Ian Allan's Mailbag
Posted Jul. 09 at 05:45 PM
Publisher Ian Allan fields your questions on strategy, how to run your league, player ratings -- and whatever else you think of. Updated every Friday during the season; Tuesdays and Fridays during the last two months of the preseason. You must be registered and signed-in to submit a mailbag question. After you sign in at the top of the page, the link to submit a mailbag question will become visible.
Question 1:
I've been thinking about this question for a while and want to see what you think about it. When you look at teams who either lose or gain a good Wide Receiver, what does that do to the fantasy value of the other Receivers on those teams? For example, are Roy Williams and Jason Witten going to get more looks now that T.O. is gone or are they going to just be covered even more? What about Lee Evans? Will T.O. take away his looks or will he take away his coverage, leaving him open more often to make that big play? And what about Reggie Wayne? Will he be better or worse without his usual sidekick Harrison? Thanks for your help.
Jake Haugen [DULUTH, MN]
A:
If you look at the stats over the last 10 years, you don't see too many wide receivers posting good numbers while playing opposite Terrell Owens. He tends to command the ball, particularly in the red zone. If he's not scoring touchdowns, then he's letting his quarterback and coaches know about it -- over and over and over. I do not, therefore, expect Lee Evans to benefit from the Owens addition. Evans should see less single coverage, but I simply don't think he's going to see enough passes. And on the other side of the coin, there could be addition by subtraction going on in Dallas. With Owens gone, the Cowboys are looking for Roy Williams to take on a much larger role. I'm not a big Williams fan -- I don't think he's a true No. 1 receiver. But as the featured guy in that offense, he should be a viable fantasy option. And maybe the removal of Owens will help Jason Witten be more of a factor inside the red zone.
Marvin Harrison, I think, is a completely different deal. The Colts probably should have released him (or moved him into a reserve role) a year ago. I think Anthony Gonzalez will be BETTER than the 2008 Harrison, so no significant extra benefit for Dallas Clark or Reggie Wayne.
Question 2:
Reading through the magazine, I notice a recurring pattern with QBs where you focused on their red zone efficiency. This is commonly used for evaluating team tendencies (pass vs. rush) in the red zone, but you appeared to expand on that - it certainly sounds like you give that a lot of weight when determining a QBs intelligence and ability to read defenses. Often times, especially with young guys or someone who switched teams, it appeared that you would use that as a significant indicator of overall success this season. How much weight does red zone efficiency carry for you, and do you have historical data that agrees with this correlation?
L DALE GANDER [SUN PRAIRIE, WI]
A:
I consider the red zone to be a measuring stick area for quarterbacks. I also look at stats inside the 10. That's the part of the field where the stakes get a little higher -- you either get the ball in the end zone or you don't, and it often affects whether NFL teams win or lose. In that part of the field, quarterbacks need to make quick decisions and accurate throws while having less space to work with.
It was in part because of his red zone play in New England that I am dubious about how Matt Cassel will perform this season. He was surprisingly poor inside the red zone. He completed less than 44 percent of his passes in that area last season, one of the worst rates in the league. And that was while working with Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Now Cassel is plugged into a lineup where all 10 players around him aren't as good. Why, then, is Cassel showing up about 15th among quarterbacks on everyone's draft board? I don't get it. I'm not sure he's even better than Tyler Thigpen.
Question 3:
I'm picking 3rd and am having one heck of a time deciding between Matt Forte and MJD in my mocks. Which way would you go and why?
Mike Koffski [CHICAGO]
A:
I've got Forte a little higher, but there's very little difference between those two. They'll both catch lots of passes. Jacksonville's offensive line is dramatically improved -- maybe the most improved in the entire league. Forte plays for a better team. But given that it's so hard to pick between those guys, maybe a trade down is the way to go -- see if you can pick up an extra seventh-round pick by moving down two spots. You might still get the player you would have taken at No. 3.
Question 4:
I keep looking again to see if I missed him, but did you not include Reggie Bush on your RB ranking section in the magazine? He was the #8 RB on your list last year. Do I understand that to mean you would rather have T.J. Duckett?
Jered Ottenwess [NEWBERRY, FL]
A:
Bush could be pretty good, but I'm not sure he'll even be the best running back on his own team. The Saints also have Pierre Thomas. On my draft board, I've got Thomas slightly higher in traditional and TD-only formats, and Bush higher in yards including a point per reception. I've got Bush in the range of 22nd to 25th among running backs in most formats, and up at 12th in PPR leagues.
