Fantasy Football Today - fantasy football rankings, cheatsheets, and information
A Fantasy Football Community!




Create An Account  |  Advertise  |  Contact      







Staff Writer
Email Matt

Matt's Articles

The Weekly Gut Check - Vol. 126
New Crank?
7/17/08

Rookie Scouting Portfolio The “Gut Feeling” is often synonymous with a sense of desperation resulting from a lack of preparation. The Gut Check is a huge proponent of studying the numbers, but there’s a point where one can place too much emphasis on the wrong information. This can result in the undervaluing or overlooking a player’s potential. Therefore, The Weekly Gut Check is devoted to examining the frame of reference behind certain number-driven guidelines that fantasy football owners use to make decisions.

Although The Weekly Gut Check doesn’t claim to be psychic, he does believe that he can dispel certain numbers biases and help you make the best choices for your team. We’ll keep a running tally of The Weekly Gut Check’s insights. This way you can gauge his views as something to seriously consider, or at least seriously consider running the opposite way as fast as you can!


Last week I said I would unveil an improved Crank Score formula that is simpler and hopefully more effective at measuring what fantasy owners seek. The week leading up to this column I experimented with several ways to combine the Elite, #1 Games, #2 Games, and Sub Par Games into a single, mathematically logical number that is more intuitive in the way it shows how much better one player is over another. How did I do? Remember when Coca-Cola revealed New Coke? Coke would like to forget it and when it comes to the New Crank Score I think I’m feeling the same way. Fortunately, I’m doing this in the spirit of experimentation; Coke really thought they had a better product. And I just might be feeling too critical of the result. Check it out and tell me what you think.

What I developed is indeed easier on the eye and it is a truer form of measuring consistency for starter quality performances at its most basic level. It differs from the original Crank Score in a few ways:

  • Missed games due to injury are factored into the New Crank Score.
  • Elite and #1 quality games are no longer given more weight.
  • Fantasy points per game average no longer dominate the formula.
  • The New Crank Score has a maximum number at each position.

Let’s flesh out each point in more detail before providing example scores from 2007 with the new formula.

Injuries Matter

If you are simply trying to determine which players have the most consistent performances whenever they take the field, injuries don’t matter. Factoring out injuries yields a consistency measurement in its purest form. But I want a more refined number. Ronnie Brown was one of the top four most consistent runners in 2007 according to the old Crank Score. The problem is Brown only played seven games last year. If you couldn’t find a back even remotely close to his production (odds were against you that you did) then you were out of luck for the remaining eight weeks when it came to your fantasy team. I’m measuring consistency for performance that already happened therefore injury should be a factor if I want a true reflection of a player’s impact. It’s just like the SAT; you get points for putting your name on the form and demonstrating you showed up.

All Tiers Are Considered Equal

The original Crank Score placed more positive weight on #1 Games and more negative weight on Sub Par Games. When measuring a position such as quarterback or tight end where most leagues only use one of each in a starting lineup, a significant emphasis on #1 Games is fine. But I wondered if it should be overstated when measuring a running back or a wide receiver when most leagues have between two and four of each in their starting lineups.

Go Lighter On The Fantasy Points, Will Ya?

The tiers are already created with fantasy points as a factor, because each is based on a minimum amount of fantasy points scored. In fact the minimums are adjusted automatically for the league type. Creating a formula that incorporates fantasy points to a further degree might add too much weight to average points per game. We’re looking for consistent scoring within a desired tier. Adrian Peterson might have had 40-point games, but he missed two contests and had some rough outings. If you put him head to head against a back with a significantly lower points per game average but greater consistency, the other running back would win the one on one match up more often in a 16-game stretch.

Exhibit A? Let’s use Adrian Peterson and his 17.1 fantasy point per game average versus Willis McGahee and his 12.8 fantasy point per game average.

