|
 |
5/11/01
Email Tim
|
|
Believe it or not, there is more to Fantasy Football than just knowing
which players have the talent to succeed in the NFL. So many factors
come into play when deciding if a player will produce or not. A
quarterback will depend on his offensive system, the offensive line
in front of him, the runningback behind him, and the wide receivers
that are catching the ball.
This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes evaluating players
for the 2001 season. Another factor that is brought up by a lot
of Fantasy Football Experts is Strength of Schedule. As usual, the
experts have led you astray. Using Strength of Schedule to evaluate
your fantasy players does have its flaws.
In an effort to better prepare you for the 2001 season, I have listed
the reasons why Strength of Schedule is not necessarily the way
to go.
Strength of Schedule Does Not Always Equal Weakness
Just because team had a bad record in the prior year, this does
not always mean their defense is bad.
| T O P D E F E N
S E S A G A I N S T T H E R U N I
N 2 0 0 0 |
| RANK |
TEAM |
RECORD |
| 1 |
Baltimore |
12-4 |
| 2 |
NY Giants |
12-4 |
| 3 |
Tennessee |
13-3 |
| 4 |
San Diego |
1-15 |
| 5 |
Oakland |
12-4 |
| 6 |
Buffalo |
8-8 |
| 7 |
Denver |
11-5 |
| 8 |
Green Bay |
9-7 |
| 9 |
Tampa Bay |
10-6 |
| 10 |
New Orleans |
10-6 |
|
A team in the AFC west has San Diego twice on their schedule. This
would result in a 2-30 record towards their strength of schedule.
If you had Tyrone Wheatley, Ricky Watters or Mike Anderson last
season, you would know San Diego's run defense was anything like
their 1-15 record. San Diego had one of the best run defenses in
the league. This will not change anytime soon with the addition
of Marcellus Wiley to their defensive line.
The opposite can also be true. A good team record does not always
equate to a good defense.
Below are a couple of the teams that made the playoffs but had poor
defenses:
- Minnesota 29th Overall Defenses
- St. Louis 23rd Overall Defense
- Indianapolis 19th Overall Defense
This just goes to show a team record does not always relate to defensive
greatness. Sometimes numbers can be deceiving as in all of the above
teams. In such cases, you just need to read between the lines.
Teams are a-changing
I do admit there can be some correlation between a record and a
defense. In the age of Free Agency though, a team can go from 5-11
to the Superbowl. We have seen such leaps in the past two seasons
from the Baltimore Ravens and St. Louis Rams. It is not the fact
that those two teams has become great teams, but more that the NFL
has become full of parity.
Teams that were bad in 1999 were not always bad in 2000.
Below is a chart of the ten worst teams in 1999 and their 2000 record
and defensive ranking:
| TEAM |
1999 RECORD |
2000 RECORD |
2000 DEF. RANKING |
| Cleveland |
2-14
|
3-13
|
26th
Ranked Defense |
| New Orleans |
3-13
|
10-6
|
8th
Ranked Defense |
| Cincinnati |
4-12
|
4-12
|
22nd
Ranked Defense |
| San Francisco |
4-12
|
6-10
|
29th
Ranked Defense |
| Philadelphia |
5-11
|
11-5
|
10th
Ranked Defense |
| Atlanta |
5-11
|
4-12
|
25th
Ranked Defense |
| Denver |
6-10
|
11-5
|
24th
Ranked Defense |
| Arizona |
6-10
|
3-13
|
30th
Ranked Defense |
| Chicago |
6-10
|
5-11
|
15th
Ranked Defense |
| Pittsburgh |
6-10
|
9-7
|
7th
Ranked Defense |
|
This chart shows that four of the ten worst teams from 1999 improved
to a winning record in 2000 (three made the playoffs). This chart
also shows that one of those teams (Denver) had one of the worst
defenses in the league. This is more evidence that a good record
does not equate to a good defense (just as a bad record does not
always indicate a weak defense).
As you can see what a team did in 2000 will not always be what they
do in 2001. As Chris Berman would say, “That is why they play game!”
