I drafted two teams this year, one for my own league, and one for my dad's league (in which I'm the only woman, a fact that is sort of interesting, but not as interesting as the fact that I'm squaring off against two cousins, my step-brother, my brother, and my dad, in addition to the family in my league: my mom, my cousin, my cousin's wife and her sister, my dad's wife, and Sam's brother's girlfriend. I am literally entangled in family and football.), and I did some research like last year--though not as much--and the research this year seemed, well, contradictory. A lot of the sources were throwing the 2 RBs in 2 rounds theory out the window, except....not really. Most of the rankings on most sites are still RB RB RB RB Tom Brady RB RB on and on and on. Yeah, some WR's have cracked the top tiers, but despite the overwhelming lean towards the pass in the game, the fantasy game does seem to continue to emphasize RBs.
And even if you set aside the lean towards the passing game (Tom Brady Tom Brady Tom Brady), the running game has also moved towards the platoon deployment of RBs, splitting carries between two backs, so that any running back you pick will likely sit a significant number of carries. (Which thus leads to handcuffing--the practice of drafting the RB that platoons with your main RB. In my case, I drafted [in my own league] Felix Jones to back up Marion Barber. Of course, not all teams platoon effectively. I didn't draft Marshawn Lynch's back-up, for example.) I don't know if you football fans out there have read Pro Football Prospectus before, but basically it's a book for numbers nerds, and I'm not one of those, actually. I don't necessarily understand all the numbers (but I bet my mom does), but I do understand the advice they give based on the numbers, and the way they use them. Their statistics about RBs are staggering; over a certain number of carries in any one year (I want to say 325, but I don't have the book in front of me), and the next year, the RB will decline in productivity or get hurt a great percentage of the time. It's just...well, the kind of stuff that makes you NOT want a non-platooning RB.
I'm actually spilling the beans here, because I use PFP almost exclusively to draft from (they use their historical statistics [gathered on their own, in some cases, because the NFL won't share] to create predictions that are often fantastically accurate. In terms of fantasy, and in terms of the records and results of NFL teams. It's not really very fun to read the chapter on the Chicago Bears this year, let me tell you. I trust the PFP guys, and they're saying the Bears aren't going to be very good. I believe them. They also, back to fantasy, create a risk rating (based on traffic signals, oddly enough) for each player, based on....something....that will indicate how likely the player is to do what they think he'll do. All I can say is, they were SO right about Lynch and Housh last year, and like I said, I trust them. However, if everyone in my leagues starts using this book, there goes my draft. And PFP's predictions about certain players are definitely FAR removed from how ESPN and other major fantasy football magazines rate them. It's interesting, to say the least.
So yeah, though the season started on Thursday, one game does not a fantasy game make, so the season REALLY starts tomorrow. I'm excited, of course, but a little depressed that the Sunday night game--the Bears v. Colts--is on opposite the premiere of True Blood on HBO. True Blood is based on on of my most favorite book series, so to say I'm conflicted would be understating it a bit. Sam votes for "not football". I don't think he's looking forward to 12 hours of football a week, so normally, I'd give him Sunday off. But grrrr, this week? It's the Bears. Before they go precipitously downhill. Decisions, decisions. Don't worry, though. We're watching the early and late games. We'll see how my teams do.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.