AFC East: BUF
| MIA | NE | NYJ
AFC North: BAL
| CIN | CLE | PIT
Every owner wants to hit on the next big thing in fantasy; that
much is no secret. But how do we identify those “breakout
players”? Much of the fantasy community is focused on just
a few of the factors (age, offensive role, talent, player history
and supporting cast are often the most common characteristics used
by many “experts”) to project a player for the upcoming
season.
In this day and age, I find it amazing that such a small percentage
of fantasy owners acknowledge the importance of the opponents
when it comes to projecting player performance. Somewhere along
with the five aforementioned factors (plus countless more), I
believe predictive schedule analysis – when used correctly
– provides a huge advantage over the competition. Any veteran
fantasy football owner knows it is nearly pointless to use last
season's numbers as an indicator of how a defense will fare this
season, which is a big reason I go to the trouble of analyzing
defense like I did last
week. It stands to reason that if teams like St. Louis and
Tampa Bay will once again struggle on defense - even after all
the changes both teams made - that I want to see them more often
on my fantasy players' schedule than I do on someone else's. Likewise,
why do I want any of my players facing the New York Jets in the
fantasy playoffs?
Allow me to clear up a couple of misconceptions about schedule
analysis right away:
- this is not a strength of schedule article that uses 2009
results to predict 2010 and
- the schedule contributes to the projection of a player in
this system, but it is far from the only determining factor
I use.
Furthermore, I do not use the PSAs to justify taking a tier-two
or three player over a tier-one player. Tier-one players perform
well in just about every situation against just about any defense,
in large part because tier-one players are the clear-cut standout
performers on their team. Tier-two players and all the players
below them often do not have life quite as easy, thus, they are
more affected by factors such as playing time and the schedule.
It is for these “other” players that I feel like PSA
helps the most, to identify what non-elite players heading into
2010 have a chance to take the next step, especially around fantasy
playoff time. While the schedule is far from the only thing that
matters when projecting NFL player performance, it is foolish
to suggest that it doesn’t play a significant role.
While pondering each of the factors I have already mentioned
in my analysis of a player, I also consider factors such as home
vs. away and the likelihood of bad weather games late in the season.
In the end, projecting player performance is an art, not a science.
There are many different ways to reach the same (or similar) conclusion;
I just prefer to show my homework.
Over the next four weeks, I will be posting my game-by-game predictions,
two divisions at a time. Bear in mind that while the final numbers
are important, they are 15-game totals because most fantasy seasons
have a Week 16 title game. For those unfamiliar with the way I
project player stats and individual week-to-week consistency (or
for those who need a refresher), please give this
article a read for an introductory course in Preseason Schedule
Analysis.
Much like any system that projects future performance, each year
gives me the opportunity to tweak and hopefully improve the product.
After making the ability to personalize each matchup my focus
last season, I hope to add volatility to the mix in 2010. By "volatility",
I mean: 1) accessing whether my projection represents the ceiling
or floor for a given player to operate in this season and 2) understanding
that at least one-third of the teams will make a QB change at
some point and about the same percentage of NFL starting RBs will
not make it through the 16-game schedule (only 19 RBs with more
than 100 carries played all 16 games last season). As such, I
will judiciously add injury layoffs to players who I feel are
significant injury risks.
Before we begin, I feel it necessary to state that my projections
are subject to change. Fear not, however, as I will release my
final projections and rankings in late August. However, the next
few weeks should give all interested parties a pretty good idea
of just how strongly I feel about a player's prospects for the
upcoming season.
Perhaps more important than the final numbers for each player,
though, are the highlighted matchups. Note that I have applied
the green highlights (good matchups) to the players who I feel
should take advantage of that matchup and the red highlights (bad
matchups) to the ones that will be difficult - but not impossible
- for that player. Only a handful of defenses merit bad matchups
all over the board (the Steelers, Packers, Jets and Bengals all
qualify this year), however, just because a player’s box
is "red" one week doesn't mean the player won't put
up his usual numbers just as a "green" doesn't necessarily
mean he will. Furthermore, one WR can have a "red" matchup
but the rest of his team could be neutral or green. For instance,
when the Jets put CB Darrelle Revis on the opponent's #1 WR, it
will qualify as a bad matchup only for the #1 WR, not necessarily
for the rest of the passing game. Therefore, a QB, WR or TE will
only be considered positive/negative if I don't think he can win
his individual matchup.
Before we dive into the projections, let me revisit the volatility
I spoke of earlier. In the blue vertical column to the right of
my projection, I will place a sign (explained below) as to how
much upside or downside a player has this season. Here is the
key I will be using over the next four weeks, with no sign by
a player’s name suggesting I feel I am projecting the player
accurately:
(^) - Projection represents
the player’s floor; he has significant upside.
(+) - Projection may be selling
the player short; he has some upside.
(-) - Projection may be overselling
the player; he is a slight risk.
(!) – Projection represents
the player’s ceiling; he is a significant risk.
Note: The grey
highlight in each team’s schedule reflects a road game.
