable to believe Vick at least knew what was going on. If they have no evidence, that means there’s not enough to prosecute Vick in the legal system. Does it mean that reasonable people must put aside any suspicion of Vick? No. Enough has happened, I think, that it is reasonable to suspect Vick was involved in a massive dog fighting operation on a property he owns.
In the American legal system, there is a right to presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to find evidence for guilt. In America, we prosecute criminals based on evidence, not suspicion. That presumption of innocence is an absolutely necessary part of a fair trial; the American legal system is supposed to make it difficult to prosecute criminals, so that innocent people are not prosecuted or convicted. It also means a trial does not exonerate: at the end of a trial, a defendant is found “guilty” or “not guilty.” A “not guilty” verdict is not an “innocent” verdict: it simply means the prosecution did not provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. This may be because the defendant was innocent; it may be because there was reasonable doubt about the evidence. Why is this relevant when discussing Vick, who it appears will not be a defendant on trial? Because prosecutors must consider presumption of innocence and burden of proof before they bring charges: one reason that the majority of trials result in guilty verdicts is because prosecutors are unlikely to go to trial on a case lacking evidence (as is my understanding from watching Law & Order on TNT all day, har har). Prosecutors cannot go to trial on suspicion, no matter how much they think a person may have committed a crime; prosecutors should only go to trial with evidence that a person has committed a crime.
And once again, the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof for the prosecution is a very good thing.
Of course, presumption of innocence is a right of a defendant and a requirement of a judge and jury in a trial; everybody else can think what they wish.
But here’s another thing about it: presumption of innocence is not reasonable.
Using the faculty of reason, we are supposed to look at evidence empirically. Using reason, we are better off with no assumptions: we look at the data with as few assumptions or biases as possible, and use our reason to determine what we believe to be true. Presumption of innocence subverts that: presumption of innocence tells jury members to assume innocence, and only return a guilty verdict if evidence is provided beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that the defendant is guilty. That's a good thing for the legal system, and it protects ALL of us. But it's not the way reasonable people look at reality. (Addendum: when I call the presumption of innocence irrational, I merely mean that using reason, I would be open to all possibilities. Using the presumption of innocence, I am assuming only one possibility and requiring you to convince me thoroughly of another possibility. It does not mean I think the legal system is flawed, but as I've said, that this presumption of innocence is an absolutely necessary part of a fair trial).
So what do we do with our faculty of reason? If Vick is never prosecuted, it may be because he was innocent and not involved in animal torture. However, it could also mean he was involved in animal torture, but there was not enough evidence to link his involvement. Right now, there is very strong evidence suggesting dog fighting activities occurred on Vick’s property. If these allegations are true, it is a reasonable to suspect Vick knew that a dog fighting operation run by a relative was occurring for five years on a property he owned.
What does this suspicion mean? It does not mean assuming guilt. It does not mean Vick should be indicted, prosecuted, or convicted. It simply means that reasonable people are still allowed to suspect Vick of involvement in dog fighting. If there is no evidence to prosecute Vick, then prosecutors should not file charges against him, and Vick gets to go on with his life. Reasonable people can also believe this means that Vick really was not involved in the dog fighting operation that appears to have been run on his property. But enough information has come out that a reasonable person can accept the POSSIBILITY that Vick indeed either knew of the activities or was involved.
That’s what suspicion means: that there is the POSSIBILITY that a person was involved in a crime. You don’t convict on possibility: you convict on evidence. But reasonable recognition of the possibility means we need not assume innocence, either.
And we're still left with the strong evidence that dog fighting (which is animal torture) was perpetrated by somebody on Vick's property. As an animal rights activist, I'm still going to follow this case to understand if the allegations are true, and how such a case is dealt with.
(If this post seems disjointed, it's because I'm trying to work out my honest thoughts on the case at the moment. I'm trying to give words to these thoughts to make sense of them for myself. Because I still have suspicions about Vick. I have never expressed an assumption of Vick's guilt on this blog. I have merely stated suspicions, and suggested that suspicion means recognizing the POSSIBILITY of guilt. I'm writing about this now because lack of indictment has not forced suspicion from my mind, and I'm trying to understand why that is, and if that is reasonable.).
ADDENDUM: Here's another way to explain this: the presumption of innocence and prosecution's burden of proof within the legal system allows for doubts and suspicions outside the legal system. Because we know of the legal system's presumption of innocence and prosecution's burden of proof, we know that lack of indictment or conviction does not necessarily mean innocence, but merely lack of evidence. This means I maintain my doubts and suspicions despite lack of indictment or conviction. Once again, I'm not challenging the legal system's presumption of innocence and prosecution's burden of proof: it's a very good thing, and an absolutely necessary part of a fair trial. I'm just trying to make sense of why lack of indictment hasn't assuaged any suspicions I have.
There’s now pretty strong evidence that dog fighting was taking place on the property. Hopefully lack of evidence tying Vick to the operation of animal torture means he really wasn’t involved. Given that the Feds say dog fighting has been occurring there since 2002 (and during part of this time Vick owned a dog breeding business), I think it’s reasonable to believe Vick at least knew what was going on. If they have no evidence, that means there’s not enough to prosecute Vick in the legal system. Does it mean that reasonable people must put aside any suspicion of Vick? No. Enough has happened, I think, that it is reasonable to suspect Vick was involved in a massive dog fighting operation on a property he owns.
In the American legal system, there is a right to presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to find evidence for guilt. In America, we prosecute criminals based on evidence, not suspicion. That presumption of innocence is an absolutely necessary part of a fair trial; the American legal system is supposed to make it difficult to prosecute criminals, so that innocent people are not prosecuted or convicted. It also means a trial does not exonerate: at the end of a trial, a defendant is found “guilty” or “not guilty.” A “not guilty” verdict is not an “innocent” verdict: it simply means the prosecution did not provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. This may be because the defendant was innocent; it may be because there was reasonable doubt about the evidence. Why is this relevant when discussing Vick, who it appears will not be a defendant on trial? Because prosecutors must consider presumption of innocence and burden of proof before they bring charges: one reason that the majority of trials result in guilty verdicts is because prosecutors are unlikely to go to trial on a case lacking evidence (as is my understanding from watching Law & Order on TNT all day, har har). Prosecutors cannot go to trial on suspicion, no matter how much they think a person may have committed a crime; prosecutors should only go to trial with evidence that a person has committed a crime.
And once again, the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof for the prosecution is a very good thing.
Of course, presumption of innocence is a right of a defendant and a requirement of a judge and jury in a trial; everybody else can think what they wish.
But here’s another thing about it: presumption of innocence is not reasonable.
Using the faculty of reason, we are supposed to look at evidence empirically. Using reason, we are better off with no assumptions: we look at the data with as few assumptions or biases as possible, and use our reason to determine what we believe to be true. Presumption of innocence subverts that: presumption of innocence tells jury members to assume innocence, and only return a guilty verdict if evidence is provided beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that the defendant is guilty. That's a good thing for the legal system, and it protects ALL of us. But it's not the way reasonable people look at reality. (Addendum: when I call the presumption of innocence irrational, I merely mean that using reason, I would be open to all possibilities. Using the presumption of innocence, I am assuming only one possibility and requiring you to convince me thoroughly of another possibility. It does not mean I think the legal system is flawed, but as I've said, that this presumption of innocence is an absolutely necessary part of a fair trial).