Championship Aspirations
A couple of years ago in a keeper league I selected Mark Brunell
in round four of my draft. Brunell had gotten injured in the preseason
and was suppose to miss at least a month of the season. Brunell
had also just come off a 4300 passing yard season. My reasoning
for taking Brunell was my main goal in any league is to win the
championship. We start two quarterbacks in my keeper league, so
getting a first round talent in round four was a steal. Brunell
would hurt me for the first three or four weeks, but once he came
back he would help me in my championship run.
Obviously, Brunell has turned out to be a disappointment since 1996,
but the reasoning behind this story is the goal of any fantasy football
owner is to win the championship. If my team goes 14-0 and loses
it’s first playoff game, I would call that a disappointment. If
my team goes 8-6 and wins the league, that would be a successful
season.
It is the same for Strength of Schedule. An easy schedule for a
runningback does little good if he plays Baltimore, Miami and Tennessee
in the fantasy playoffs. He may rush for 1300-1400 yards in the
first 14 weeks, but he will only average 40 yards rushing in your
playoffs. Instead of using Strength of Schedule as part of my evaluation,
I look at the defenses a player will face in my fantasy playoffs.
I could care less if my team wins all of their games in my fantasy
regular season. As long as I make the playoffs and I set my team
up for the best chance to win it all.
As example I have provided the teams that face the five easiest
run defenses in weeks 15 through 17 in 2001:
| RANK |
TEAM |
OPPONENTS DEF. RANK WEEKS
15-17 |
| 1 |
NY Giants |
26th
Average Rank |
| 2 |
Dallas |
25th
Average Rank |
| 3 |
Buffalo |
24th
Average Rank |
| 4 |
San Francisco |
22nd
Average Rank |
| 5 |
Carolina |
22nd
Average Rank |
|
The above table shows that players like Tiki Barber and Emmitt Smith
will have a nice run in the fantasy playoffs.
Whether using a player’s week 15 through 17 schedule or a full Strength
of Schedule, this strategy should not be used for the full evaluation
of players. This strategy is a way of evaluating several players
close in fantasy value. What I mean by this is if Marshall Faulk
has a lot tougher schedule than Corey Dillon, Faulk should still
be rated a lot higher than Dillon. The difference between the two
players is so great that the Strength of Schedule should not change
this. A player’s schedule is just one of many tools you can use
to evaluate a player.
Huddle Up
- Two players not to count out for the 2001 fantasy season
are: Mike Alstott, and Antonio Freeman. Both are talented players
that could have bounce back years. The great thing about a bad
year for a fantasy player is they will drop in the next year’s
drafts.
- One big free agent signing that may have gotten by the average
fantasy owner is Lorenzo Neal (Fullback) signing with Cincinnati.
All Neal does is block, but he does that very well. He should
be nice addition in front of Corey Dillon in 2001.
- Something tells me Buffalo is going to be doing the dreaded
runningback by committee. This is presuming Antowain Smith gets
cut for salary cap reasons. This may be just my opinion, but
I am just not sold on either Bryson or Morris as a feature back.
- Do not be scared off of Ricky Williams and Ricky Watters just
because they are being pressed by young backs (Shaun Alexander
and Deuce McAllister). Both are in great shape and very competitive.
I believe both Watters and Williams will step up to the challenge
and produce great fantasy numbers.
- Injuries can be confusing. Most owners say stay away from
injury prone players. What is injury prone though? Robert Smith
was said to be injury prone and he had over 1400 yards rushing
in 2000. Isaac Bruce was also supposed to be injury prone until
1999. I do not buy into a player being injury prone. Any player
can get injured on the Pro level. If you draft a Fred Taylor
just make sure you cover yourself with a good backup.
- Another note about injuries is sometimes players take a full
18 months to recover from a major injury. I fully expect to
see Jamal Anderson improve on his 2000 totals. If you look at
Anderson’s last eight games, you will see a huge improvement
when comparing to his first eight games.
:: comments to tim
ludwig
|
|
|
 |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