AFC EAST
Buffalo Bills |
|
Totals |
|
MIA |
GB |
NE |
NYJ |
JAX |
bye |
BAL |
KC |
CHI |
DET |
CIN |
PIT |
MIN |
CLE |
MIA |
NE |
(Run) |
|
|
7.2 |
9.4 |
7.4 |
9.1 |
6.7 |
|
9.4 |
6.5 |
8.3 |
6.4 |
8.8 |
9.3 |
9.4 |
7.4 |
7.2 |
7.4 |
(Pass) |
|
|
8 |
8.3 |
7.5 |
9.7 |
7.6 |
|
7.2 |
7.2 |
8.3 |
5.8 |
9.1 |
8.5 |
8.2 |
6.7 |
8 |
7.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trent Edwards |
2850 |
|
195 |
125 |
180 |
145 |
195 |
|
205 |
215 |
225 |
265 |
125 |
155 |
230 |
180 |
245 |
165 |
TD |
13 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
INT |
16 |
|
0 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fred Jackson |
910 |
+ |
75 |
50 |
45 |
30 |
80 |
|
40 |
90 |
75 |
105 |
55 |
30 |
40 |
70 |
60 |
65 |
Ru TD |
5 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Re Yards |
170 |
|
10 |
0 |
15 |
10 |
5 |
|
15 |
5 |
15 |
5 |
10 |
0 |
25 |
20 |
15 |
20 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
25 |
|
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CJ Spiller |
465 |
|
30 |
20 |
35 |
15 |
50 |
|
20 |
40 |
25 |
45 |
20 |
15 |
25 |
65 |
25 |
35 |
Ru
TD |
4 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
455 |
|
45 |
25 |
25 |
15 |
45 |
|
35 |
25 |
35 |
40 |
20 |
10 |
70 |
10 |
40 |
15 |
Re
TD |
2 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
54 |
|
5 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
6 |
|
5 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
7 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marshawn Lynch |
265 |
|
15 |
10 |
10 |
25 |
25 |
|
15 |
15 |
30 |
10 |
15 |
40 |
10 |
20 |
15 |
10 |
Ru
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
80 |
|
0 |
5 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
|
5 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
13 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Evans |
820 |
|
60 |
30 |
50 |
15 |
70 |
|
55 |
45 |
80 |
90 |
40 |
65 |
50 |
100 |
25 |
45 |
Re
TD |
4 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
52 |
|
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
|
5 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus Easley |
320 |
|
25 |
20 |
35 |
10 |
35 |
|
15 |
40 |
0 |
25 |
25 |
15 |
0 |
15 |
40 |
20 |
Re
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
26 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
2 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Johnson |
495 |
|
35 |
10 |
30 |
30 |
15 |
|
65 |
55 |
25 |
40 |
0 |
55 |
40 |
25 |
40 |
30 |
Re
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
38 |
|
3 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
5 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roscoe Parrish |
275 |
|
10 |
15 |
20 |
25 |
0 |
|
15 |
25 |
45 |
15 |
20 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
45 |
10 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
28 |
|
1 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
|
2 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Nelson |
235 |
+ |
10 |
20 |
5 |
30 |
20 |
|
0 |
20 |
15 |
50 |
10 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
20 |
15 |
Re
TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
25 |
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
|
0 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
|
Run: New HC Chan Gailey has his
work cut out for him, no doubt about it. It’s a good thing
that Gailey tends to focus on his offense’s strengths when
he calls plays, because the run game is about the only way Buffalo
will move the ball with any consistency this year. Assuming Lynch
is not traded (which looks to be the case at this moment), the
stock of Jackson takes another hit. Spiller figures to play as
much receiver as running back and may lead the team in catches,
but the team will still find a way to get him 6-8 carries (at
least) in just about every game. Throw in a series or two for
Lynch each game and there is little chance Jackson will exceed
20 carries very often. As for the schedule, seven of the team’s
first 13 games are against defenses I have projected as top-ten
rushing defenses. While the RBs are good enough, the Bills’
offensive line is not and given the team’s weak passing
attack, defenses will likely stack the line to stop the run and
take their chances in single coverage against the likes of Johnson
and Easley.
Note: In the event of a Marshawn Lynch trade, feel free to
add Lynch’s total onto Jackson’s final numbers. While
I’m typically not an advocate of this technique, Gailey
will lean on the running game heavily this season whether he has
two or three capable RBs. As for Lynch, his upside would undoubtedly
soar with less competition and behind a better offensive line.
Pass: In the season’s first
four weeks, the Bills face three of the four most aggressive 3-4
defenses and/or coordinators in the NFL (Miami DC Mike Nolan,
Green Bay DC Dom Capers, Jets HC Rex Ryan). The other defense
Buffalo faces in the first four weeks figures to be run by Bill
Belichick. Needless to say, Buffalo’s offense may look even
worse than it is already projected to be. The middle of the schedule
lets up a bit for the passing game – assuming Edwards can
survive behind the Bills’ offensive line that long –
but four of the team’s final six games on the fantasy slate
come against defenses that should harass the QB all season long
in the Bengals, Steelers, Vikings and Dolphins. The only player
worth a mention in fantasy from this passing game – Evans
– has next to no help at WR or TE and a QB that lacks the
arm strength to take advantage of his greatest asset – his
speed.