  A. Peterson     W. McGahee
Wk Score Fpts Winner WK Score Fpts
1 W 24-3 22.3 Peterson 1 L 20-27 11.1
2 L 17-20 11.8 McGahee 2 W 20-13 16.3
3 L 10-13 21.0 Peterson 3 W 26-23 12.1
4 L 16-23 11.8 McGahee 4 L 13-27 13.6
5 BYE 0.0 McGahee 5 W 9-7 13.6
6 W 34-31 41.3 Peterson 6 W 22-3 13.0
7 L 14-24 13.5 McGahee 7 L 14-19 17.5
8 L 16-23 7.0 Peterson 8 BYE 0.0
9 W 35-17 49.5 Peterson 9 L 7-38 12.2
10 L 0-34 5.9 McGahee 10 L 7-21 13.0
11 DNP 0.0 McGahee 11 L 30-33 18.6
12 DNP 0.0 McGahee 12 L 14-32 12.1
13 W 42-10 24.6 Peterson 13 L 24-27 21.9
14 W 27-7 0.3 McGahee 14 L 20-44 5.2
15 W 20-13 21.5 Peterson 15 L 16-22 10.6
16 L 21-32 4.8 McGahee 16 L 6-27 1.0
17 L 19-22 3.6 Peterson 17 DNP 0.0
When matching them up head-to-head, Peterson comes out the loser to McGahee due to his injuries and lack of consistency. McGahee actually wins 9 out 16 match ups with Peterson. This doesn’t say anything about 2008, but for 2007 Willis McGahee was the more consistent starter in the average fantasy league where head-to-head performance is key.

One can argue if the Peterson owner had more consistently productive players around his RB then the Vikings RB’s numbers would enhance the team without hurting it too greatly. But one player’s sub par effort is often the deciding factor between a win and a loss between two competitive teams in a fantasy league, especially from an RB averaging 17 points per game.

Who would have thought a 4.3-point per game difference wouldn’t matter for Peterson when facing a more consistent, but lower scoring back like McGahee. Could there be something to this?

The New Crank Score Has A Maximum Number At Each Position

A player can actually attain a perfect score at his position. The New Crank Score is essentially the sum of all the positive consistency categories minus the Sub Par category. For a typical lineup, here are the maximum New Crank Scores by position. The numbers under each category indicate the number of games performed at that level of productivity.

 Max Crank Scores By Position
  Max Elite Max #1 Max #2 Max #3 Max Crank
1 QB 16 16 N/A N/A 32
2 RB 16 16 16 N/A 48
3 WR 16 16 16 16 64
1 TE 16 16 N/A N/A 32

The issue I have with this method of calculating the Crank Score is one cannot cleanly apply the single number across all positions. The maximum score for each position is different. But it does naturally show that the positions with the higher maximum Crank Score naturally have more value for a starting lineup. So in this respect, if one were to attempt to project a Crank Score he would first determine the maximum point total for each position and create tiers for each position based on the average values for each position in previous seasons.

How Is New Crank Calculated?

The basics remain the same; the only thing that changes is how the tiers are calculated to produce a single score.

New Crank = (Sum of Elite Games + Sum of #1 Games + Sum of #2 Games)-Sum of Sub Par Games

If it’s a position in a league where there is only one starter at that position in the lineup, then the formula only uses Elite and #1 Games when adding the positive categories. If there are four receivers in a starting lineup, then the positive categories include #3 Games and #4 Games. You get the idea.

Runners

Here is the New Crank for the top 48 RBs in 2007. There are some notable differences from the Old Crank Score (the original ranking is the number to the left of each player’s name). The second set of Elite, #1, #2, and Sub Par columns are the actual number of games where the runner scored enough fantasy points to qualify for each category. These are used to create the New Crank.

