One of the terms it takes some getting used to in fantasy football is RB1, WR2, etc. Frankly, I can't find anything anywhere that describes exactly what the terms mean to everyone, but one thing is certain - the lower the number, the more valuable they are on a relative scale.
It's safe to say any player with a "1" designation is an every-week fantasy starter, a reliable play with pretty big upside. No one can say that they will never stink it up, but certainly less frequently than players with a higher number designation. The more 1s you have in your lineup, the stronger it is.
We'll get to the 2s and 3s in a minute, but once you get past that range, you're basically shooting craps. A WR4/5 (Devery Henderson?) may or may not pan out in any given week. An RB4/5 is usually no better than the lesser half of a committee, someone you'd play only out of desperation and hope for a lucky TD. Because you will never field a lineup with all 1s, and you don't want to have to play any 4/5s, a big part of optimizing your lineup, for the season and for each week, is choosing the correct RBs and WRs in the 2/3 range.
It's safe to say any player with a "1" designation is an every-week fantasy starter, a reliable play with pretty big upside. No one can say that they will never stink it up, but certainly less frequently than players with a higher number designation. The more 1s you have in your lineup, the stronger it is.
We'll get to the 2s and 3s in a minute, but once you get past that range, you're basically shooting craps. A WR4/5 (Devery Henderson?) may or may not pan out in any given week. An RB4/5 is usually no better than the lesser half of a committee, someone you'd play only out of desperation and hope for a lucky TD. Because you will never field a lineup with all 1s, and you don't want to have to play any 4/5s, a big part of optimizing your lineup, for the season and for each week, is choosing the correct RBs and WRs in the 2/3 range.
RB2s are often supposed to be every-week starters, and yet it's not unusual for them to get stuffed (Week 1 exhibits: Moreno, Greene, Blount, DeAngelo Williams.) You can combine two of them to cover one roster spot and then mix-and-match based on opponent, but they're still far less reliable than RB1s even in good situations against favorable opponents. And it still hurts almost as much if you used a high draft pick on one and he gets injured. My opinion is that it's better to have a higher volume of more speculative RB3s (Jacobs, Tolbert, etc.) that you were able to snag in the later rounds than to rely on two expensive RB2s to cover that spot. It gives you even more options to play matchups or hot hands, as well as extra lottery tickets. At the very least, you should always prioritize a deeper insurance plan consisting of RB3s, for covering injury or bye weeks, instead of expecting a few big guns to carry you successfully all the way through the season. They're also extremely useful as trade enhancers if needed.
Unfortunately, carrying these guys burns valuable roster spots, but I'm not talking about rostering seven RBs (or even six, although that is what I personally prefer.) I just think not carrying a few extra bodies (particularly at that injury-prone position) is playing with fire. However, one common related strategy I frequently disagree with is rostering handcuffs. Granted, if you have a bonafide guaranteed handcuff who previously has shown the ability to step successfully into a full workload (McGahee?), or to be worthwhile occasionally despite being in a clear supporting role (Michael Bush), it's probably worth it. But if there are 2-3 relatively unproven guys right behind your starter, don't bother. Too likely to be a hot hand or committee situation if your guy goes down. An RB3 from another team is much stronger insurance and thus a much better use of a roster spot.
Our object lesson this week is Cadillac Williams. The reasons he was available on so many waiver wires was 1) few knew for sure if he was the primary handcuff, as Jerious Norwood is also on the Rams' roster, and 2) he was pretty lousy as the feature back to start 2010 in Tampa Bay. His 140 all-purpose yards after Steven Jackson went down last week were as eye-opening as they come, but I'm not hopping on this train yet. Chances are none of the Eagles were psychologically prepared for him to be the same kind of force that Steven Jackson is, and you can bet the Giants will gameplan with him in mind, particularly with Amendola on the shelf as well. Two contrasting wrinkles though: the Giants' defense is not operating at full capacity, and Steven Jackson might actually play! Despite a beat-up opponent, I wouldn't want to pencil Cadillac in as my starter only to find out way too late that Jackson was going to be active. Even if you used a high waiver pick on him, I'd leave him on the bench unless you really have no other viable plug-in options. And even if Jackson is inactive, I don't see Williams marking a double-digit fantasy total.