So what do we do with our faculty of reason? If Vick is never prosecuted, it may be because he was innocent and not involved in animal torture. However, it could also mean he was involved in animal torture, but there was not enough evidence to link his involvement. Right now, there is very strong evidence suggesting dog fighting activities occurred on Vick’s property. If these allegations are true, it is a reasonable to suspect Vick knew that a dog fighting operation run by a relative was occurring for five years on a property he owned.
What does this suspicion mean? It does not mean assuming guilt. It does not mean Vick should be indicted, prosecuted, or convicted. It simply means that reasonable people are still allowed to suspect Vick of involvement in dog fighting. If there is no evidence to prosecute Vick, then prosecutors should not file charges against him, and Vick gets to go on with his life. Reasonable people can also believe this means that Vick really was not involved in the dog fighting operation that appears to have been run on his property. But enough information has come out that a reasonable person can accept the POSSIBILITY that Vick indeed either knew of the activities or was involved.
That’s what suspicion means: that there is the POSSIBILITY that a person was involved in a crime. You don’t convict on possibility: you convict on evidence. But reasonable recognition of the possibility means we need not assume innocence, either.
And we're still left with the strong evidence that dog fighting (which is animal torture) was perpetrated by somebody on Vick's property. As an animal rights activist, I'm still going to follow this case to understand if the allegations are true, and how such a case is dealt with.
(If this post seems disjointed, it's because I'm trying to work out my honest thoughts on the case at the moment. I'm trying to give words to these thoughts to make sense of them for myself. Because I still have suspicions about Vick. I have never expressed an assumption of Vick's guilt on this blog. I have merely stated suspicions, and suggested that suspicion means recognizing the POSSIBILITY of guilt. I'm writing about this now because lack of indictment has not forced suspicion from my mind, and I'm trying to understand why that is, and if that is reasonable.).
ADDENDUM: Here's another way to explain this: the presumption of innocence and prosecution's burden of proof within the legal system allows for doubts and suspicions outside the legal system. Because we know of the legal system's presumption of innocence and prosecution's burden of proof, we know that lack of indictment or conviction does not necessarily mean innocence, but merely lack of evidence. This means I maintain my doubts and suspicions despite lack of indictment or conviction. Once again, I'm not challenging the legal system's presumption of innocence and prosecution's burden of proof: it's a very good thing, and an absolutely necessary part of a fair trial. I'm just trying to make sense of why lack of indictment hasn't assuaged any suspicions I have.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Bryant McKinnie will crush the soul of your team's defensive end in 2007.
Bryant McKinnie, the 6'8", 343 lb. monster left tackle for the Vikings, seemed to disappoint in 2006. He really came on strong at the end of 2005, and in early 2006 he signed a gigantic contract extension with the Vikings. But he didn't seem to show the dominance to justify such a contract.
Of course, HE WAS PLAYING WITH A BROKEN HAND!
McKinnie is huge, talented, and durable. He's not somebody Viking fans should be turning against; he's one of the reasons Viking fans should be excited for 2007. Next season, Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor are going to run behind the icebergs that are Bryant McKinnie, Steve Hutchinson, and Matt Birk. The Vikings are going to have one of the most dominant running games in the league with that lineup. There's nobody the Vikings won't be able to run against next season; hell, given that Peterson is a rookie and McKinnie and Hutchinson are signed to long contracts, there's nobody the Vikes won't be able to run against for the next five years.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It was fun watching Randall Cunningham and Jeff George and Daunte Culpepper throw flying meteors out to Randy Moss and Cris Carter. It would have been a lot more fun, I think, to see the Vikes win a damn championship.
So you're not excited about Tarvaris Jackson and a bunch of mediocre receivers in 2007? Big freaking deal. The Vikes have a dominant force of a defense led by Antoine Winfield, Pat Williams, Kevin Williams, Darren Sharper, and E. J. Henderson, and they've got a soul crushing power running game featuring Adrian Peterson, Chester Taylor, Bryant McKinnie, Steve Hutchinson, and Matt Birk. They're now a powerful, grinding, tough team, not a flashy team with a wilting defense. There's a real good nucleus to build around: a nucleus of great defenders and a steamrolling running game, not a nucleus of crazy talented passers and receivers and little else.
We should be excited for 2007. We should be ecstatic for the future. You can build around young big guys like Bryant McKinnie and Kevin Williams. You can win football games playing crushing defense with a good running game. This Viking team is capable of winning the division this season.
And Bryant McKinnie is a big reason why.
Of course, HE WAS PLAYING WITH A BROKEN HAND!
McKinnie is huge, talented, and durable. He's not somebody Viking fans should be turning against; he's one of the reasons Viking fans should be excited for 2007. Next season, Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor are going to run behind the icebergs that are Bryant McKinnie, Steve Hutchinson, and Matt Birk. The Vikings are going to have one of the most dominant running games in the league with that lineup. There's nobody the Vikings won't be able to run against next season; hell, given that Peterson is a rookie and McKinnie and Hutchinson are signed to long contracts, there's nobody the Vikes won't be able to run against for the next five years.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It was fun watching Randall Cunningham and Jeff George and Daunte Culpepper throw flying meteors out to Randy Moss and Cris Carter. It would have been a lot more fun, I think, to see the Vikes win a damn championship.
So you're not excited about Tarvaris Jackson and a bunch of mediocre receivers in 2007? Big freaking deal. The Vikes have a dominant force of a defense led by Antoine Winfield, Pat Williams, Kevin Williams, Darren Sharper, and E. J. Henderson, and they've got a soul crushing power running game featuring Adrian Peterson, Chester Taylor, Bryant McKinnie, Steve Hutchinson, and Matt Birk. They're now a powerful, grinding, tough team, not a flashy team with a wilting defense. There's a real good nucleus to build around: a nucleus of great defenders and a steamrolling running game, not a nucleus of crazy talented passers and receivers and little else.
We should be excited for 2007. We should be ecstatic for the future. You can build around young big guys like Bryant McKinnie and Kevin Williams. You can win football games playing crushing defense with a good running game. This Viking team is capable of winning the division this season.
And Bryant McKinnie is a big reason why.
Fantasy Preview: the San Francisco 49ers
The premise is simple: I'll tell you what players you can confidently start the season with, and what players should cause your stomach to wobble if you have to start them.
San Francisco 49ers
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Frank Gore (RB): Gore was an extremely productive RB in 2006; I have my doubts he'll match that production in 2007.
Vernon Davis (TE): There are just so many TEs available that I'd be willing to start. That convinces me further that if you're not going to pay up for Antonio Gates, you may as well wait around.
If Darrell Jackson were healthy and still on the Seahawks, he'd be in my top-10 WRs. As it is, he's a WR with injury concerns switching teams playing with an inferior QB. He's definitely worth a spot on your roster, just not on your week one starting lineup. Alex Smith was not productive enough in 2006 to be a backup fantasy QB. However, given the massive improvement he made between '05 and '06, he's worth the roster spot, because he might be a worthy starter by midseason.
San Francisco 49ers
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Frank Gore (RB): Gore was an extremely productive RB in 2006; I have my doubts he'll match that production in 2007.
Vernon Davis (TE): There are just so many TEs available that I'd be willing to start. That convinces me further that if you're not going to pay up for Antonio Gates, you may as well wait around.