 New Crank For Top 48 RBs in 2007
Player w/Old Crank Rank G Fpt/Gm Elite 1 2 Sub Par Elite 1 2 Sub Par New Crank
1. Brian Westbrook 15 18.83 40.00% 80.00% 93.33% 6.67% 6 12 14 1 31
2. LaDainian Tomlinson 16 18.93 37.50% 75.00% 87.50% 12.50% 6 12 14 2 30
8. Willis McGahee 15 12.79 6.67% 53.33% 86.67% 13.33% 1 8 13 2 20
5. Joseph Addai 15 15.57 40.00% 53.33% 66.67% 33.33% 6 8 10 5 19
6. Jamal Lewis 15 14.74 26.67% 60.00% 66.67% 33.33% 4 9 10 5 18
4. Adrian Peterson 14 17.06 42.86% 50.00% 64.29% 35.71% 6 7 9 5 17
9. Clinton Portis 16 14.44 12.50% 56.25% 68.75% 31.25% 2 9 11 5 17
12. Earnest Graham 15 12.15 33.33% 53.33% 60.00% 40.00% 5 8 9 6 16
10. Steven Jackson 12 13.61 16.67% 50.00% 75.00% 25.00% 2 6 9 3 14
7. Brandon Jacobs 11 14.05 9.09% 63.64% 72.73% 27.27% 1 7 8 3 13
14. Frank Gore 15 12.65 20.00% 33.33% 66.67% 33.33% 3 5 10 5 13
11. Marshawn Lynch 13 13.22 7.69% 53.85% 69.23% 30.77% 1 7 9 4 13
16. Marion Barber 16 12.34 18.75% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 3 8 8 8 11
18. Ryan Grant 14 11.31 28.57% 35.71% 57.14% 42.86% 4 5 8 6 11
3. Ronnie Brown 7 18.44 42.86% 57.14% 71.43% 28.57% 3 4 5 2 10
17. Reggie Bush 12 11.32 8.33% 33.33% 66.67% 33.33% 1 4 8 4 9
15. Larry Johnson 8 12.31 37.50% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 3 4 4 4 7
13. Derrick Ward 8 12.76 12.50% 25.00% 75.00% 25.00% 1 2 6 2 7
20. Willie Parker 15 10.67 13.33% 26.67% 53.33% 46.67% 2 4 8 7 7
23. LenDale White 16 10.26 6.25% 31.25% 50.00% 50.00% 1 5 8 8 6
24. Justin Fargas 14 10.26 14.29% 35.71% 42.86% 57.14% 2 5 6 8 5
21. Edgerrin James 16 11.55 12.50% 31.25% 43.75% 56.25% 2 5 7 9 5
22. Maurice Jones-Drew 15 11.43 20.00% 33.33% 40.00% 60.00% 3 5 6 9 5
19. Sammy Morris 6 9.98 16.67% 16.67% 66.67% 33.33% 1 1 4 2 4
25. Ron Dayne 13 9.58 7.69% 30.77% 46.15% 53.85% 1 4 6 7 4
30. Fred Taylor 15 10.4 13.33% 26.67% 40.00% 60.00% 2 4 6 9 3
28. Andre Hall 5 8.1 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 60.00% 1 2 2 3 2
33. Kenny Watson 15 10.37 13.33% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 2 3 6 9 2
32. Kevin Jones 13 9.68 7.69% 30.77% 38.46% 61.54% 1 4 5 8 2
31. Cedric Benson 11 9.46 0.00% 27.27% 45.45% 54.55% 0 3 5 6 2
29. Chester Taylor 14 11.04 7.14% 35.71% 35.71% 64.29% 1 5 5 9 2
26. Darius Walker 4 10.13 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0 1 2 2 1
27. "Cadillac" Williams 4 10.13 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0 1 2 2 1
36. Thomas Jones 16 9.1 0.00% 18.75% 43.75% 56.25% 0 3 7 9 1
35. Laurence Maroney 13 10.08 7.69% 23.08% 38.46% 61.54% 1 3 5 8 1
34. Travis Henry 11 9.05 0.00% 36.36% 36.36% 63.64% 0 4 4 7 1
41. Dominic Rhodes 6 7.2 16.67% 16.67% 33.33% 66.67% 1 1 2 4 0
38. Maurice Morris 13 8.78 0.00% 23.08% 38.46% 61.54% 0 3 5 8 0
39. Shaun Alexander 13 8.4 0.00% 23.08% 38.46% 61.54% 0 3 5 8 0
37. Ahman Green 6 8.38 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 66.67% 0 2 2 4 0
40. LaMont Jordan 11 8.87 18.18% 27.27% 27.27% 72.73% 2 3 3 8 0
49. Ahmad Bradshaw 5 5.24 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 80.00% 1 1 1 4 -1
46. Chris Henry 6 4.87 0.00% 16.67% 33.33% 66.67% 0 1 2 4 -1
43. DeShawn Wynn 7 7.37 0.00% 28.57% 28.57% 71.43% 0 2 2 5 -1
44. Kolby Smith 9 7.5 11.11% 11.11% 33.33% 66.67% 1 1 3 6 -1
42. Rudi Johnson 11 7.7 9.09% 27.27% 27.27% 72.73% 1 3 3 8 -1
50. Samkon Gado 8 6.2 12.50% 12.50% 25.00% 75.00% 1 1 2 6 -2
47. Najeh Davenport 15 7.35 13.33% 13.33% 26.67% 73.33% 2 2 4 11 -3
45. DeAngelo Williams 16 7.46 6.25% 25.00% 25.00% 75.00% 1 4 4 12 -3
48. Warrick Dunn 16 7.48 6.25% 18.75% 25.00% 75.00% 1 3 4 12 -4

