Dissecting DSTs

Halfway into the 2010 season, we have a pretty good idea of which teams are the closest to locks as DST plays and which teams represent the best and worst matchup plays for opposing DSTs. The trick is getting the right one in at the right time, as matchups matter more there than any other roster position. Even a stud DST like Pittsburgh may not be a smart play against an opponent that generally doesn't make many errors. Whereas a poor DST like Buffalo may actually be a good play this week, going up against Jay Cutler. He's usually good for about 10 points for any opposing DST.

If you have a stud DST, you have the luxury of using them relatively safely in most matchups and thus preserving the additional roster spot for vital depth at other positions. But if you don't, it's perfectly acceptable to stream DSTs (substituting one for another every week, including the possibility of grabbing one a full week in advance of a great matchup) or carry two that you can alternate through good matchups for a lengthy portion of the season. The latter is an especially smart play at the conclusion of the bye weeks, when you know roughly what to expect from matchups through the fantasy playoffs, and you don't need that extra roster spot to cover bye week holes. You can start mapping that out now as there may be several decent combinations still available. Peace of mind for you, and extra time to research your other needs.

A league's individual scoring setting is obviously the most critical factor in determining which DST to play when. In general though, aggressive playmaking defenses (that generate turnovers and sacks) are just as if not more valuable than conservative defenses that merely limit their opponents' scoring and yardage without making highlight defensive plays. But there is a flip side to that coin. Specifically, a team that is reliant on the big play (defensive TD) for its average value (Arizona this year) represents a major risk for any owner that elects to use them. Short of that defensive TD, teams like this are destined for failure. It's very similar to the role of the goalline RB, who will likely end up with a zero if he does not get a touchdown. Those TDs are great equalizers, but unreliable, so those players/DSTs probably should only be used when there are no other viable options available.

The same is true for playing a DST whose opponent has allowed some big plays. San Diego and New Orleans are terrific examples of statistically attractive matchups this year that you would never expect to be so. These are two of the least defensible teams, so they'll rack up yardage and points, but for some reason both have been extremely generous in allowing big plays on defense and special teams. Very risky play to go against either of these, as a negative number is well within reason. But if you're desperate for a big game, why not?

A common trap to fall into for owners prospecting for a plug-in DST is choosing one simply based on average point production. Settings, followed by opponent, have been articulated as the most critical factors, but average value is right up there. Two things dramatically affect that average: the opponents they have faced (opportunity) and the occasional huge game (25+ fantasy points). Past opponents is a given - you don't want to carelessly disregard a team that has been below average against great offenses, nor undeservedly elevate a team's potential value if they have played a string of weak opponents. As for huge games, there is at least one team per year that has one monster defensive game that skews their average value for the rest of the season. Beware of that anomaly vaulting a team into ranks it shouldn't be placed. The best example this year may be New England, who had a huge game against Miami in Week 4. The Patriots' DST has a respectable average in most leagues because of that, but has had abyssmal production in four of its seven games. Plugging them in is dangerous.

One of my biggest pet peeves in fantasy football is the fact that DSTs start at a specific value (based on not having allowed any yards or points at the start of the game) and then deteriorate from there unless enough defensive plays are made to offset the natural progression of the game. The starting total is usually a pretty good number, but the final number is usually below that. This of course affects your "live" bottom line total and those crazy projections. There has to be a better way, but it probably involves a much more complicated algorithm that isn't user-friendly or simply logical. Still would be my preference.

Perhaps my only bigger pet peeve is the requirement of using a kicker in most leagues. I accept the element of luck in fantasy football, but at the kicker position, it is just too great a factor. No amount of research can predict a ridiculously poor start by preseason favorite Garrett Hartley, a -2 by Nick Folk last week or three straight monsters by Dan Carpenter.

The problem is that matchups are hardly indicative of opportunity, because opportunity for kickers tends to be much more random. Granted, if you expect an offense to score five TDs in a game, you can count on five extra points. But that may mean no field goals, which are worth much more.

I've yet to see a formula for effectively streaming kickers, but I'm sure there are "sure-fire" theories out there, like how to win at roulette. The basic argument involves getting a kicker whose team can move the ball, but struggles in the red zone for one reason or another. And vice-versa, an opponent that allows yardage, but tightens up near the goalline. Carpenter is the flavor-of-the-month in that regard but could easily be off the radar two weeks from now. Accuracy and range are obviously good things, but opportunity is way more important, and that is too often totally unpredictable from game to game.

The credo of never drafting a kicker until the last round of your draft has never been more prevalent than this year. There are none that are ever worth a waiver selection and it would be extremely difficult to justify keeping one on your roster during his bye week. I'm certain that I'm not the only one crying out for an elimination of kickers in fantasy leagues, but I certainly would expect more of a common outcry for this, and I just don't hear much about it.

Man Crush Update:
Chris Ivory: Stinker against Pittsburgh, and now splitting touches with two other guys: Ladell Betts AND Julius Jones. Talk about writing on the wall, but I still like the guy. Sean Payton seems to love him, and is not too enamored of the seemingly malingering Pierre Thomas (although I give PT the benefit of the doubt here given he's certainly motivated to play for a contract.) Now there's a rumor that PT may be put on IR. At this point, Ivory is still just a high potential upside play that hasn't yet panned out. A 50/50 shot going forward, but probably worth a roster spot if you've got one handy.

Danny Woodhead: He sure doesn't seem like a good play, but he is. He's a better version of Kevin Faulk, the ultimate bye week replacement, and as mentioned before, has the extremely rare dual positional eligibility. He's not going away folks, even after Fred Taylor comes back. He's just about the best bet in a reliable five points every week, although he has very little high side. No better band-aid for an ailing lineup.

James Starks: Two possibilities here. He's inserted into the lineup in Week 11 and puts on a good late season run, or he disappears completely until next season. Too tough to call at this point.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Buy now if you can, specifically Blount, Freeman and Mike Williams. The Buccaneers are 5-2, plenty motivated for a run to the playoffs, and now with the pieces to do it. Freeman's probably the least of the three, but only because you usually only play one QB and he's just on the cusp of the Top 10 right now, but I like him a lot better than Cutler, for example. Hail Mary Blount appears to be panning out with authority, and has only better things ahead. And Williams is a stud-in-the-making. Watch the tape. Every week. Given the team's record and motivation, I'd even consider placing heavier expectations on the Bucs DST, but don't go too crazy. Just a possibility going forward.

P.S. Anthony Gonzalez sure lasted, didn't he? So much for that idea.