Miami Dolphins |
|
Totals |
|
BUF |
MIN |
NYJ |
NE |
bye |
GB |
PIT |
CIN |
BAL |
TEN |
CHI |
OAK |
CLE |
NYJ |
BUF |
DET |
(Run) |
|
|
6.1 |
9.4 |
9.1 |
7.4 |
|
9.4 |
9.3 |
8.8 |
9.4 |
7.8 |
8.3 |
8.2 |
7.4 |
9.1 |
6.1 |
6.4 |
(Pass) |
|
|
6.7 |
8.2 |
9.7 |
7.5 |
|
8.3 |
8.5 |
9.1 |
7.2 |
7.5 |
8.3 |
8.2 |
6.7 |
9.7 |
6.7 |
5.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Henne |
3375 |
|
235 |
245 |
190 |
230 |
|
220 |
155 |
230 |
275 |
200 |
205 |
215 |
230 |
195 |
245 |
305 |
TD |
20 |
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
INT |
12 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pat White |
95 |
|
0 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
|
0 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
25 |
0 |
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
INT |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Ru
Yards |
85 |
|
10 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
30 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
Ru
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ronnie Brown |
500 |
- |
55 |
45 |
65 |
45 |
|
35 |
35 |
35 |
50 |
50 |
35 |
50 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
Ru
TD |
7 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
Re
Yards |
80 |
|
5 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
|
15 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
Rec |
9 |
|
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ricky Williams |
1000 |
|
65 |
40 |
30 |
65 |
|
55 |
40 |
55 |
40 |
75 |
55 |
75 |
110 |
65 |
125 |
105 |
Ru
TD |
10 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
270 |
|
15 |
10 |
30 |
5 |
|
15 |
10 |
35 |
20 |
10 |
20 |
15 |
20 |
25 |
10 |
30 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
34 |
|
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brandon Marshall |
1195 |
|
90 |
115 |
35 |
85 |
|
55 |
70 |
40 |
140 |
80 |
90 |
45 |
100 |
25 |
85 |
140 |
Re
TD |
9 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Rec |
84 |
|
7 |
6 |
2 |
5 |
|
4 |
5 |
3 |
10 |
4 |
7 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
8 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Davone Bess |
715 |
|
50 |
60 |
75 |
30 |
|
65 |
25 |
45 |
60 |
30 |
20 |
70 |
50 |
45 |
60 |
30 |
Re
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
66 |
|
4 |
6 |
6 |
3 |
|
5 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Camarillo |
355 |
|
20 |
25 |
40 |
25 |
|
10 |
0 |
25 |
25 |
0 |
40 |
20 |
25 |
35 |
25 |
40 |
Re
TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
33 |
|
2 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Hartline |
460 |
|
25 |
0 |
30 |
50 |
|
30 |
15 |
50 |
15 |
30 |
25 |
35 |
0 |
55 |
50 |
50 |
Re
TD |
4 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Rec |
41 |
|
1 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
|
4 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Fasano |
335 |
|
30 |
20 |
0 |
25 |
|
30 |
40 |
25 |
0 |
50 |
0 |
40 |
25 |
10 |
25 |
15 |
Re
TD |
4 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
34 |
|
3 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
Run: If HC Tony Sparano has taken a close look at the schedule,
he’ll realize how quickly it will go from ho-hum to humbling.
The first problem with Miami is figuring out where Brown will
be in his recovery from his Lisfranc injury last season. The next
issue revolves around Williams’ role in the offense –
will it be like it was in the first half of last season (as Mr.
Outside to Brown’s Mr. Inside) or will the 33-year-old Williams
carry the ball more often early to let Brown ease in to his 2009
role? For now, it has to be assumed Brown will not be the explosive
back we remember him being until 2011, which should make Williams
a hot commodity. Then again, with the ‘Fins’ first-half
schedule, it might appear that every RB from Miami is running
a bit slow. After the Bills’ game in Week 1, six of the
Dolphins’ next seven opponents feature defenses that I believe
are among the top seven rushing defenses in the league for the
2010 season. At that point, Miami goes from ridiculously difficult
to moderately hard until it wraps up the season against three
teams in Weeks 13, 15 and 16 that I consider juicy matchups for
a team with the ability to run the ball like Miami can. Since
Brown has proven that he is unlikely to hold up over the course
of the season, the last quarter of the season looks very tempting
for Williams and maybe even someone like Lex Hilliard.
Pass: After a road date in Buffalo, Miami embarks on a six-game
stretch in which it must face my top-five projected defenses,
with each team being considered an all-around good defense. The
sixth opponent over that stretch is the Patriots’ defense,
certainly no slouch in their own right. After that long stretch
of difficult matchups, Miami may have to face a Baltimore secondary
that may be getting healthy, so that might end up being yet another
tough contest for the passing game. In fact, it’s not until
Week 10-11 that the Dolphins have consecutive non-red matchups,
but from Week 10 on, the passing game faces only one team that
can be considered a bad matchup for sure right now (Week 14 vs.
the Jets). With three of the team’s final four games on
the fantasy schedule being against Cleveland, Buffalo and Detroit,
savvy fantasy owners may want to trade for the likes of Chad Henne,
Brandon Marshall (if he falls a bit short of my expectations through
the first half of the season) and even Davone Bess around their
fantasy league’s trade deadline because as pivotal December
fantasy matchups go, it doesn’t get much better than the
Browns, Bills and Lions.