Willis McGahee’s score flies off the board and slaps onlookers in the face. The key number for McGahee is his 86.67% rate of starter level performances, which only LT and Westbrook exceeded last year. McGahee is getting selected in the range of the 12th and 20th overall among backs in Mock Draft Central’s 118 qualifying mocks from 6/28-7/5. His average draft position is 15th overall and the 12th at his position. For what it’s worth, McGahee was a great in-season, #2 RB because there were only two other backs who could be counted on more to deliver a starter worthy performance were the best of the best. If you can land players with this level of consistency for your starting lineup your team may lack flash, but they will be hard to beat.

Clinton Portis (7th), Earnest Graham (8th), and Steven Jackson (9th) all come out looking better with New Crank. Portis is slightly undervalued in mock drafts, but that’s been the case for the Redskin runner last year. Graham is a good draft day bargain in 2008 because he is going 18th among backs in the same Mock Draft Central report I discussed earlier with McGahee. If you aren’t risk averse and the “Kevin Jones eyeing the Bucs” story remains merely a story, then Graham is a good reason why you consider picking a receiver in the first or second round and follow up with either McGahee or Graham in rounds two or three. Jackson coming in 9th after his injury-riddled year demonstrates why fantasy owners are expecting a rebound for the Rams runner.

The same can be said about Frank Gore, who is going 7th among RBs. Owners are ignoring the fact that Gore had a disappointing season and believe Martz will help Gore produce more like Marshall Faulk. Ryan Grant is a runner many owners are still figuring out where he’s best drafted. When one looks at his last 8 starts, Grant’s consistency made him a top eight runner. But the Packer is going anywhere from 9th to 18th among backs in mock drafts. I like him at the turn of the first and second round.

Injury is obviously the factor it deserves to be in this ranking. Clinton Portis gets higher marks due to playing all 16 games. Brandon Jacobs remained starter-worthy, but if he had played three or four more games and produced at the same rate, he might have been among the five most consistent backs in 2007. The original Crank Score ranks him seventh; the new Crank ranks him 10th; and mock drafters are selecting him 14th, which is likely due to Ahmad Bradshaw’s performance in the playoffs. Ronnie Brown may have been ranked third under the original Crank Score, but with injuries factored into the equation of the new Crank Brown drops to 18th, which is slightly lower than his current ADP of 15th.

Interestingly enough Larry Johnson and Derrick Ward, who respectively played eight games, are still seen as more consistent than Willie Parker, who had 15 starts. The Steelers offensive line has come under fire after a disappointing 2007, but the organization also selected Rashard Mendenhall in the first round, a power runner who Pittsburgh likely believes is a better fit for their offensive philosophy.