Sneaky PlaysUnfortunately, carrying these guys burns valuable roster spots, but I'm not talking about rostering seven RBs (or even six, although that is what I personally prefer.) I just think not carrying a few extra bodies (particularly at that injury-prone position) is playing with fire. However, one common related strategy I frequently disagree with is rostering handcuffs. Granted, if you have a bonafide guaranteed handcuff who previously has shown the ability to step successfully into a full workload (McGahee?), or to be worthwhile occasionally despite being in a clear supporting role (Michael Bush), it's probably worth it. But if there are 2-3 relatively unproven guys right behind your starter, don't bother. Too likely to be a hot hand or committee situation if your guy goes down. An RB3 from another team is much stronger insurance and thus a much better use of a roster spot.
Our object lesson this week is Cadillac Williams. The reasons he was available on so many waiver wires was 1) few knew for sure if he was the primary handcuff, as Jerious Norwood is also on the Rams' roster, and 2) he was pretty lousy as the feature back to start 2010 in Tampa Bay. His 140 all-purpose yards after Steven Jackson went down last week were as eye-opening as they come, but I'm not hopping on this train yet. Chances are none of the Eagles were psychologically prepared for him to be the same kind of force that Steven Jackson is, and you can bet the Giants will gameplan with him in mind, particularly with Amendola on the shelf as well. Two contrasting wrinkles though: the Giants' defense is not operating at full capacity, and Steven Jackson might actually play! Despite a beat-up opponent, I wouldn't want to pencil Cadillac in as my starter only to find out way too late that Jackson was going to be active. Even if you used a high waiver pick on him, I'd leave him on the bench unless you really have no other viable plug-in options. And even if Jackson is inactive, I don't see Williams marking a double-digit fantasy total.
A little note on sneaky plays. I'm not recommending these guys over top options. Play your studs. Period. If you lose with your studs, you can still hold your head high. But if you lose cuz you gambled, that's on you. Sneaky plays are merely recommendations for guys you could consider playing over any 2/3 option that you're not so confident in coming into the week, and great alternatives for starter-level players you are having serious doubts about. (Read: Austin Collie)
Brandon Jacobs: 75+ yards plus one touchdown. A lot of buzz this week about the Giants getting away from the power game. I think they go back to that in front of the home crowd and Jacobs gets a good share of carries including at least one successful goalline carry.
Ladainian Tomlinson: Close to 100 all-purpose yards, 50/50 shot at a TD. In case you missed it, he led the Jets in receiving last week with 73 yards on six receptions. The guy can still bring it. With Holmes a question mark coming in, he may get even more looks, and the Jets are also planning to get more running plays in. If Greene is ineffective like he was last week, expect to see a little more LT.
Devery Henderson: 100+ yards plus 1 TD, just like last week. This one's not exactly sneaky considering the lack of healthy bodies in one of the league's best passing attacks, but it will still take a glaring doubt for you to consider playing him over one of your normal starters.
Nate Burleson: Just short of 100 yards, but good enough. I'm a little shy on predicting a TD, but one (or more) is definitely possible. The Chiefs made Ryan Fitzpatrick look like Joe Montana after losing Eric Berry last week and Matt Stafford is making his home debut. Burleson is just going to hang out and rack up stats.
Dustin Keller: 50+ yards and a touchdown. I see him garnering a lot of short receptions and continuing to be redeployed as a red zone target, especially if Holmes is not 100 percent. A good buy-low candidate as a strong backup tight end.
Revisiting a former man crush:
One of the hottest names this week is James Starks, as he seemed to grab hold of the starting gig in the second half of last week's Green Bay game. I think the jury's still out here and I wouldn't rush to christen him an RB2 yet as some pundits have. Ryan Grant may be less explosive, but he's definitely more proven. Subtract Grant's longest run (10 yards) and Starks' excellent 17-yard TD scamper, and we end up almost dead even on yards-per-carry. We don't know exactly what is going to happen when they get down to the goalline, but those darn Aaron Rodgers sneaks and John Kuhn vultures will put a cap on enhancing either back's value. My prediction is that Grant continues to start games, gets more of the precious goalline carries, and alternates with Kuhn in clock-killing mode. Starks will get just as many carries and snaps as he probably fits better into the design of this offense, and will definitely have more highlight plays. All-in-all, I think Starks is the better guy to own here, but I think it's very similar to the Tolbert-Mathews split in San Diego. All are somewhat risky plays but with significant upside in potent offenses.
No comments:
Post a Comment