If Darrell Jackson were healthy and still on the Seahawks, he'd be in my top-10 WRs. As it is, he's a WR with injury concerns switching teams playing with an inferior QB. He's definitely worth a spot on your roster, just not on your week one starting lineup. Alex Smith was not productive enough in 2006 to be a backup fantasy QB. However, given the massive improvement he made between '05 and '06, he's worth the roster spot, because he might be a worthy starter by midseason.
Blizzard: back to dog fighting
WAVY (via PFT) reports federal investigators are back digging at Michael Vick's property and have "filed court documents outlining an alleged dogfighting operation at a property owned by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick." WVEC (via Fanhouse) also reports on the events. Based on the ESPN article, the court documents appear to be very thorough in outlining the alleged activity, but they do not name Vick. The big news should be the revelation that dead dogs were found on the property; however, within the detailed outline of the operation, that becomes one minor detail. Once again, I'm convinced dog fighting activities did occur on the property (the evidence was already strong, and it appears this document outlines it pretty clearly), and while I suspect Vick knew of it or was involved, I'm still waiting for direct evidence tying him to the activities.
Update: The ESPN article has been altered: it appears Vick is unlikely to be indicted by the Feds (and I doubt Poindexter will bring local charges either, but I could be wrong). That they could tie no evidence to him does not mean that he was not involved, of course, and even if nothing comes of it there will be reasonable suspicions around Vick for the rest of his career. But it also means that we have no reason to assume or believe categorically that Vick was involved; in fact, it is reasonable to believe he was not. There's still a possibility that his indicted relatives flip on him (I'd like to thank The Sopranos for my use of the word "flip"), but it's quite possible we will be able to move on and Vick will just be a quarterback, not an animal torturer. But there is still solid evidence that dog fighting (which is animal torture) occurred on his property, and the Feds are likely going to be charging those they know are involved in such activities. We'll still keep following this story now that we started, even if Michael Vick's role in the story is over.
Bucky Brooks of SI does a good job with his NFL analysis, I think; I've criticized some of his work, but overall I've enjoyed his insight. Check out his early AFC South preview and his early AFC West preview.
Irrelevant Controversy season continues: see Jeffri Chadiha's list of indispensable NFL players.
While writing his memoirs, Dr. Z is still doing mailbags.
At Leave the Man Alone, see the HCIC on Bill Burt on Michael Wilbon.
Moderately Cerebral Bias examines what should and shouldn't be a blogger's goal.
Update: The ESPN article has been altered: it appears Vick is unlikely to be indicted by the Feds (and I doubt Poindexter will bring local charges either, but I could be wrong). That they could tie no evidence to him does not mean that he was not involved, of course, and even if nothing comes of it there will be reasonable suspicions around Vick for the rest of his career. But it also means that we have no reason to assume or believe categorically that Vick was involved; in fact, it is reasonable to believe he was not. There's still a possibility that his indicted relatives flip on him (I'd like to thank The Sopranos for my use of the word "flip"), but it's quite possible we will be able to move on and Vick will just be a quarterback, not an animal torturer. But there is still solid evidence that dog fighting (which is animal torture) occurred on his property, and the Feds are likely going to be charging those they know are involved in such activities. We'll still keep following this story now that we started, even if Michael Vick's role in the story is over.
Bucky Brooks of SI does a good job with his NFL analysis, I think; I've criticized some of his work, but overall I've enjoyed his insight. Check out his early AFC South preview and his early AFC West preview.
Irrelevant Controversy season continues: see Jeffri Chadiha's list of indispensable NFL players.
While writing his memoirs, Dr. Z is still doing mailbags.
At Leave the Man Alone, see the HCIC on Bill Burt on Michael Wilbon.
Moderately Cerebral Bias examines what should and shouldn't be a blogger's goal.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Fantasy Preview: the Cleveland Browns
The premise is simple: I'll tell you what players you can confidently start the season with, and what players should cause your stomach to wobble if you have to start them.
Cleveland Browns
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Kellen Winslow, Jr. (TE): In 2006 he was a decent fantasy tight end, but with very good yardage production and poor touchdown production. IF Winslow can bring his touchdown production up, he can compete to be the second best fantasy tight end in the league.
Jamal Lewis (RB): your first instinct might be to dismiss him, and while his yards per carry have slipped in recent years, he still produced 1,100+ yards and 9 TDs last season. You also can expect him to get a lot of carries in Cleveland. If you are strong at other positions, Lewis can be a solid #2 RB.
I would not be happy to start Braylon Edwards: Cleveland's QB situation is too shaky. I don't think a shaky QB will affect a good tight end like Winslow much, but it will affect a good WR like Edwards. But Edwards is a good player worth a roster spot: you should just hope he's not one of your two best WRs. The Cleveland offense was just too lousy in 2006, and while some new players should make it better in 2007, it's still bad enough to scare me off a player like Edwards.
Cleveland Browns
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Kellen Winslow, Jr. (TE): In 2006 he was a decent fantasy tight end, but with very good yardage production and poor touchdown production. IF Winslow can bring his touchdown production up, he can compete to be the second best fantasy tight end in the league.
Jamal Lewis (RB): your first instinct might be to dismiss him, and while his yards per carry have slipped in recent years, he still produced 1,100+ yards and 9 TDs last season. You also can expect him to get a lot of carries in Cleveland. If you are strong at other positions, Lewis can be a solid #2 RB.
I would not be happy to start Braylon Edwards: Cleveland's QB situation is too shaky. I don't think a shaky QB will affect a good tight end like Winslow much, but it will affect a good WR like Edwards. But Edwards is a good player worth a roster spot: you should just hope he's not one of your two best WRs. The Cleveland offense was just too lousy in 2006, and while some new players should make it better in 2007, it's still bad enough to scare me off a player like Edwards.
Meandering Fantasy Lessons: Quarterbacks
1. Quarterbacks are the best fantasy scorers. This makes logical sense. Consider that an average starting fantasy QB throws for 3,000 yards and 20 TDs. This type of QB production is common. And yet in fantasy points, in the Hazelweird league this production equates roughly to the production of a RB with 1,500 total yards and 10 TDs. That's very good production for a RB. So an average fantasy QB can be as productive as a very good fantasy RB. There were 11 fantasy scorers averaging 10 fantasy ppg in 2006 (well, 10--let me round 9.986 up): 7 of them were QBs, and 4 of them were RBs.
2. But there are more good QBs than RBs, making a good QB less valuable than a good RB. In 2006, there were 12 QBs that averaged more than 9 ppg in the Hazelweird league. There were just 5 RBs to average more than 9 ppg. On my list of draftable players, there are 17 QBs with more than 8 ppg, and 11 RBs with more than 8 ppg. This is why good RBs are still valuable: there are many productive fantasy QBs to choose from, and they don't have a great deal of separation between each other, while there are fewer productive fantasy RBs with slightly greater separation. Any competent fantasy QB is going to give you solid production, so if you don't spend your pick/money on a stud QB, you can still get a decent QB. This makes the very good QBs worth less than the very good RBs, and makes the decent QBs worth a lot less than the decent RBs.
3. Unlike other positions, yards indicates fantasy success of QBs better than touchdowns. The reason is simple: there are a lot of QBs with solid TD production, and fewer QBs with good yardage production. In 2006, 10 QBs threw for at least 20 TDs. There were 16 QBs with at least 18 TD passes. The difference between 4th in TD passes and 16th in TD passes is 6 touchdowns, or 18 points in the Hazelweird league, or about 1.1 fantasy point per game. But look at yards: in 2006, there were only 5 QBs with 4,000+ yards, and 8 QBs with 3,500+ yards. The difference between 4th place and 16th place in yardage is 1,318 yards, or 26.36 points in the Hazelweird league, or about 1.6 fantasy ppg. There is less difference in touchdown pass production between the competent fantasy starters than there is in passing yardage production.