Maurice Jones Drew got some early second round love by owners in some mocks I have done recently, but the presence of Fred Taylor really cut into his production. MJD is capable of becoming a great fantasy runner, but until Jacksonville accepts the fact they can ride him like Philly rides Westbrook, the UCLA alum comes with a fantasy owner advisory.

Wide Receivers

 New Crank For Top 50 WRs in 2007
Player w/Old Crank Rank G Fpt/Gm Elite 1 2 3 Sub Par Elite 1 2 3 Sub Par Crank
1. Randy Moss 16 17.96 62.50% 68.75% 81.25% 87.50% 12.50% 10 11 13 14 2 46
3. Terrell Owens 15 15.07 46.67% 66.67% 73.33% 73.33% 26.67% 7 10 11 11 4 35
4. Braylon Edwards 16 14.06 37.50% 62.50% 68.75% 75.00% 25.00% 6 10 11 12 4 35
5. Larry Fitzgerald 15 13.41 33.33% 46.67% 66.67% 86.67% 13.33% 5 7 10 13 2 33
7. Reggie Wayne 16 13.21 31.25% 50.00% 62.50% 75.00% 25.00% 5 8 10 12 4 31
6. Greg Jennings 13 12.62 30.77% 61.54% 76.92% 76.92% 23.08% 4 8 10 10 3 29
8. Marques Colston 16 11.64 37.50% 56.25% 56.25% 56.25% 43.75% 6 9 9 9 7 26
9. T.J. Houshmandzadeh 16 11.73 25.00% 37.50% 56.25% 68.75% 31.25% 4 6 9 11 5 25
12. Brandon Marshall 16 11.26 18.75% 31.25% 50.00% 75.00% 25.00% 3 5 8 12 4 24
2. Andre Johnson 9 14.79 44.44% 77.78% 77.78% 77.78% 22.22% 4 7 7 7 2 23
14. Plaxico Burress 16 10.91 37.50% 43.75% 50.00% 56.25% 43.75% 6 7 8 9 7 23
15. Torry Holt 16 10.06 12.50% 43.75% 50.00% 68.75% 31.25% 2 7 8 11 5 23
16. Wes Welker 16 10.56 12.50% 43.75% 56.25% 62.50% 37.50% 2 7 9 10 6 22
10. Santonio Holmes 13 11.07 23.08% 53.85% 53.85% 61.54% 38.46% 3 7 7 8 5 20
13. Chad Johnson 16 12.29 25.00% 37.50% 37.50% 62.50% 37.50% 4 6 6 10 6 20
19. Roddy White 16 9.75 25.00% 43.75% 43.75% 50.00% 50.00% 4 7 7 8 8 18
11. Anquan Boldin 12 11.73 16.67% 41.67% 50.00% 66.67% 33.33% 2 5 6 8 4 17
20. Bobby Engram 16 9.42 6.25% 43.75% 43.75% 56.25% 43.75% 1 7 7 9 7 17
22. Joey Galloway 15 9.17 26.67% 40.00% 40.00% 46.67% 53.33% 4 6 6 7 8 15
23. Reggie Williams 14 8.84 7.14% 28.57% 57.14% 57.14% 42.86% 1 4 8 8 6 15
24. Derrick Mason 16 8.67 6.25% 25.00% 37.50% 62.50% 37.50% 1 4 6 10 6 15
17. Deion Branch 10 9.01 10.00% 50.00% 60.00% 60.00% 40.00% 1 5 6 6 4 14