New England Patriots |
|
Totals |
|
CIN |
NYJ |
BUF |
MIA |
bye |
BAL |
SD |
MIN |
CLE |
PIT |
IND |
DET |
NYJ |
CHI |
GB |
BUF |
(Run) |
|
|
8.8 |
9.1 |
6.1 |
7.2 |
|
9.4 |
7.2 |
9.4 |
7.4 |
9.3 |
7.6 |
6.4 |
9.1 |
8.3 |
9.4 |
6.1 |
(Pass) |
|
|
9.1 |
9.7 |
6.7 |
8 |
|
7.2 |
7.7 |
8.2 |
6.7 |
8.5 |
8.8 |
5.8 |
9.7 |
8.3 |
8.3 |
6.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Brady |
4130 |
|
275 |
245 |
350 |
260 |
|
335 |
280 |
320 |
250 |
275 |
210 |
340 |
225 |
270 |
245 |
250 |
TD |
24 |
|
1 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
INT |
11 |
|
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laurence Maroney |
580 |
- |
40 |
55 |
105 |
30 |
|
20 |
70 |
35 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
65 |
INJ |
80 |
30 |
50 |
Ru
TD |
4 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
1 |
INJ |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
50 |
|
0 |
10 |
0 |
5 |
|
0 |
5 |
5 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
20 |
INJ |
5 |
0 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
6 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
1 |
INJ |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fred Taylor |
315 |
- |
30 |
20 |
25 |
55 |
|
25 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
50 |
25 |
35 |
10 |
15 |
25 |
Ru
TD |
2 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
30 |
|
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
5 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
5 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sammy Morris |
475 |
- |
15 |
40 |
25 |
INJ |
|
30 |
45 |
15 |
100 |
40 |
50 |
15 |
INJ |
INJ |
40 |
60 |
Ru
TD |
6 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
INJ |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
1 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
165 |
|
5 |
15 |
0 |
INJ |
|
40 |
15 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
15 |
10 |
INJ |
INJ |
15 |
25 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
25 |
|
1 |
2 |
0 |
INJ |
|
4 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
INJ |
INJ |
2 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Faulk |
305 |
|
0 |
10 |
10 |
20 |
|
0 |
15 |
25 |
45 |
35 |
15 |
20 |
45 |
10 |
10 |
45 |
Ru
TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
380 |
|
20 |
25 |
20 |
25 |
|
10 |
40 |
55 |
25 |
15 |
20 |
25 |
15 |
35 |
20 |
30 |
Re
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
49 |
|
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
|
2 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Moss |
1225 |
|
65 |
25 |
125 |
70 |
|
110 |
90 |
130 |
75 |
80 |
85 |
125 |
20 |
110 |
60 |
55 |
Re
TD |
10 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
80 |
|
5 |
2 |
6 |
5 |
|
8 |
4 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
8 |
8 |
2 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wes Welker |
735 |
- |
35 |
35 |
50 |
30 |
|
50 |
40 |
INJ |
INJ |
85 |
65 |
55 |
85 |
70 |
75 |
60 |
Re
TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
62 |
|
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
5 |
3 |
INJ |
INJ |
7 |
6 |
5 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julian Edelman |
760 |
+ |
75 |
60 |
75 |
50 |
|
40 |
25 |
90 |
105 |
35 |
25 |
25 |
65 |
30 |
40 |
20 |
Re
TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
73 |
|
8 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
|
4 |
2 |
9 |
11 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Brandon Tate/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Torry Holt |
395 |
|
45 |
30 |
45 |
25 |
|
55 |
30 |
10 |
20 |
25 |
0 |
45 |
15 |
0 |
20 |
30 |
Re
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
25 |
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alge Crumpler |
70 |
|
0 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
|
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
15 |
Re
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
10 |
|
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
Rob Gronkowski/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Hernandez |
320 |
|
20 |
35 |
35 |
45 |
|
20 |
35 |
20 |
15 |
20 |
0 |
35 |
10 |
0 |
15 |
15 |
Re
TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
32 |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
|
3 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
Run: Year after year, the Patriots pass on bringing in a top-end
prospect at RB, instead opting to stick with the over-30 crowd
(Taylor, Faulk, Morris) and a former first-rounder who has yet
to match the bar he set as a rookie (Maroney). Since only Faulk
can be considered a good bet to stay healthy all season long,
the fun begins when injuries strike. Fortunately or unfortunately,
the Patriots have finished in the top half of the league each
season since 2004 in the top half of RB fantasy points scored
(all but twice ending the season in the top 10). Much like the
rest of the AFC East, New England figures to be thrown about every
tough run defense imaginable, courtesy of the AFC and NFC North
opponents. Perhaps the most amazing thing about the 2010 schedule
is the way it is spread out; outside of Weeks 3-4, it doesn’t
appear as if the Pats will have much of a chance to build momentum.
And since the Patriots’ backfield is so based on injury
statuses and game-by-game situational production, it’s probably
a safe bet that no single New England RB will end 2010 in the
top 30 at his position in fantasy (unless someone can stay healthy
all 16 games).
Pass: To what degree Welker is
able to return will likely determine just how much of a bargain
owning Brady will be this season. For the purposes of this
article, I will take the less optimistic approach to his recovery
and suggest he will be very fortunate to start the season on time
(although I do forecast he will gain some measure of his trademark
explosiveness as the season goes on). After facing the two
teams I feel have the two most talented pass defenses in the league
to start the season, New England could enjoy a nice stretch against
a few pass defenses that should be overmatched, such as Buffalo,
Baltimore (likely without Ed Reed), San Diego and Cleveland. (Therefore,
for those looking for a discounted rate on Brady, Moss, Welker
or possibly Edelman, it would be after Week 2.) Unfortunately,
the schedule difficulty picks back up in Week 10 at Pittsburgh
and is followed by the always-entertaining rivalry with Indianapolis
the following week. The schedule-makers also did the Patriots’
passing game no favors this season when it came to putting the
team in favorable situations at fantasy playoff time. In Weeks
13 and 15, they play two of the stoutest pass defenses at home
(Jets, Packers). In Weeks 14 and 16, they take the road in contests
where the elements (snow, wind, etc) could easily make a difference
in the play-calling that day.