This analysis is probably pretty pedestrian, but if I'm going to be a knucklehead doing all this fantasy work (rather than spending a few measly dollars on a stinking magazine), I may as well put some of it up on this blog in July. But not too much information: I still distrust the rat-bastards in the Hazelweird league trying to screw me.
2. But there are more good QBs than RBs, making a good QB less valuable than a good RB. In 2006, there were 12 QBs that averaged more than 9 ppg in the Hazelweird league. There were just 5 RBs to average more than 9 ppg. On my list of draftable players, there are 17 QBs with more than 8 ppg, and 11 RBs with more than 8 ppg. This is why good RBs are still valuable: there are many productive fantasy QBs to choose from, and they don't have a great deal of separation between each other, while there are fewer productive fantasy RBs with slightly greater separation. Any competent fantasy QB is going to give you solid production, so if you don't spend your pick/money on a stud QB, you can still get a decent QB. This makes the very good QBs worth less than the very good RBs, and makes the decent QBs worth a lot less than the decent RBs.
3. Unlike other positions, yards indicates fantasy success of QBs better than touchdowns. The reason is simple: there are a lot of QBs with solid TD production, and fewer QBs with good yardage production. In 2006, 10 QBs threw for at least 20 TDs. There were 16 QBs with at least 18 TD passes. The difference between 4th in TD passes and 16th in TD passes is 6 touchdowns, or 18 points in the Hazelweird league, or about 1.1 fantasy point per game. But look at yards: in 2006, there were only 5 QBs with 4,000+ yards, and 8 QBs with 3,500+ yards. The difference between 4th place and 16th place in yardage is 1,318 yards, or 26.36 points in the Hazelweird league, or about 1.6 fantasy ppg. There is less difference in touchdown pass production between the competent fantasy starters than there is in passing yardage production.
This analysis is probably pretty pedestrian, but if I'm going to be a knucklehead doing all this fantasy work (rather than spending a few measly dollars on a stinking magazine), I may as well put some of it up on this blog in July. But not too much information: I still distrust the rat-bastards in the Hazelweird league trying to screw me.
Blizzard to end all blizzards (but not really)
Michael Fabiano of NFL.com looks at each team's RB situation from a fantasy perspective.
Luke Winn of SI (via Lion in Oil via Deadspin) reports on Spencer Hawes' views on global warming. I don't think he drives a Prius like my idol.
John Clayton looks at 5 NFL players new to their 2007 teams that could be big difference makers, including Viking rookie Adrian Peterson.
Football Outsiders looks at the effectiveness of tight ends in goal line situations.
The Kansas City Star reports on Tony Gonzalez's commitment ceremony. I wonder what Gonzalez's objection to marriage is? Does he see inequality in the patriarchal institution?
Michael David Smith of Fanhouse thinks ESPN reporters "are shirking their responsibility as journalists" because they didn't ask Shawne Merriman about his steroid suspension. I disagree, as I explain over there.
Mark Craig of the Strib has a feature on Pat Williams, a dominant player and likeable guy.
Chip Brown of the Dallas Morning News (picked up in the Strib) writes about what Earl Campbell is doing now. Growing up, Campbell was one of the players that my dad told me stories about: without ever seeing him play, he was a mythical runner to me. Now he shows what can happen when a running back is overused as he was--and why coaches should move more and more to split-carry backfields.
Empty the Bench ranks fantasy QBs. I should mention that yesterday when I said only four QBs scored better than Vick last season, I forgot about Kitna because he's not even on my list of draftable QBs. Kitna did have more fantasy ppg than Vick, pushing Vick back to 6.
Tecmo Blog chronicles one of the really enjoyable parts of sports: the blowups.
Bucky Brooks of SI looks at the AFC North with some really solid detailed analysis. Man, I'm totally hot for Willis McGahee.
ESPN is doing a fantasy question feature for each team in the league.
10,000 Takes has a Minnesota 2007 All-Disappointment Team.
Suspension of Disbelief features are not limited to players: Pete Prisco does one on St. Louis defensive coordinator Jim Haslett.
Luke Winn of SI (via Lion in Oil via Deadspin) reports on Spencer Hawes' views on global warming. I don't think he drives a Prius like my idol.
John Clayton looks at 5 NFL players new to their 2007 teams that could be big difference makers, including Viking rookie Adrian Peterson.
Football Outsiders looks at the effectiveness of tight ends in goal line situations.
The Kansas City Star reports on Tony Gonzalez's commitment ceremony. I wonder what Gonzalez's objection to marriage is? Does he see inequality in the patriarchal institution?
Michael David Smith of Fanhouse thinks ESPN reporters "are shirking their responsibility as journalists" because they didn't ask Shawne Merriman about his steroid suspension. I disagree, as I explain over there.
Mark Craig of the Strib has a feature on Pat Williams, a dominant player and likeable guy.
Chip Brown of the Dallas Morning News (picked up in the Strib) writes about what Earl Campbell is doing now. Growing up, Campbell was one of the players that my dad told me stories about: without ever seeing him play, he was a mythical runner to me. Now he shows what can happen when a running back is overused as he was--and why coaches should move more and more to split-carry backfields.
Empty the Bench ranks fantasy QBs. I should mention that yesterday when I said only four QBs scored better than Vick last season, I forgot about Kitna because he's not even on my list of draftable QBs. Kitna did have more fantasy ppg than Vick, pushing Vick back to 6.
Tecmo Blog chronicles one of the really enjoyable parts of sports: the blowups.
Bucky Brooks of SI looks at the AFC North with some really solid detailed analysis. Man, I'm totally hot for Willis McGahee.
ESPN is doing a fantasy question feature for each team in the league.
10,000 Takes has a Minnesota 2007 All-Disappointment Team.
Suspension of Disbelief features are not limited to players: Pete Prisco does one on St. Louis defensive coordinator Jim Haslett.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Fantasy Preview: the Atlanta Falcons
The premise is simple: I'll tell you what players you can confidently start the season with, and what players should cause your stomach to wobble if you have to start them.
Atlanta Falcons
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Michael Vick (QB): For fantasy football, it is difficult to compare the value of a running QB simply by looking at final numbers or game logs. Vick's passing production is far below other quarterbacks, but does his rushing production make up for it?
To figure this out, I examined the 2006 numbers for many of the league's quarterbacks, and simply transformed their total numbers into fantasy points per game. This isn't brain-busting, original, or difficult: you simply turn their season statistics into fantasy points according to your league's scoring system (divide the yards and multiply the touchdowns), and divide this number by the number of games the quarterback played. This transforms four factors--passing yards, passing touchdowns, rushing yards, and rushing touchdowns--into one simply number. This number gives you each QB's average fantasy points per game for 2006, and allows you to simply rank the real production of all the QBs in the league. If your league uses fractional scoring, this gives you each player's exact fantasy score; if you do not use fractional scoring, it's a little high, but still quite useful for comparison.
This exercise caused me to drastically alter my own quarterback rankings. I'm not going to write about that here--the rat-bastards in my league can do their own work (or pay for magazines, I suppose). But I will provide my findings for Michael Vick to help explore the value of a running quarterback.