25. Jerricho Cotchery 15 8.58 13.33% 26.67% 46.67% 53.33% 46.67% 2 4 7 8 7 14
27. Shaun McDonald 16 8.16 0.00% 31.25% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0 5 8 8 8 13
21. Roy Williams 12 9.48 25.00% 25.00% 33.33% 58.33% 41.67% 3 3 4 7 5 12
32. Chris Chambers 16 7.64 0.00% 6.25% 43.75% 62.50% 37.50% 0 1 7 10 6 12
26. Hines Ward 13 8.95 15.38% 23.08% 30.77% 53.85% 46.15% 2 3 4 7 6 10
28. Steve Smith 15 9.92 26.67% 26.67% 33.33% 40.00% 60.00% 4 4 5 6 9 10
30. Dwayne Bowe 15 8.63 13.33% 26.67% 33.33% 46.67% 53.33% 2 4 5 7 8 10
34. Nate Burleson 16 7.74 6.25% 25.00% 43.75% 43.75% 56.25% 1 4 7 7 9 10
35. Kevin Walter 15 7.13 13.33% 26.67% 33.33% 46.67% 53.33% 2 4 5 7 8 10
36. Bernard Berrian 16 7.82 6.25% 18.75% 31.25% 50.00% 50.00% 1 3 5 8 8 9
18. D.J. Hackett 6 9.4 33.33% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 2 3 3 3 3 8
31. Patrick Crayton 13 8.59 15.38% 30.77% 38.46% 38.46% 61.54% 2 4 5 5 8 8
29. Laveranues Coles 11 9.15 18.18% 27.27% 27.27% 45.45% 54.55% 2 3 3 5 6 7
37. Calvin Johnson 15 7.39 0.00% 26.67% 40.00% 40.00% 60.00% 0 4 6 6 9 7
40. Brandon Stokley 13 7.15 0.00% 15.38% 38.46% 46.15% 53.85% 0 2 5 6 7 6
41. David Patten 14 6.91 7.14% 28.57% 35.71% 35.71% 64.29% 1 4 5 5 9 6
46. Reggie Brown 16 6.6 0.00% 12.50% 37.50% 43.75% 56.25% 0 2 6 7 9 6
38. Isaac Bruce 13 7.45 0.00% 30.77% 30.77% 38.46% 61.54% 0 4 4 5 8 5
39. Santana Moss 13 7.7 15.38% 23.08% 23.08% 38.46% 61.54% 2 3 3 5 8 5
42. Donald Driver 15 7.81 6.67% 20.00% 26.67% 40.00% 60.00% 1 3 4 6 9 5
43. Sidney Rice 11 5.78 0.00% 36.36% 36.36% 36.36% 63.64% 0 4 4 4 7 5
47. Arnaz Battle 15 6.43 0.00% 20.00% 33.33% 40.00% 60.00% 0 3 5 6 9 5
48. Lee Evans 16 7.18 18.75% 18.75% 31.25% 31.25% 68.75% 3 3 5 5 11 5
49. Amani Toomer 14 6.71 0.00% 14.29% 28.57% 42.86% 57.14% 0 2 4 6 8 4
33. Greg Camarillo 4 7 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 50.00% 50.00% 1 1 1 2 2 3
44. Chris Henry 7 6.61 0.00% 14.29% 42.86% 42.86% 57.14% 0 1 3 3 4 3
45. Kevin Curtis 16 9.19 18.75% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 75.00% 3 4 4 4 12 3
50. Marvin Harrison 5 6.14 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 0 1 1 2 3 1