Question 5:
My league gets to keep three keepers for next year and I am stuck on who to keep. My obvious choice is Kurt Warner in the 16th rd and under contract 2008-2011. DeAngelo Williams in the 12th round and under contract 2008-2010. I was originally going with Thomas Jones in the 8th round and under contract 2008-2009 but have two decent WR that I am contemplating. Lee Evans in the 6th 2008-2009 AND the one that seams to be getting a lot more attention than I thought(14th best WR overall) Vincent Jackson in the 10th round 2008-2010. I also have Steve Breaston as a FA and would be for one year used in the 5th round. I was going to take Thomas Jones but with the committee approach they are taking have been thinking about going with Vincent Jackson. What do you think?
SHANNON GEORGE [HOUSTON, TX]
A:
Your clear first two keepers, in my opinion, are DeAngelo Williams and Vincent Jackson. They're both very good players, and you've got them locked up at a low cost. I imagine your third keeper will be Kurt Warner, but we'll see how things play out in August. He's an older guy. And maybe Thomas Jones will play his way into a bigger role than I'm expecting. But right now, I'd definitely keep Warner.
Readers' Comments
Add a Comment
Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.
To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.
Question 3: I'm picking 3rd and am...
Posted by Moishe Steigmann | Jul. 10 at 01:01 AM
Isn't that a little too risky, trading down two spots? If Mike has two guys rated about equally at #3, it would only make sense to drop down one spot, maximum. In addition, it's mid-July. A lot can happen before the draft (presumably not for another 6 weeks). What if one those two guys gets injured between now and then? Trading out of that spot would have been horrible. I would actually hold on to the pick up until draft night. Come pick #3, if it's still a toss-up between the two, then try to drop down one. Otherwise, I think that the potential risk of losing the player by dropping to far or injury is too high.
Question 3: I'm picking 3rd and am...
Posted by C.J. Strohacker | Jul. 10 at 01:41 AM
I was also thinking that trading down to #4 made more sense than trading down two spots to #5, unless you have a strong feeling that someone other than AP, Turner, MJD and Forte will get selected in the top 4. I was really hoping to draw the #4 pick in our league this year. I really like Forte and I think he could be at #4 in a lot of drafts (and those other three RBs are all great consolation prizes if Forte gets picked higher).
Question 4: I keep looking again to...
Posted by Jered Ottenwess | Jul. 09 at 10:56 PM
Last year I raised issue with Pierre Thomas. I ended up ranking him highly and got awesome value picking him in the 14th round in my PPR league. I absolutely agree with your evaluation, however, I don't think you've gone far enough. Remember, as you pointed out in the mag, Thomas actually has averaged more ypc than Bush has lately; he's a very solid receiver. I've got Thomas significantly higher than Bush in my PPR and I think Bush will end up around 25th at best. I think Bush has shown the extent of his potential and he's only going to decline.
Question 4: I keep looking again to...
Posted by John Evans | Jul. 10 at 01:26 AM
OK Jered. I think that I am going to have to disagree with you. Not with that Pierre Thomas is the top fantasy RB on the Saints, but the value of Reggie Bush. Few people remember that Bush lead the league in touchdowns before his injury last year. As far as the "extent of his potential" being reached...that is just untrue. Last year Reggie Bush looked much better than he had in previous seasons. And it did translate into an improvement in statistics the first half of the season. With Reggie...the question has never been ability. Because if Reggie had not been injured last year, chances are that he would have been a top 10 fantasy player. The question is and will continue to be injuries. This year the Saints will use him more like they did in season one...the year in which Bush played in all 16 games. He will be used heavily on end arounds, passes out of the backfield and from the slot, and in the return game. Bush has never been an affective between the tackles RB...but he can still be a very affective RB. He just needs to stay healthy.
Question 4: I keep looking again to...
Posted by BARRY BROWN | Jul. 12 at 01:13 PM
At least we all seem to be in agreement that Pierre Thomas is the guy to take in traditional scoring formats. Personally, I think he's gonna rock this year and will be interested to see if he creeps up the FI rankings as the season approaches.
Question 4: I keep looking again to...
Posted by p g | Jul. 13 at 09:26 AM
So if you rank him 22 to 25th, where is he in the magazine?
Question 4: I keep looking again to...
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | Jul. 16 at 03:32 AM
He's on page 90 in the magazine; his writeup appears under Kevin Smith. The problem is a font error; his name is bolded, but it's not in the same font as the other names. That's probably why people missed him -- I did too on a quick scan.