According to my league's scoring system, Michael Vick averaged 10.2 ppg in 2006. For comparison, Carson Palmer (considered by many to be the #2 fantasy QB in this year's draft) averaged 10.4 ppg. In fact, only four quarterbacks in the league averaged more fantasy points per game in 2006 than Michael Vick.
So while many may dismiss Vick as a fantasy quarterback, the actual numbers suggest in 2006 he was one of the five most productive fantasy QBs.
We do need to qualify this. We are trying to project how each player will perform in 2007; that Vick ranked so high in 2006 does not necessarily mean he will in 2007. Given that Vick is not a productive passer, he depends on his rushing numbers to rank so high (and given that in 2006 he had to break the QB rushing record to rank so high, it is unlikely he will be able to match that in 2007). Other QBs are more consistent week-to-week than Vick, so if you value consistency among your starters, Vick should be avoided. And in general, Vick has been inconsistent throughout his career, so he's a less dependable fantasy player than some other QBs who have produced consistently over several years.
And of course, we can't assume that the dog fighting allegations around Vick won't affect his 2007 performance; they very well could, and that makes drafting Vick more risky. Then again, given the numbers, Vick could turn out to be a draft night bargain--you can likely get him late or cheap, so he could be worth the pick (I, however, will likely not draft Vick: as the most vocal animal rights guy in my league, it would feel a bit unconscionable to draft a player currently accused of running a dog fighting ring. Then again, it will probably give us a good draft night laugh. It brings up a larger question for fantasy football: since these are players you are going to be rooting for throughout the season, do you want to draft players that you like anyway and will enjoy rooting for, or do you want to be mercenary and just draft the best scorers regardless of whether you like them and want to cheer for them? This probably depends on if, and how much, money is involved. And this all brings up two other questions: why do I include so much in parentheses, and do I have a serious problem with parentheses? They are my writing weakness, but I love them too much to try and curtail them).
Alge Crumpler (TE): Will a new offensive system make Crumpler less effective? I doubt it--he’s switched systems before. He’s one of the five best TEs in fantasy football.
I'd avoid starting everybody else. You might want Warrick Dunn and/or Jerious Norwood on your roster, and depending on what happens in training camp, you may want to start one or the other week one. As of right now, they're worth the roster spot and perhaps sometime during the season one or the other will prove to be a valuable fantasy starter. The kicker and defense are not good enough to happily start. If you start any Falcon wide receivers, you may as well install a vomitorium in your home and watch football there.
UPDATE: with Michael Vick now persona non grata at Falcon training camp, you obviously don't want to draft him. You don't want Joey Harrington either. And Harrington really doesn't help Atlanta's WRs much at all: he's only slightly more accurate than Vick (55.2% to 53.8%), and doesn't seem to me very likely to connect on a lot of deep passes, as Vick might have.
Atlanta Falcons
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Michael Vick (QB): For fantasy football, it is difficult to compare the value of a running QB simply by looking at final numbers or game logs. Vick's passing production is far below other quarterbacks, but does his rushing production make up for it?
To figure this out, I examined the 2006 numbers for many of the league's quarterbacks, and simply transformed their total numbers into fantasy points per game. This isn't brain-busting, original, or difficult: you simply turn their season statistics into fantasy points according to your league's scoring system (divide the yards and multiply the touchdowns), and divide this number by the number of games the quarterback played. This transforms four factors--passing yards, passing touchdowns, rushing yards, and rushing touchdowns--into one simply number. This number gives you each QB's average fantasy points per game for 2006, and allows you to simply rank the real production of all the QBs in the league. If your league uses fractional scoring, this gives you each player's exact fantasy score; if you do not use fractional scoring, it's a little high, but still quite useful for comparison.
This exercise caused me to drastically alter my own quarterback rankings. I'm not going to write about that here--the rat-bastards in my league can do their own work (or pay for magazines, I suppose). But I will provide my findings for Michael Vick to help explore the value of a running quarterback.
According to my league's scoring system, Michael Vick averaged 10.2 ppg in 2006. For comparison, Carson Palmer (considered by many to be the #2 fantasy QB in this year's draft) averaged 10.4 ppg. In fact, only four quarterbacks in the league averaged more fantasy points per game in 2006 than Michael Vick.
So while many may dismiss Vick as a fantasy quarterback, the actual numbers suggest in 2006 he was one of the five most productive fantasy QBs.
We do need to qualify this. We are trying to project how each player will perform in 2007; that Vick ranked so high in 2006 does not necessarily mean he will in 2007. Given that Vick is not a productive passer, he depends on his rushing numbers to rank so high (and given that in 2006 he had to break the QB rushing record to rank so high, it is unlikely he will be able to match that in 2007). Other QBs are more consistent week-to-week than Vick, so if you value consistency among your starters, Vick should be avoided. And in general, Vick has been inconsistent throughout his career, so he's a less dependable fantasy player than some other QBs who have produced consistently over several years.
And of course, we can't assume that the dog fighting allegations around Vick won't affect his 2007 performance; they very well could, and that makes drafting Vick more risky. Then again, given the numbers, Vick could turn out to be a draft night bargain--you can likely get him late or cheap, so he could be worth the pick (I, however, will likely not draft Vick: as the most vocal animal rights guy in my league, it would feel a bit unconscionable to draft a player currently accused of running a dog fighting ring. Then again, it will probably give us a good draft night laugh. It brings up a larger question for fantasy football: since these are players you are going to be rooting for throughout the season, do you want to draft players that you like anyway and will enjoy rooting for, or do you want to be mercenary and just draft the best scorers regardless of whether you like them and want to cheer for them? This probably depends on if, and how much, money is involved. And this all brings up two other questions: why do I include so much in parentheses, and do I have a serious problem with parentheses? They are my writing weakness, but I love them too much to try and curtail them).
Alge Crumpler (TE): Will a new offensive system make Crumpler less effective? I doubt it--he’s switched systems before. He’s one of the five best TEs in fantasy football.
I'd avoid starting everybody else. You might want Warrick Dunn and/or Jerious Norwood on your roster, and depending on what happens in training camp, you may want to start one or the other week one. As of right now, they're worth the roster spot and perhaps sometime during the season one or the other will prove to be a valuable fantasy starter. The kicker and defense are not good enough to happily start. If you start any Falcon wide receivers, you may as well install a vomitorium in your home and watch football there.
UPDATE: with Michael Vick now persona non grata at Falcon training camp, you obviously don't want to draft him. You don't want Joey Harrington either. And Harrington really doesn't help Atlanta's WRs much at all: he's only slightly more accurate than Vick (55.2% to 53.8%), and doesn't seem to me very likely to connect on a lot of deep passes, as Vick might have.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Fantasy Preview: the St. Louis Rams
The premise is simple: I'll tell you what players you can confidently start the season with, and what players should cause your stomach to wobble if you have to start them.
St. Louis Rams
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Marc Bulger (QB): Are you aware Bulger is one of the best fantasy quarterbacks in the league? In his career, he has averaged 270.55 yards and 1.58 touchdown passes per game. For comparison, Peyton Manning has averaged 261 yards and 1.91 touchdown passes per game. But since Bulger has less name recognition (or name hype) among most fantasy competitors, you can get him fairly cheaply. And if you do, you should be happy to start him. I've had the impression Bulger is an injury-prone QB, but since becoming starter there was only one season (2005) when he missed a significant number of games.