How consistent was Randy Moss in 2007? The maximum New Crank Score for a WR in a three-receiver starting lineup is 48, Moss scored 46 in a season for the ages. Andre Johnson was great when he was healthy, the New Crank Score shows where he falls with the dings factored into the equation (9th). Mock Draft Central participants are as optimistic he can stay healthy and threaten to crack the elite (7th). Santonio Holmes, Anquan Boldin, D.J. Hackett, and Deion Branch all lost ground due to injury.

Chris Chambers turned out to be slightly underrated with this new scoring because over 60 percent of his games were starter quality. Now that he’ll have a full season with the Chargers, I expect Chambers to fulfill his vast potential and produce as a top 15 receiver. Right now, he’s going off Mock Draft Central’s cumulative board as the 27th ranked receiver. Chambers has both the running game and surrounding cast not to have a bull’s eye on his back on every play.

The one player I like to improve his production this year is Kevin Curtis. He had three big games last year, but there were no other deep threats to be accounted for in the Eagles passing attack. DeSean Jackson’s presence should change that. I also like the trade for Lorenzo Booker, because he’s an example of an organization finding the kind of talent that fits well within their offensive scheme. This will allow the Eagles to use Booker and Westbrook at the same time, creating opportunities for the defense to forget about Curtis, which will result in big plays. I’m not expecting Curtis to be a top 15 player, but he could make a fine #3 WR at a bargain price.

Quarterbacks

Not much changes from the original Crank Score to the New Crank Score when it comes to quarterbacks. In fact only a few players moved up or down, and only by a notch or two.

 New Crank For Top 24 QBs in 2007
Player w/Old Crank Rank G Fpt/Gm Elite 1 Sub Par Elite 1 Sub Par New Crank
1. Tom Brady 16 25.88 75.00% 93.75% 6.25% 12 15 1 26
2. Tony Romo 16 21.1 50.00% 68.75% 31.25% 8 11 5 14
3. Peyton Manning 16 18.94 43.75% 68.75% 31.25% 7 11 5 13
5. Brett Favre 16 17.47 37.50% 68.75% 31.25% 6 11 5 12
4. Derek Anderson 16 18.32 31.25% 68.75% 31.25% 5 11 5 11
6. Kurt Warner 14 17.99 42.86% 64.29% 35.71% 6 9 5 10
7. Ben Roethlisberger 15 19.11 40.00% 60.00% 40.00% 6 9 6 9
9. Drew Brees 16 18.77 31.25% 56.25% 43.75% 5 9 7 7
11. Matt Hasselbeck 16 17.52 31.25% 50.00% 50.00% 5 8 8 5
8. Brian Griese 7 16.42 14.29% 71.43% 28.57% 1 5 2 4
10. David Garrard 12 16.38 8.33% 58.33% 41.67% 1 7 5 3
12. Chris Redman 6 14.13 16.67% 50.00% 50.00% 1 3 3 1
13. Carson Palmer 16 16.89 18.75% 43.75% 56.25% 3 7 9 1
14. Donovan McNabb 14 16.61 21.43% 42.86% 57.14% 3 6 8 1
15. Luke McCown 5 14.41 40.00% 40.00% 60.00% 2 2 3 1
16. Todd Collins 4 13.91 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0 2 2 0
17. Sage Rosenfels 9 15.38 11.11% 44.44% 55.56% 1 4 5 0
18. Jon Kitna 16 15.06 12.50% 43.75% 56.25% 2 7 9 0
19. Jay Cutler 16 15.4 18.75% 37.50% 62.50% 3 6 10 -1
20. Jason Campbell 13 13.88 15.38% 38.46% 61.54% 2 5 8 -1
21. Vince Young 15 13.02 13.33% 40.00% 60.00% 2 6 9 -1
22. Philip Rivers 16 13.71 18.75% 37.50% 62.50% 3 6 10 -1
23. Trent Green 5 12.54 0.00% 40.00% 60.00% 0 2 3 -1
24. Cleo Lemon 9 14.24 11.11% 33.33% 66.67% 1 3 6 -2

Carson Palmer is a player getting a ton of love from fantasy owners at Mock Draft Central. On average he’s the fifth QB off their board, but he wasn’t even a starter in a 12-team league when it comes to consistent, start-like performance in 2007. What has changed in Cincinnati to make Palmer owners believe last year was a fluke? Chris Henry’s football card may have appeared more often on post office bulletin boards than collector shows, but he was a big reason why the passing game was so good in recent years. Donovan McNabb has been used to making something out of nothing, but can Palmer do the same thing? Rudi Johnson is healthy, but it’s difficult to anticipate him returning to his rock-solid form of two years ago. If you can get Palmer as a bargain, great, but his reputation leading up to 2007 has carried over in 2008 and that makes him a risk as the 5th QB off the board.

