Ian Allan's Mailbag
Posted Jan. 14 at 08:30 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.
My question centers around the Colt receivers. I have Anthony Gonzalez on my team along with the Indy backs and Dallas Clark. Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie did very well this year. Do you think that Gonzalez can reclaim his position?
JOHN SHELBROCK [FRANKENMUTH, MI]
When I said prior to the start of the season that Gonzalez would be one of the top 10 receivers (fantasy-wise) in the league, that was based on the Colts being a team with a good passing offense that had Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark and not much else. Had Gonzalez stayed healthy, I’m still sure he would have gone for 1,000-plus yards and 8-plus TDs. Now that he’s sat on the shelf for a year, however, Collie and Garcon have worked their way into the offense. Collie is a good slot receiver. Garcon works well as a big-play guy on the side. I cannot guarantee that Gonzalez will beat out either of those guys next year. And with the Colts now having four capable receivers, I’m sure they’ll make more use of their No. 4 next season (whether that No. 4 is Garcon, Collie or Gonzalez, I’m not sure). That’s the way I envision it turning out. Things, though, can change in a hurry. Maybe one of the team’s four receivers gets injured. Or maybe Dallas Clark (who’s been more prone to injuries) goes down. But I don’t think Gonzalez has much value in a dynasty-type format right now.
I’ve finished with high point total for my league the last two years but can’t get anywhere in the playoffs. While I claim moral victory with the other league managers who claim (tongue-in-cheek) that their teams have better defenses, it got me to thinking about how a team manager can actually impact the outcome of a game defensively by having a direct impact on his weekly opponent’s score. So here is what I came up with (forgive me if has been suggested before). In the NFL defensive coaches generally try to take away at least one aspect of their opponent’s game; such as double teaming a wide receiver or putting an extra lineman in the box against a tough running back. What if a fantasy team manager had the choice to do the same against his opponent for that particular week? This could be done a couple of ways. You could reduce the score of a particular player by one half for that week. You could reduce the score of a particular position by one half for that week. simply relegate a specific player to the bench for that week so that your opponent has to choose another player (obviously weaker one) for that position. It would take some adjustments to make it workable; say, your choices would be limited to a QB, RB or WR so teams don’t always have to keep back ups at TE, PK or DEF. The timing could be an issue as many roster adjustments are made at the last minute but I think it’s worth some discussion. Let me know if you think it has any merit!
Jeffrey M. Stephens [St. Louis, MO]
I think there might be something there. You might be able to convince enough guys in your league to try something along those lines. For me, I don’t like the idea of an opponent getting to simply take away my best player, just for the heck of it. In my book, that’s a privilege that would have to be earned. I would look more favorably on a rule that was tied to defensive performance. For example, if you’re in a 12-team league, maybe you’ve got the rule that each fantasy team starts an NFL defense. Of those 12 defenses, the two or three that allow the fewest points get to eliminate (or swap out) one of the opponent’s players. And the next two or three would get a similar bonus, only on a smaller scale. It would make managing a league harder, of course. Each team would have to submit the name of the offensive player it was targeting to potentially shut down. By it might make for an interesting wrinkle on draft night. There’s always room for tinkering with the rules. Personally, I’d like to have more flexibility with starting lineups. Sometimes when I’m torn between two players, I’d like the option to simply start both of them and take half credit for each. And when an NFL team might pull guys early in week 16 or 17, I’d like the option to use one quarterback for the first half of his game, and have the other handle the third and fourth quarters.
Did no one else see this? The last play of the Green Bay game - the announcer said "hands to the face", and the THIRD angle replay clearly showed the defender bringing Rodgers down by the face mask! Some penalty should have been called, and maybe this would even have affected the outcome. I understand a missed call ... but NO REPLAY that I saw on the news showed this, or commented on the foul. A cover-up? You'll have to review the original game tape to verify.
Dave Gregorski [USA]
For those who didn’t notice, it’s posted on YouTube. It doesn’t bother me. I would have been disappointed if there had been a flag. There’s some contact with the facemask, but it comes after the ball has been knocked loose, and I don’t see any grabbing or pulling on the mask. The NFL is already way too over-officiated. To me, it would have been very disappointing if this had become Tuck Rule II. I think you’ve got to let the guys play and recognize that quarterbacks are going to get knocked around a little once in a while. After the game, Rodgers himself said it never occurred to him that maybe there should have been a facemask penalty on the play. Certainly on the play, he doesn’t hop up lobbying for a call.
Long-time fanatic subscriber. I have a question on a proposed trade in a Dynasty keep everyone league. I have been offered Addai, Harvin, and Sims-Walker for Jennings, Finley, and the 4th pick in the first round of the rookie draft next fall. My RB are thin and old so the trade is interesting but I am not sure what I can expect in the draft. Normally I do not have this high of a pick and all the RB are gone. Is the 4th RB available this fall likely to be as good as Addai? For background I have Witten as my other TE so losing Finley I will still be left with a good player. I would really appreciate your opinion on this.
Chris Krumenauer [GREENVILLE, WI]
You have two very good tight ends. Witten catches a ton of balls, and Finley is just starting to scratch the surface of his potential – he was very good down the stretch and in the playoff loss at Arizona. So I think it makes sense to move one of those guys. But is this the best trade offer you can get? I like Percy Harvin and Mike Sims-Walker, but you’d be giving up Greg Jennings, who’s better than either of them. And Joseph Addai, while a starting running back, is a RBBC guy. I imagine Donald Brown will get at least 40 percent of the workload there next season. I don’t see enough upside to merit giving away the 4th pick in the draft. I suggest you start your search by looking at teams in your league that don’t have viable tight ends. Maybe you could trade Witten or Finley for a running back like Brown?
Your January 7th trivia question/answer combo is incorrect. I think that Steve Young and Ty Detmer started against each other in January 1997.
JUSTIN HOWE [USA]
You’re correct. You got me. When I noticed that both of the starting quarterbacks for the Bengals-Jets game were from Southern Cal, it got me wondering when the last time two quarterbacks from the same school started a playoff game. I flipped through the boxscores and came up with Maryland in 1992 – Frank Reich against Neil O’Donnell. But I missed the San Francisco and Philadelphia game, with the Brigham Young quarterbacks. The 49ers won that one 14-0 (but were beaten by Green Bay the next week). Thanks for pointing this out. I have corrected the question on the web site.
Question 2: I’ve finished with high point...
Posted by MARTIN DONNELLY | Jan. 20 at 01:10 AM
The problem I envision is that few leagues care about balanced scoring across the positions. In every 6-point-TD-pass league and most of the others every double team will be placed on the QB. So it won't be as much fun as you suspect. Now if your rule was specifically focused on WR's and your QB rules were decent, such a thing might improve the value of RB's.
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.