Torry Holt (WR): Holt is one of the most reliable fantasy performers you can draft: last season he had the lowest yardage output since his 1999 rookie season: 1,188 yards. He's missed two games in his career. Draft Holt and you know you are going to get a very good fantasy producer; you should be ecstatic to have him as a week one starter.
Steven Jackson (RB): Once again, look at yards from scrimmage: Jackson topped everybody in the league. He's clearly the #2 fantasy RB going into this season.
Jeff Wilkins (K): Always productive.
There are other Rams that can claim a reasonable roster spot. Isaac Bruce and Drew Bennett are solid backup receivers, and Randy McMichael could end up starting a few games for you at TE. But if I'm starting any of these three week one, I'm carrying a bucket around with me.
St. Louis Rams
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Marc Bulger (QB): Are you aware Bulger is one of the best fantasy quarterbacks in the league? In his career, he has averaged 270.55 yards and 1.58 touchdown passes per game. For comparison, Peyton Manning has averaged 261 yards and 1.91 touchdown passes per game. But since Bulger has less name recognition (or name hype) among most fantasy competitors, you can get him fairly cheaply. And if you do, you should be happy to start him. I've had the impression Bulger is an injury-prone QB, but since becoming starter there was only one season (2005) when he missed a significant number of games.
Torry Holt (WR): Holt is one of the most reliable fantasy performers you can draft: last season he had the lowest yardage output since his 1999 rookie season: 1,188 yards. He's missed two games in his career. Draft Holt and you know you are going to get a very good fantasy producer; you should be ecstatic to have him as a week one starter.
Steven Jackson (RB): Once again, look at yards from scrimmage: Jackson topped everybody in the league. He's clearly the #2 fantasy RB going into this season.
Jeff Wilkins (K): Always productive.
There are other Rams that can claim a reasonable roster spot. Isaac Bruce and Drew Bennett are solid backup receivers, and Randy McMichael could end up starting a few games for you at TE. But if I'm starting any of these three week one, I'm carrying a bucket around with me.
Fantasy Preview: the Baltimore Ravens
The premise is simple: I'll tell you what players you can confidently start the season with, and what players should cause your stomach to wobble if you have to start them.
Baltimore Ravens
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Defense: How good was the 2006 Raven defense? It ranked 1st in points allowed, 1st in yards allowed, 1st in interceptions, and 2nd in sacks. In the playoffs it held Manning's Colts to no touchdowns. And it's been a dominating fantasy defense for years. The only reasons to take the Bear defense before the Raven defense are Devin Hester and the NFC; the Ravens are the most dependable, dominant fantasy defense out there.
Matt Stover (K): I'm sick of coming up with something to say about kickers. He's a kicker you can start: do you actually need to know more about him?
Willis McGahee (RB): I see McGahee in 2007 as a castle courtyard: no ceiling (Tap. Tap. Is this thing on?). I would add 50% to Jamal Lewis' 2006 numbers. Perhaps this is absurd, but I like this kool-aid, even if I do detect a hint of arsenic.
Todd Heap (TE): At fantasy tight end, there's Antonio Gates and then a bunch of chucks. You could argue Heap is the best of the chucks.
Once again, I see another team without thrilling WRs. But once again, there are potentially competent options for deep leagues in Derrick Mason and Mark Clayton. After August 17th I will explore this WR conundrum further.
Baltimore Ravens
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Defense: How good was the 2006 Raven defense? It ranked 1st in points allowed, 1st in yards allowed, 1st in interceptions, and 2nd in sacks. In the playoffs it held Manning's Colts to no touchdowns. And it's been a dominating fantasy defense for years. The only reasons to take the Bear defense before the Raven defense are Devin Hester and the NFC; the Ravens are the most dependable, dominant fantasy defense out there.
Matt Stover (K): I'm sick of coming up with something to say about kickers. He's a kicker you can start: do you actually need to know more about him?
Willis McGahee (RB): I see McGahee in 2007 as a castle courtyard: no ceiling (Tap. Tap. Is this thing on?). I would add 50% to Jamal Lewis' 2006 numbers. Perhaps this is absurd, but I like this kool-aid, even if I do detect a hint of arsenic.
Todd Heap (TE): At fantasy tight end, there's Antonio Gates and then a bunch of chucks. You could argue Heap is the best of the chucks.
Once again, I see another team without thrilling WRs. But once again, there are potentially competent options for deep leagues in Derrick Mason and Mark Clayton. After August 17th I will explore this WR conundrum further.
Monday, July 02, 2007
July: Irrelevant Controversy Season
I spent most of the past few days away from the computer. Upon my return, I discovered we're no longer in Suspension of Disbelief Season: we've entered Irrelevant Controversy Season!
Since there is no real news in the NFL, but we're all still desperate to talk and think about the NFL, some sportswriters use this month to give us pointless lists and rankings. These lists and rankings give us something to think about and argue about. People obviously react to these sorts of articles, and then they can write about them and argue about them. It's the creation of controversy.
So USA Today is ranking the best 25 NFL players of the last 25 years. Pete Prisco tells you what current players should make the Hall of Fame. Michael Silver ranks the NFL owners. But you already knew these things, didn't you? Because they gave you a chance to debate football, and they've already given a lot of football bloggers something to argue against. And the odds of more such articles in the next month are even better than the odds that half of America is going to spend Wednesday lined up to watch firetrucks and clowns move down the street at three miles per hour.
In the summer I'm usually excited to get into cantankerous arguments on pointless subjects: I'm far removed from the intellectual vitality and discourse of an academic semester, and the heat makes me cranky and mean-spirited. But right now, it exhausts me to think about going once more into the breach on irrelevant to semi-relevant football controversy like this. I'll just be following the publication of such articles from afar, and occasionally directing your attention to them. Because they do fill the necessary need we have to avoid our real lives and think about football during dreary July.
Training Camps aren't too far away.
Since there is no real news in the NFL, but we're all still desperate to talk and think about the NFL, some sportswriters use this month to give us pointless lists and rankings. These lists and rankings give us something to think about and argue about. People obviously react to these sorts of articles, and then they can write about them and argue about them. It's the creation of controversy.
So USA Today is ranking the best 25 NFL players of the last 25 years. Pete Prisco tells you what current players should make the Hall of Fame. Michael Silver ranks the NFL owners. But you already knew these things, didn't you? Because they gave you a chance to debate football, and they've already given a lot of football bloggers something to argue against. And the odds of more such articles in the next month are even better than the odds that half of America is going to spend Wednesday lined up to watch firetrucks and clowns move down the street at three miles per hour.
In the summer I'm usually excited to get into cantankerous arguments on pointless subjects: I'm far removed from the intellectual vitality and discourse of an academic semester, and the heat makes me cranky and mean-spirited. But right now, it exhausts me to think about going once more into the breach on irrelevant to semi-relevant football controversy like this. I'll just be following the publication of such articles from afar, and occasionally directing your attention to them. Because they do fill the necessary need we have to avoid our real lives and think about football during dreary July.
Training Camps aren't too far away.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Fantasy Preview: the Philadelphia Eagles
The premise is simple: I'll tell you what players you can confidently start the season with, and what players should cause your stomach to wobble if you have to start them.