David Garrard’s numbers, much like RB Ryan Grant’s, are deceiving, because he and the Jags offense got on track in the last eight games of the 2007 season. Eighty three percent of Garrard’s games were starting quality down the stretch. With the addition of Jerry Porter, the improving play of Reggie Williams, and the impeding subtraction of underachieving Matt Jones should solidify the Jaguars rotation. Don’t expect Garrard to be an elite fantasy quarterback this year, but he should continue to be a viable starter.

Brian Griese was surprisingly good for his seven starts. People forget about him during his early days with the Broncos. Luke McCown wasn’t bad either. Both will serve as strong depth for Jon Gruden in Tampa. If you need a waiver wire gem, one of these two may do the trick. Remember them in case you own Garcia or your QB gets hurt and there’s not much in your league’s free agent pool.

Tight Ends

There aren’t any groundbreaking differences with tight ends, either. As with the quarterback position, this has to do with the fact that most leagues start only 1 TE or 1 QB. The New Crank score impacts the skill positions where there are multiple spots in a starting lineup.

 New Crank For Top 24 TEs in 2007
Player w/Old Crank Rank G Fpt/Gm Elite 1 Sub Par Elite 1 Sub Par New Crank
1. Kellen Winslow 16 8.79 37.50% 81.25% 18.75% 6 13 3 16
2. Jason Witten 16 9.78 50.00% 68.75% 31.25% 8 11 5 14
3. Antonio Gates 16 9.53 50.00% 62.50% 37.50% 8 10 6 12
4. Tony Gonzalez 16 9.2 50.00% 62.50% 37.50% 8 10 6 12
5. Dallas Clark 15 8.7 53.33% 60.00% 40.00% 8 9 6 11
6. Chris Cooley 16 7.91 18.75% 62.50% 37.50% 3 10 6 7
9. Donald Lee 15 6.23 13.33% 53.33% 46.67% 2 8 7 3
7. Matt Spaeth 4 5.35 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0 3 1 2
11. Tony Scheffler 12 7.08 33.33% 41.67% 58.33% 4 5 7 2
12. Heath Miller 15 6.57 20.00% 46.67% 53.33% 3 7 8 2
8. Jerramy Stevens 6 7.15 16.67% 50.00% 50.00% 1 3 3 1
10. Dante Rosario 4 5.7 25.00% 50.00% 50.00% 1 2 2 1
13. Ben Watson 12 6.33 25.00% 41.67% 58.33% 3 5 7 1
14. Owen Daniels 16 5.93 12.50% 43.75% 56.25% 2 7 9 0
15. Jeremy Shockey 14 5.75 14.29% 42.86% 57.14% 2 6 8 0
16. Todd Heap 5 5.98 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 1 2 3 0
17. Alge Crumpler 13 5.72 23.08% 38.46% 61.54% 3 5 8 0
18. Joel Dreessen 4 4.38 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0 2 2 0
19. John Madsen 4 4.05 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0 2 2 0
20. Kevin Boss 5 4.76 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 1 2 3 0
22. Anthony Becht 4 3.5 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0 2 2 0
21. Leonard Pope 10 5.38 10.00% 40.00% 60.00% 1 4 6 -1
23. Vernon Davis 14 5.35 21.43% 35.71% 64.29% 3 5 9 -1
24. Bubba Franks 7 4.46 0.00% 42.86% 57.14% 0 3 4 -1

What interests me most is the changing of the guard that occurred last year. Jeremy Shockey, Todd Heap, and Alge Crumpler were about as good as you could get at the tight end position for many years. Now they weren’t even starting material. Injury and quarterback changes were significant factors in the equation. One of those three is likely to rebound. I like Crumpler’s chances in Tennessee and if Heap is healthy, he’s been good with or without a decent fantasy starter at QB.

Leonard Pope is a forgotten man in Arizona, but his numbers improved last year. It’s a player like him that should encourage you to wait on a tight end, because he’ll likely be available on the waiver wire with a strong opportunity to produce better than average fantasy numbers at the position if you didn’t select an elite scorer early.

That’s a wrap for the New Crank Score. The next two articles will experiment with ways to potentially project consistency.