Drafting for 2010
After a few months off (see: extended holiday boozing), I’m back and ready to own up to my successes and failures as a fantasy prognosticator. It was a long season for the Chicago Sharts, having placed far too many eggs in the baskets of Jay Cutler, Steve Slaton and Brian Westbrook.
Cutler was a decided risk. My strategy (in a 10-team league) was to hold off taking a QB until the second half of the draft. This was based largely on my success a year earlier with Kurt Warner in the late rounds. Wrong. Grade: F
Slaton and Westbrook ran into different but equally debilitating issues. Slaton fumbled more than a Mariah Carey acceptance speech, and Westbrook joined the Merrill Hoge ranks of disturbing and repeated concussions. Neither was effective or valuable the entire year, but I had to keep them on the roster in hopes of a recovery. Thomas Jones was my only bright spot. Grade: C-.
Had the league played with only WRs and TEs, I would’ve had the title. Larry Fitzgerald was dominant (even if not to the level we expected), and Miles Austin had a breakout year. Add another consistent season from Tony Gonzalez and this became a solid receiving crew. Grade: B+.
ESPN Standard Scoring Analysis
Anyone that drafted 6-10 had a major decision this year. Every sure-fire RB was off the board and the stable of top-tier receivers was thin (or so we thought). I picked seventh and the question was clear: Do I start the WR run or reach into a huge lot of second-tier running backs? I went Fitzgerald and subsequently endured a 3-10 season.
Some of that can be blamed on my RB challenges, and relying on Cutler/Flacco the entire season (hey, they looked decent at times). But it cemented a universal truth that, before this year’s draft, was being challenged in some corners. Regardless of draft position, your team will live and die with two positions: QB and RB. The only dynamic that changed is fantasy priority between the two.
The Pitfalls of a WR/WR Strategy
Before I get into that, let’s talk about the WR/WR strategy. It’s certainly daring, and given the RB depth in 2009 (six scored 200+ pts. on the season; 18 scored 150+), I found quite a few options in the next three rounds. On the other hand, the WR pool wasn’t nearly as deep (three scored 200+ this year; 13 scored 150+).
The logical fallacy (and the one I believed) was that the overall WR pool was not only much smaller but that the top tier was half the size of their backfield counterparts. The numbers seemed to favor WR/WR when picking after the top RB tier was gone. So get while the gettin’s good, right? Unfortunately, distribution was everything in 2009 (and being too lazy to check, I’d guess every year in the past decade).
Let’s take Fitzy for example. He finished fifth in ESPN standard scoring (180 pts.) for WRs, yet he had just as many single-digit games (8) as he did double-digit. Of the latter, only two were above 20 points (24, 20).
Another example is Miles Austin, who finished third in WR scoring (194). Austin recorded nine games in double digits. Of those, only three were above 20 points (37, 29, 20). You could plug Andre Johnson or Randy Moss (#1 and #2, respectively) into Austin’s example. Both logged nine games in double-digits, with Moss scoring above 20 four times and Johnson three.
Overall, the top five WRs totaled 43 games in double-digits with 16 outings above 20 points. In comparison, the top five RBs totaled 59 games in double-digits with 22 outings above 20 points. But that’s not the point — we already knew the top RBs would outscore and be more consistent than the top WRs.
This is a little subjective but let’s compare the top tier WRs with a few second- and third-tier running backs.
- Joseph Addai (#9 RB): 12 in double-digits, two 20+
- Jamaal Charles (#12 RB): Seven in double-digits, three 20+
- Jonathon Stewart (#11 RB): Seven in double-digits, four 20+
- Ronnie Brown (#32 RB): Six in double-digits, three 20+
If your league is anything like mine (moderate football IQ, prepared for the draft), all of those RBs could’ve been had after the first four rounds. And there’s a host of similar examples that could’ve been had much later: Cedric Benson, Fred Jackson, Rashard Mendenhall, etc.
The real-life reasons for the disparity are fairly obvious. It’s much easier for a defensive coordinator to take a receiver out of the game than to lock down a back that plays in a balanced offense. It’s also a volume issue. A back has 15-25 touches to put up points, where a typical receiver will have 6-10 a game.
The takeaway, at least for an owner considering a WR/WR strategy, is don’t do it. If you pick in the latter half of the first round, go RB/RB or QB/RB. Outside of Andre Johnson, who was as consistent as a top-tier RB this year, the upside is extremely limited. Best case scenario, they keep pace with the second-tier backs you could’ve taken. Worst case scenario, they cripple your team with feast or famine games.
Making A Case for QB/RB in 2010
No single player is more important to your success next year than quarterback (unless you have the opportunity to take Chris Johnson). Consistent QB play, week-to-week, is more critical to long-term success than two stud backs.
In contrast to a top-flight RB that has trouble putting up 20+ each week, your QB should average that amount. A quick look at QB point-per-game averages in 2009 (admittedly using my league’s scoring system which varies a bit from ESPN standard):
- Aaron Rodgers (#1): 24
- Drew Brees (#2): 21
- Brett Favre (#3): 21
- Peyton Manning (#4): 21
- Matt Schaub (#5): 20
- Tony Romo (#6): 20
- Tom Brady (#7): 20
- Philip Rivers (#8): 19
- Big Ben (#9): 19
- Donovan McNabb (#10): 16
The difference doesn’t seem like much initially, but over the course of a full NFL season, it’s a delta of nearly a hundred points between Rodgers (#1) and McNabb (#10). This isn’t reason enough to take a QB over a RB with the first three or four picks but it makes a very strong case to use a 5-10 pick on a QB rather than a top flight WR or second tier RB.
Another subjective point to consider. It took an historic year from Chris Johnson to narrowly edge Aaron Rodgers in total points (329-327). Rodgers was good but not NFL record books good.
Let’s set up a reasonable scenario in next year’s draft. Chris Johnson, AP, MJD and Ray Rice are taken with the first four picks. You’re on the clock at five.
Option #1: You can take Deangelo Williams, Michael Turner, Stephen Jackson, Mendenhall, Frank Gore and Addai among others (with only 20-30 total points separating the lot).
Option #2: You can take the #1 WR Andre Johnson (only 25 total points above the #5 WR)
Option #3: You can take the #1 QB Aaron Rodgers (47 total points above the #2 QB, and 58 above the #5 QB)
Those figures quickly elevate Rodgers into a Top 5 candidate, and validate a QB/RB approach. The drop-off was a little greater this year after Rodgers, but I’d still put Manning and Brees in QB/RB or RB/QB territory (who knows with Favre, you definitely don’t burn a Top 20 pick on him).
The obvious risk with QB/RB or RB/QB is rolling without a top-five WR. But the numbers back the return. You don’t need to spend on a game-breaker, you need to find value with SERVICEABLE go-to-guys. Remember, the big names face double- and triple-teams, and guys like Miles Austin and Sidney Rice will keep emerging each year (Early Doucet and Jeremy Maclin in 2010 . . . depending on whether or not Warner comes back).
Of course, you probably assumed as much. But I wanted to throw some bad math at you anyway.