New York Jets |
|
Totals |
|
BAL |
NE |
MIA |
BUF |
MIN |
DEN |
bye |
GB |
DET |
CLE |
HOU |
CIN |
NE |
MIA |
PIT |
CHI |
(Run) |
|
|
9.4 |
7.4 |
7.2 |
6.1 |
9.4 |
7.1 |
|
9.4 |
6.4 |
7.4 |
7.8 |
8.8 |
7.4 |
7.2 |
9.3 |
8.3 |
(Pass) |
|
|
7.2 |
7.5 |
8 |
6.7 |
8.2 |
8.1 |
|
8.3 |
5.8 |
6.7 |
7.5 |
9.1 |
7.5 |
8 |
8.5 |
8.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Sanchez |
3195 |
|
220 |
185 |
155 |
185 |
260 |
225 |
|
210 |
270 |
210 |
240 |
175 |
195 |
255 |
175 |
235 |
TD |
19 |
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
INT |
15 |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shonn Greene |
970 |
^ |
65 |
105 |
80 |
130 |
40 |
80 |
|
35 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
70 |
85 |
100 |
70 |
110 |
Ru
TD |
11 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
40 |
|
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
|
5 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
5 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
7 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
2 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Tomlinson |
610 |
- |
30 |
35 |
40 |
40 |
25 |
30 |
|
50 |
85 |
105 |
60 |
30 |
INJ |
35 |
15 |
30 |
Ru
TD |
5 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
195 |
|
20 |
10 |
25 |
10 |
35 |
0 |
|
20 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
INJ |
20 |
10 |
15 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
27 |
|
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
|
3 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
INJ |
3 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe McKnight |
295 |
|
15 |
0 |
25 |
40 |
35 |
10 |
|
20 |
30 |
45 |
15 |
10 |
40 |
10 |
INJ |
INJ |
Ru
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
Re
Yards |
190 |
|
10 |
0 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
5 |
|
10 |
50 |
25 |
10 |
0 |
25 |
15 |
INJ |
INJ |
Re
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
Rec |
19 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
INJ |
INJ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jerricho Cotchery |
930 |
|
60 |
75 |
50 |
65 |
40 |
80 |
|
65 |
85 |
40 |
60 |
45 |
90 |
65 |
35 |
75 |
Re
TD |
6 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
74 |
|
4 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
7 |
|
6 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
2 |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Santonio Holmes |
720 |
|
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
80 |
55 |
|
50 |
100 |
55 |
85 |
45 |
50 |
35 |
110 |
55 |
Re
TD |
5 |
|
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
Rec |
46 |
|
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
6 |
4 |
|
3 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Braylon Edwards |
515 |
|
75 |
30 |
30 |
80 |
25 |
45 |
|
25 |
10 |
35 |
45 |
20 |
0 |
40 |
0 |
55 |
Re
TD |
3 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
26 |
|
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dustin Keller |
605 |
|
55 |
65 |
35 |
20 |
55 |
40 |
|
35 |
25 |
55 |
20 |
55 |
25 |
65 |
20 |
35 |
Re
TD |
4 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
53 |
|
5 |
6 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
|
3 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
3 |
|
Run: New York got off a bit lucky
during the 2009 season when it came to playing against some weak
run defenses, facing some of the more questionable run-stopping
teams in the league – their own division as well as the
AFC and NFC South. (Take a
look here to see what I thought about their schedule last
season.) This time around, the more potent AFC and NFC North rush
defenses await the Jets. Combine that with the abbreviated season
we saw from Greene (due to ankle and rib injuries) last year and
it should make us pause a bit before we praise the second-year
RB from Iowa. The Jets kick off the season against an elite run
defense in the Ravens before closing out the first quarter of
the season with a couple of neutral games and a juicy matchup
vs. Buffalo. Two of the next three contests see New York host
stout run defenses in the Vikings and Packers. The Jets then get
two of their most fantasy-friendly contests of the season in consecutive
road games against the Lions and Browns. Although the quality
of (and commitment to) the ground game will get them through the
last third of the season, there is nothing easy about the final
5-6 games. Cincinnati (Week 12) and Pittsburgh (Week 15) will
be difficult for the Jets, especially if both defenses are healthy
at that point of the season. Additionally, Mike Nolan’s
Dolphins defense (Week 14) and the Bears (Week 16) should be above-average
vs. the run as well.
Note: I have Greene missing three pretty solid matchups due
to injury in the middle of the season. Please feel free to add
at least 250 rushing yards and three scores to his projection
if you believe he will hold up all season long. Thus, Greene is
a solid bet for 1300-1400 rushing yards and 12-14 TDs if he can
stay healthy.
Pass: Although they will remain a running team, the Jets have
promised to throw the ball a bit more in 2010. Judging by the
amount of red on their schedule above, they’ll need Sanchez
to go skip the sophomore slump and Holmes to emerge as a consistent
playmaking force once he returns from his suspension. While the
first quarter of the fantasy season is harmless enough, Week 5
begins a brutal season-long stretch against some top-notch secondaries
and/or tough Cover 2 defenses. In successive weeks (with a bye
sandwiched in between), the Jets face the likes of Antoine Winfield,
Champ Bailey and Charles Woodson. After getting a short reprieve
in Detroit and Cleveland, New York encounters two of the best
young secondaries in the league (Cincinnati, Miami) and what should
be two of the fiercest pass-rushing defenses (Pittsburgh, Chicago)
over the final five weeks of the fantasy season. The Jets have
enough playmakers for Sanchez to improve his woeful 12:20 TD-to-INT
ratio from a season ago, but whether he takes the next step or
not in his second season greatly depends on his own work habits
and the health of the defenses he faces this season.