Philadelphia Eagles
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Donovan McNabb (QB): Fear of injury could scare you; then again, a sports hernia and a torn ACL (the two injuries that ended his last two seasons early) are pretty specific injuries, and don't seem predictive of future injuries. When he does start, he is arguably the best fantasy quarterback out there. He's in the same category as Peyton Manning: a total fantasy stud.
Brian Westbrook (RB): At RB, you have to look at total yards as much as you look at rushing yards. Westbrook had 1,916 total yards and 11 total TDs (in essentially 14 games). And because he's such a featured part of the Eagles' running and passing games, he gets you consistent fantasy points week to week. He became a very productive fantasy RB last season; you could feel good with Westbrook as your #1 fantasy RB.
L.J. Smith (TE): He's been a competent fantasy tight end--one of a slew of merely decent fantasy starters.
David Akers (K): Ehghe, you need a kicker! And as the Eagles' kicker, Akers often gets a lot of points.
Defense: it's usually a solid fantasy start.
Philadelphia is another team that doesn't offer you a very good fantasy WR, but a few choices for a deep league or a league with three WRs in the starting lineup. Reggie Brown and Kevin Curtis are both worthy of a roster spot in any league, and worthy of a starting spot in some leagues.
Philadelphia Eagles
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Donovan McNabb (QB): Fear of injury could scare you; then again, a sports hernia and a torn ACL (the two injuries that ended his last two seasons early) are pretty specific injuries, and don't seem predictive of future injuries. When he does start, he is arguably the best fantasy quarterback out there. He's in the same category as Peyton Manning: a total fantasy stud.
Brian Westbrook (RB): At RB, you have to look at total yards as much as you look at rushing yards. Westbrook had 1,916 total yards and 11 total TDs (in essentially 14 games). And because he's such a featured part of the Eagles' running and passing games, he gets you consistent fantasy points week to week. He became a very productive fantasy RB last season; you could feel good with Westbrook as your #1 fantasy RB.
L.J. Smith (TE): He's been a competent fantasy tight end--one of a slew of merely decent fantasy starters.
David Akers (K): Ehghe, you need a kicker! And as the Eagles' kicker, Akers often gets a lot of points.
Defense: it's usually a solid fantasy start.
Philadelphia is another team that doesn't offer you a very good fantasy WR, but a few choices for a deep league or a league with three WRs in the starting lineup. Reggie Brown and Kevin Curtis are both worthy of a roster spot in any league, and worthy of a starting spot in some leagues.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Fantasy Preview: the Seattle Seahawks
The premise is simple: I'll tell you what players you can confidently start the season with, and what players should cause your stomach to wobble if you have to start them.
Seattle Seahawks
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Matt Hasselbeck (QB): People don't get too excited about Hasselbeck, but in the last four seasons he's averaged over 200 yards a game and around 1.5 TDs a game. He's not one of the top fantasy QBs (Manning, Bulger, Brady, Palmer, Brees, McNabb) , but he's among the best of the rest of the bunch. If you don't prioritize getting one of the top fantasy QBs (which is reasonable--to get one of them, you have to pass on a good starting RB or WR), then a QB like Hasselbeck is who you should target: steady, consistent, predictable, but not flashy.
Shaun Alexander (RB): From 2001 to 2003, he was one of the underrated stud fantasy producers. In 2004 and 2005, he emerged as one of the clear top fantasy producers. After a decline in 2006, should we consider Alexander on the decline? I'm not sure. I'd be nervous to draft him early (or expensive), but at the same time, he's a clear feature back with a history of production, so you have to be happy with him.
Here's what I do like though: draft Alexander and Hasselbeck and start both of them. Seattle is usually a pretty good offense, and if you start their starting QB and their feature RB, you are going to get a lot of their points.
Josh Brown (K): Seattle's kicker is one of the legitimate starting kickers.
In a deep league, or in a league starting three WRs, you could start Deion Branch or D. J. Hackett. I've never been a fan of Deion Branch as a fantasy WR. Pretend you don't know that he had two spectacular Super Bowl performances, don't look at the name, and just look a the numbers he's put up season by season in his career. Do the numbers you see point to a good fantasy WR? They don't even point to a mediocre fantasy WR. I'd rather start D. J. Hackett: we have enough evidence available to show that Branch is a poor fantasy producer, but Hackett only has two seasons and seems to have the ubiquitously described "upside." Normally, I prefer proven production to potential; however, when the proven production is sub-par*, I'd rather go with potential.
*I don't really get the term "sub-par" in common usage. We use it to refer to something that is below average, but in golf, you want to be sup-par. Par is average, but shouldn't something bad be considered "above par," and something good be considered "below par"? But I like the term "sub-par": it's the most concise phrase to describe something below average. I'm just always self-conscious when I use it (self-conscious enough to use an asterisk, anyway).
Seattle Seahawks
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Matt Hasselbeck (QB): People don't get too excited about Hasselbeck, but in the last four seasons he's averaged over 200 yards a game and around 1.5 TDs a game. He's not one of the top fantasy QBs (Manning, Bulger, Brady, Palmer, Brees, McNabb) , but he's among the best of the rest of the bunch. If you don't prioritize getting one of the top fantasy QBs (which is reasonable--to get one of them, you have to pass on a good starting RB or WR), then a QB like Hasselbeck is who you should target: steady, consistent, predictable, but not flashy.
Shaun Alexander (RB): From 2001 to 2003, he was one of the underrated stud fantasy producers. In 2004 and 2005, he emerged as one of the clear top fantasy producers. After a decline in 2006, should we consider Alexander on the decline? I'm not sure. I'd be nervous to draft him early (or expensive), but at the same time, he's a clear feature back with a history of production, so you have to be happy with him.
Here's what I do like though: draft Alexander and Hasselbeck and start both of them. Seattle is usually a pretty good offense, and if you start their starting QB and their feature RB, you are going to get a lot of their points.
Josh Brown (K): Seattle's kicker is one of the legitimate starting kickers.
In a deep league, or in a league starting three WRs, you could start Deion Branch or D. J. Hackett. I've never been a fan of Deion Branch as a fantasy WR. Pretend you don't know that he had two spectacular Super Bowl performances, don't look at the name, and just look a the numbers he's put up season by season in his career. Do the numbers you see point to a good fantasy WR? They don't even point to a mediocre fantasy WR. I'd rather start D. J. Hackett: we have enough evidence available to show that Branch is a poor fantasy producer, but Hackett only has two seasons and seems to have the ubiquitously described "upside." Normally, I prefer proven production to potential; however, when the proven production is sub-par*, I'd rather go with potential.
*I don't really get the term "sub-par" in common usage. We use it to refer to something that is below average, but in golf, you want to be sup-par. Par is average, but shouldn't something bad be considered "above par," and something good be considered "below par"? But I like the term "sub-par": it's the most concise phrase to describe something below average. I'm just always self-conscious when I use it (self-conscious enough to use an asterisk, anyway).
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Arguably the Stupidest Post in the History of this Blog
On ESPN's Draft Cast, Corey Brewer just came on to interview on the Live Draft Chat. Predictably, some jackass from Florida asked the weather question: "what's it going to be like to play in a place that is below freezing more often than not during basketball season?"
As a defensive Minnesotan with a geographic inferiority complex, I thought, "You moron. Is that all you think of Minnesota? It's not that damn cold here."
So I checked.
According to About.com, on average November has 23 days below freezing, December 30, January 31, February 28, and March 25.
That's a lot of days, but of course it gets cold at night. Most of those days it's above freezing during the day, right?