AFC NORTH
Baltimore Ravens |
|
Totals |
|
NYJ |
CIN |
CLE |
PIT |
DEN |
NE |
BUF |
bye |
MIA |
ATL |
CAR |
TB |
PIT |
HOU |
NO |
CLE |
(Run) |
|
|
9.1 |
8.8 |
7.4 |
9.3 |
7.1 |
7.4 |
6.1 |
|
7.2 |
6.6 |
5.8 |
6.2 |
9.3 |
7.8 |
7.4 |
7.4 |
(Pass) |
|
|
9.7 |
9.1 |
6.7 |
8.5 |
8.1 |
7.5 |
6.7 |
|
8 |
7.7 |
7.1 |
6.4 |
8.5 |
7.5 |
7.8 |
6.7 |
Joe Flacco |
3520 |
+ |
185 |
230 |
285 |
185 |
260 |
280 |
210 |
|
205 |
250 |
210 |
285 |
230 |
290 |
225 |
190 |
TD |
22 |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
INT |
12 |
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray Rice |
1440 |
|
55 |
65 |
90 |
60 |
100 |
110 |
140 |
|
60 |
125 |
150 |
115 |
40 |
80 |
115 |
135 |
Ru
TD |
11 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Re
Yards |
560 |
|
25 |
40 |
40 |
20 |
35 |
25 |
20 |
|
85 |
25 |
40 |
50 |
35 |
75 |
25 |
20 |
Re
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
60 |
|
3 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
|
10 |
3 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Willis McGahee |
445 |
- |
15 |
25 |
40 |
15 |
25 |
45 |
50 |
|
35 |
15 |
50 |
30 |
15 |
25 |
15 |
45 |
Ru
TD |
6 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
65 |
|
10 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
8 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le'Ron
McClain |
160 |
|
5 |
5 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
25 |
|
0 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
5 |
15 |
10 |
30 |
Ru
TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
125 |
|
15 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
25 |
|
10 |
5 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
20 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
16 |
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anquan Boldin |
1045 |
|
25 |
90 |
110 |
60 |
75 |
110 |
INJ |
|
INJ |
90 |
50 |
70 |
125 |
100 |
80 |
60 |
Re
TD |
9 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
INJ |
|
INJ |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
78 |
|
3 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
8 |
INJ |
|
INJ |
8 |
4 |
5 |
10 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derrick Mason |
1030 |
|
60 |
50 |
90 |
70 |
100 |
50 |
90 |
|
55 |
70 |
65 |
85 |
50 |
65 |
55 |
75 |
Re
TD |
6 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
76 |
|
4 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
7 |
|
4 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donte Stallworth |
375 |
|
15 |
25 |
50 |
20 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
70 |
20 |
0 |
35 |
20 |
40 |
55 |
25 |
Re
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
17 |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Clayton |
230 |
|
15 |
10 |
25 |
0 |
20 |
45 |
30 |
|
25 |
0 |
15 |
10 |
INJ |
10 |
25 |
0 |
Re
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
21 |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
|
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
INJ |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Todd Heap |
465 |
- |
35 |
25 |
15 |
35 |
20 |
40 |
45 |
|
30 |
50 |
40 |
45 |
15 |
30 |
25 |
15 |
Re
TD |
4 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
43 |
|
3 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
|
3 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Run: The Jets, Bengals and Steelers (Weeks 1, 2 and 4, respectively)
will offer up the most resistance the Ravens’ running game
should figure on seeing the entire season. It’s also worth
mentioning here that OC Cam Cameron has a tendency to share the
running game load over the first quarter of the season, so it
may all be for the best for Rice long-term. From Week 5 on, the
Ravens see just one defense I would consider a top-level run-stopping
unit (Steelers in Week 13), which may allow Rice to fulfill the
very lofty 15-game numbers I believe he will achieve this season.
Much like Chris Johnson did with LenDale White in 2009, I believe
Rice will make McGahee obsolete in the Baltimore offense as we
move into October. But the best part of owning Rice this season
may not even be that – it could easily be how ridiculous
his total-yardage numbers are from Week 10 on when Baltimore should
have its way on the ground against all the NFC South teams and
Cleveland. I predicted earlier this summer that I felt Rice could
score double-digit TDs this season and I feel even stronger about
that prediction now.
Pass: For a QB who may be on his way to competing for a Pro Bowl
selection, Flacco is going to have his work cut out for himself
early, going against the two units I feel possess the strongest
pass defenses in the league in the Jets and Bengals. Cleveland
should provide a brief respite, but then a road game at Pittsburgh
comes next. After that, the schedule eases up considerably, although
it will be hard for Cameron not to run the ball all day with Rice
when the likes of Buffalo, Atlanta, Tampa Bay and Carolina are
the opponents. Regardless, after the first quarter of the season
(which would be a good time to acquire Flacco, Boldin and Mason),
Baltimore should benefit from its schedule as only Pittsburgh
and New Orleans strike me as defenses that may upset the Ravens’
offensive rhythm. Boldin will face his fair share of above-average
CBs (which explains the lack of green on his chart), but the biggest
worry for him each season is injuries, not opposing CBs. Only
Darrelle Revis (Week 1) and possibly Champ Bailey (if new Broncos
DC Don Martindale opts to have his top corner shadow the opponent’s
WR1) strike me as players who can reasonably contain Boldin. Mason,
on the other hand, will go from being the focal point of the secondary’s
game plan to the second option. Only the Jets, Cincinnati and
Miami should have enough good DBs to keep up with him, so expect
70-catch, 900-1000 yard season from him again in 2010.
Cincinnati Bengals |
|
Totals |
|
NE |
BAL |
CAR |
CLE |
TB |
bye |
ATL |
MIA |
PIT |
IND |
BUF |
NYJ |
NO |
PIT |
CLE |
SD |
(Run) |
|
|
7.4 |
9.4 |
5.8 |
7.4 |
6.2 |
|
6.6 |
7.2 |
9.3 |
7.6 |
6.1 |
9.1 |
7.4 |
9.3 |
7.4 |
7.2 |
(Pass) |
|
|
7.5 |
7.2 |
7.1 |
6.7 |
6.4 |
|
7.7 |
8 |
8.5 |
8.8 |
6.7 |
9.7 |
7.8 |
8.5 |
6.7 |
7.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carson Palmer |
3525 |
|
235 |
275 |
155 |
220 |
255 |
0 |
325 |
220 |
200 |
240 |
225 |
140 |
290 |
195 |
260 |
290 |
TD |
24 |
|
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
INT |
13 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cedric Benson |
1230 |
- |
90 |
75 |
115 |
100 |
135 |
|
80 |
65 |
INJ |
100 |
110 |
85 |
INJ |
60 |
125 |
90 |
Ru
TD |
8 |
|
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
INJ |
1 |
1 |
1 |
INJ |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
100 |
|
5 |
20 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
|
10 |
15 |
INJ |
5 |
0 |
10 |
INJ |
5 |
5 |
10 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
17 |
|
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
2 |
INJ |
1 |
0 |
2 |
INJ |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernard Scott |
510 |
|
25 |
15 |
55 |
30 |
20 |
|
10 |
50 |
30 |
35 |
35 |
INJ |
110 |
20 |
45 |
30 |
Ru
TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
250 |
|
10 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
20 |
|
25 |
15 |
15 |
40 |
25 |
INJ |
35 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
Re
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
28 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
INJ |
4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Leonard |
105 |
|
0 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
15 |
|
0 |
10 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
15 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
Ru
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
125 |
|
10 |
5 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
|
15 |
25 |
10 |
0 |
15 |
15 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
21 |
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Ochocinco |
1005 |
|
50 |
100 |
40 |
55 |
90 |
|
90 |
35 |
65 |
40 |
65 |
20 |
120 |
45 |
75 |
115 |
Re
TD |
8 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
Rec |
74 |
|
4 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
8 |
|
5 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
8 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antonio Bryant |
725 |
! |
75 |
55 |
25 |
65 |
INJ |
|
90 |
50 |
35 |
55 |
60 |
55 |
INJ |
55 |
55 |
50 |
Re
TD |
5 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
INJ |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
51 |
|
5 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
INJ |
|
6 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
INJ |
3 |
6 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jordan Shipley |
440 |
|
30 |
20 |
40 |
15 |
65 |
|
25 |
35 |
20 |
10 |
25 |
25 |
30 |
35 |
45 |
20 |
Re
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
40 |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
|
2 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Caldwell |
420 |
|
35 |
45 |
20 |
25 |
20 |
|
35 |
20 |
45 |
40 |
20 |
0 |
60 |
35 |
15 |
5 |
Re
TD |
3 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
34 |
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
3 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jermaine Gresham |
460 |
|
20 |
30 |
20 |
30 |
45 |
|
35 |
25 |
10 |
50 |
15 |
15 |
40 |
5 |
45 |
75 |
Re
TD |
5 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
38 |
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
|
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
6 |
|
Run: One of the wonderful developments of commissioner Roger
Goodell’s edict to have each team play a divisional game
in Week 17 meant some team in the AFC North would put off playing
Baltimore or Pittsburgh until the week after most fantasy leagues
are decided. What this means is one less stout run defense for
Benson owners to worry about in 2010. In fact, according to the
defensive grades I handed out last week, Cincinnati faces the
second-easiest run fantasy schedule (behind Baltimore) of the
eight teams I will cover this week. After a difficult start to
the season in Foxboro and at home vs. the Ravens, savvy fantasy
owners without Benson on their roster may want to acquire him
as the Bengals should have ample opportunity to ride their bellcow
as long as they want to with four straight games against what
should be some of the worst run defenses in the league. Miami
and Pittsburgh figure to slow him down considerably, but the run
defenses of the Colts and Bills should serve allow for a rebound.
Weeks 12-14 (against the Jets, Saints and Steelers) may yield
only one decent running performance from the Bengals, but Benson
– if healthy – should serve his owners well in Weeks
15 and 16 when he faces Cleveland and San Diego in consecutive
home games to close out the fantasy season. Not only do both teams
figure to be mediocre at stopping the run, Benson did most of
his damage at home last season (106 yards rushing/game, 5 TDs
in seven games).
Pass: There’s no question the fantasy football projection
business is a constantly evolving one – and the Bengals
certainly do their part to make it that much more challenging.
As of press time, Cincinnati appears to closing in on Terrell
Owens. While we all understand his arrival isn’t as buzz-worthy
as it used to be, it does have a couple of fantasy implications
if he does sign: 1) Antonio Bryant’s knee isn’t healthy
and the team feels he won’t be useful this season and 2)
the Bengals won’t as run-heavy as they would have been with
Bryant, who is a more physical receiver and blocker than Owens.
This would obviously make Palmer all that much more valuable because
a healthy Owens would likely perform at least to the level of
the Bryant projection I have below. And Cincinnati could not really
have asked for much more in terms of a first-half passing schedule.
While the first six games present some challenges (Bill Belichick’s
defensive prowess should never been underestimated and Carolina
as well as Tampa Bay have talent in the secondary), not a single
one of those teams possess the total package of superior talent,
scheme and coaching. Weeks 8-10 present the Bengals with their
first real challenges of the season with Miami, Pittsburgh and
Indianapolis. Cincinnati gets a one-week breather vs. Buffalo
(a game in which it may decide to run the ball all day) before
it faces a nightmare matchup with the Jets in Week 12. From that
point on, only Pittsburgh stands out as a team that should bottle
up the Bengals’ pass game, with home matchups against Cleveland
and San Diego in Weeks 15 and 16 as plus-matchups against teams
that feature poor safety play.