According to worldtravels.com, on average "the Twin Cities have maximum temperatures of below freezing point on 76 days out of the year." So there are 76 days a year in the Twin Cities when the temperature never even gets above freezing.
Alright, it's damn cold here. Welcome to Minnesota, Corey Brewer.
As a defensive Minnesotan with a geographic inferiority complex, I thought, "You moron. Is that all you think of Minnesota? It's not that damn cold here."
So I checked.
According to About.com, on average November has 23 days below freezing, December 30, January 31, February 28, and March 25.
That's a lot of days, but of course it gets cold at night. Most of those days it's above freezing during the day, right?
According to worldtravels.com, on average "the Twin Cities have maximum temperatures of below freezing point on 76 days out of the year." So there are 76 days a year in the Twin Cities when the temperature never even gets above freezing.
Alright, it's damn cold here. Welcome to Minnesota, Corey Brewer.
Fantasy Preview: the Pittsburgh Steelers
The premise is simple: I'll tell you what players you can confidently start the season with, and what players should cause your stomach to wobble if you have to start them.
Pittsburgh Steelers
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Willie Parker (RB): Honestly, when I looked at the 2006 numbers at the end of the season, I was surprised to see Willie Parker among the most productive fantasy RBs in the league (in my league, he was one of three good RBs on a last place team, believe it or not, so I didn't pay terribly close attention to him). But he was, and he will likely be a top-10 pick in 2007 fantasy drafts.
Hines Ward (WR): even after a mediocre 2006 season, he's still a worthy starter. If he's your #2 WR, you should be confident: you can depend on solid numbers, and he could put up great numbers.
Jeff Reed (K): The Steeler kicker has consistently been a solid fantasy scorer for years.
Defense: Under Bill Cowher, the Pittsburgh defense was always a great fantasy unit, getting sacks, turnovers, and touchdowns. I don't expect a lot to change with Mike Tomlin as the coach.
There are other Steelers you should think about drafting, but not as week one starters.
Ben Roethlisberger (QB): a good QB, but you should be able to find 12-16 better fantasy starters at the beginning of the season. He's a good fantasy backup that you could feel good starting a few weeks a season if forced.
Heath Miller (TE): He hasn't piled up yards yet, but he's a talented TE that does get touchdowns.
Santonio Holmes (WR): As a rookie he had 824 yards, so there's definite potential that he could be a fantasy starter midway through the season, or earlier.
There's another advantage to drafting Steelers for your fantasy team: they're on TV all the damn time, so you'll get plenty of chances to watch your players.
Pittsburgh Steelers
2006 stats at NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com
Willie Parker (RB): Honestly, when I looked at the 2006 numbers at the end of the season, I was surprised to see Willie Parker among the most productive fantasy RBs in the league (in my league, he was one of three good RBs on a last place team, believe it or not, so I didn't pay terribly close attention to him). But he was, and he will likely be a top-10 pick in 2007 fantasy drafts.
Hines Ward (WR): even after a mediocre 2006 season, he's still a worthy starter. If he's your #2 WR, you should be confident: you can depend on solid numbers, and he could put up great numbers.
Jeff Reed (K): The Steeler kicker has consistently been a solid fantasy scorer for years.
Defense: Under Bill Cowher, the Pittsburgh defense was always a great fantasy unit, getting sacks, turnovers, and touchdowns. I don't expect a lot to change with Mike Tomlin as the coach.
There are other Steelers you should think about drafting, but not as week one starters.
Ben Roethlisberger (QB): a good QB, but you should be able to find 12-16 better fantasy starters at the beginning of the season. He's a good fantasy backup that you could feel good starting a few weeks a season if forced.
Heath Miller (TE): He hasn't piled up yards yet, but he's a talented TE that does get touchdowns.
Santonio Holmes (WR): As a rookie he had 824 yards, so there's definite potential that he could be a fantasy starter midway through the season, or earlier.
There's another advantage to drafting Steelers for your fantasy team: they're on TV all the damn time, so you'll get plenty of chances to watch your players.
Blizzard: NBA Draft!
The NBA draft is...today, I guess, and I'm more excited for this than I was for the NFL draft. Maybe it's because the future of the Minnesota Timberwolves will be tangibly determined in the next 24 hours. Maybe it's because there are so many exciting players in this draft I'm going to want to follow next season. Maybe it's summer and it takes less to get me going than it does in April when the semester is winding down heavy. Maybe it's because I won't be able to watch the draft on TV, and will be following it on the computer like a true jackass. I don't have the answers, man.
Vic Carucci says the Vikes are one of the teams that didn't do enough to improve in the offseason.
How are the Vikings going to use Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor this season? I don't know who has the editorial power at Vikings.com, but the site has a feature on Taylor and Peterson as one of the RB "dynamic duos" around the league. Is this a signal to how the team intends to use them?
As a student of literature, I often come upon world-class writers who have distasteful politics (Pound), messy personal lives (Hughes), or a tendency to act like an ass (Hemingway). There might be all sorts of reasons I want to disrespect the writing, but ultimately, I have to respect the work's quality. That's how I feel about Bill Simmons. Oh, no, it's not that he's that good or anything, or that he's an awful person (I don't know). It's just that his writing consistently annoys me in some way, and yet I keep wanting to read what he writes about football and basketball. Anyway, here's his mock draft with Chad Ford.
Hashmarks is doing some fantasy football mailbags.
Suspension of Disbelief
Via Ballhype, Len Pasquarelli talks with DeAngelo Williams about why he'll be better in 2007 than he was in 2006. Pasquarelli also mentions Tarvaris Jackson and Chad Greenway as second-year players expected to make significant 2007 contributions.
Finally, if this is the sort of thing that interests you, I've got a stupid summer project at Costanza Book Club. I'm re-watching the first eight seasons of Seinfeld (season 9 is not yet available on DVD), choosing favorite quotes and dialogue, and offering a brief comment on the episode. It's a really stupid way to spend a summer, but that doesn't deter me in the slightest.
Vic Carucci says the Vikes are one of the teams that didn't do enough to improve in the offseason.
How are the Vikings going to use Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor this season? I don't know who has the editorial power at Vikings.com, but the site has a feature on Taylor and Peterson as one of the RB "dynamic duos" around the league. Is this a signal to how the team intends to use them?
As a student of literature, I often come upon world-class writers who have distasteful politics (Pound), messy personal lives (Hughes), or a tendency to act like an ass (Hemingway). There might be all sorts of reasons I want to disrespect the writing, but ultimately, I have to respect the work's quality. That's how I feel about Bill Simmons. Oh, no, it's not that he's that good or anything, or that he's an awful person (I don't know). It's just that his writing consistently annoys me in some way, and yet I keep wanting to read what he writes about football and basketball. Anyway, here's his mock draft with Chad Ford.
Hashmarks is doing some fantasy football mailbags.
Suspension of Disbelief
Via Ballhype, Len Pasquarelli talks with DeAngelo Williams about why he'll be better in 2007 than he was in 2006. Pasquarelli also mentions Tarvaris Jackson and Chad Greenway as second-year players expected to make significant 2007 contributions.
Finally, if this is the sort of thing that interests you, I've got a stupid summer project at Costanza Book Club. I'm re-watching the first eight seasons of Seinfeld (season 9 is not yet available on DVD), choosing favorite quotes and dialogue, and offering a brief comment on the episode. It's a really stupid way to spend a summer, but that doesn't deter me in the slightest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)