Cleveland Browns |
|
Totals |
|
TB |
KC |
BAL |
CIN |
ATL |
PIT |
NO |
bye |
NE |
NYJ |
JAX |
CAR |
MIA |
BUF |
CIN |
BAL |
(Run) |
|
|
6.2 |
6.5 |
9.4 |
8.8 |
6.6 |
9.3 |
7.4 |
|
7.4 |
9.1 |
6.7 |
5.8 |
7.2 |
6.1 |
8.8 |
9.4 |
(Pass) |
|
|
6.4 |
7.2 |
7.2 |
9.1 |
7.7 |
8.5 |
7.8 |
|
7.5 |
9.7 |
7.6 |
7.1 |
8 |
6.7 |
9.1 |
7.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jake Delhomme |
1960 |
! |
185 |
165 |
220 |
170 |
165 |
65 |
230 |
|
165 |
70 |
195 |
140 |
190 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
TD |
12 |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INT |
15 |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
|
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seneca Wallace |
265 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
150 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
115 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INT |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Ru
Yards |
45 |
|
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
|
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
Ru
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colt McCoy |
550 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
170 |
185 |
195 |
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
INT |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montario Hardesty |
870 |
- |
80 |
90 |
35 |
45 |
70 |
45 |
55 |
|
70 |
INJ |
INJ |
110 |
55 |
100 |
65 |
50 |
Ru
TD |
4 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
70 |
|
10 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
5 |
|
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
10 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
10 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jerome Harrison |
495 |
+ |
35 |
35 |
35 |
20 |
45 |
15 |
25 |
|
25 |
45 |
85 |
15 |
40 |
20 |
35 |
20 |
Ru
TD |
4 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
310 |
|
20 |
15 |
20 |
15 |
25 |
10 |
45 |
|
15 |
20 |
30 |
0 |
15 |
35 |
20 |
25 |
Re
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
44 |
|
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
|
2 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joshua Cribbs |
360 |
+ |
15 |
40 |
10 |
20 |
40 |
10 |
20 |
|
35 |
0 |
60 |
45 |
15 |
25 |
0 |
25 |
Ru
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
490 |
|
35 |
25 |
45 |
10 |
20 |
45 |
25 |
|
35 |
25 |
20 |
55 |
40 |
10 |
55 |
45 |
Re
TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
37 |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
4 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mohamad Massaquoi |
745 |
|
45 |
35 |
85 |
55 |
40 |
45 |
70 |
|
35 |
0 |
55 |
35 |
55 |
35 |
70 |
85 |
Re
TD |
4 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
56 |
|
4 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
|
4 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robiskie |
515 |
|
40 |
50 |
25 |
40 |
15 |
35 |
15 |
|
50 |
75 |
30 |
25 |
25 |
35 |
15 |
40 |
Re
TD |
2 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
40 |
|
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
5 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Engram |
230 |
|
0 |
15 |
20 |
15 |
30 |
25 |
35 |
|
10 |
45 |
20 |
15 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
Re
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
Rec |
22 |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
|
1 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Watson |
405 |
|
35 |
25 |
15 |
30 |
25 |
40 |
35 |
|
20 |
10 |
40 |
10 |
45 |
55 |
20 |
0 |
Re
TD |
4 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
34 |
|
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
2 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
|
Run: Cleveland has the unfortunate task of trying to rebuild
in a division that is known for strong running games and strong
run defenses. For the longest time, that meant four games each
year vs. the Steelers and the Ravens with the Bengals offering
the Browns a chance to build some rhythm on offense. That no longer
appears to be the case as Cincinnati has joined Baltimore and
Pittsburgh in the upper echelon of defenses, which means before
we even start the analysis of the Browns’ run schedule,
one-third of the 15 games are red matchups. Thankfully, Cleveland
gets a soft run schedule to open the season with Tampa Bay and
Kansas City in Weeks 1 and 2. Naturally, three of the next four
games are in the division, which makes it all the more important
that Hardesty take advantage of the four less imposing pre-bye
games. After the Week 8 bye, Hardesty (and possibly Harrison)
will get their shots at some average run-stopping units with only
the Jets in Week 10 a nightmare matchup. But for as juicy as a
Week 14 game against Buffalo is for those owners who start their
fantasy playoffs that week, Weeks 15 and 16 should force Hardesty
and Harrison owners to look for other options as Cincinnati and
Baltimore will close out the fantasy season. If Hardesty wasn’t
being viewed as a mid-range RB3 before, he should be now.
Pass: In Carolina, fantasy owners got used to seeing Delhomme
force the ball into Steve Smith. In recent years, the Panthers’
ground game became so proficient that it could overcome a number
of the QB’s gaffes. In Cleveland, Delhomme does not have
any RB in the neighborhood of Jonathan Stewart or DeAngelo Williams,
nor does he have a WR that can emulate Smith. If the people reading
this article believe this situation spells disaster, I agree.
Given the embryonic stage of the Browns’ passing game, it’s
hard to give any of the players a green for the simple fact that
Cleveland would probably rather run the ball at this point in
time. Delhomme is one of the handful of QBs most likely to get
pulled from games (or the lineup) for poor play this season and,
even in the best-case scenario, only Massaquoi and Cribbs figure
to have much relevance in fantasy. From a matchup standpoint,
Weeks 1, 2, 5 and 14 offer some hope for owners who may desperate
for a WR3 candidate, but outside of that, leave all Browns’
passing game members out of your lineup.
Pittsburgh Steelers |
|
Totals |
|
ATL |
TEN |
TB |
BAL |
bye |
CLE |
MIA |
NO |
CIN |
NE |
OAK |
BUF |
BAL |
CIN |
NYJ |
CAR |
(Run) |
|
|
6.6 |
7.8 |
6.2 |
9.4 |
|
7.4 |
7.2 |
7.4 |
8.8 |
7.4 |
8.2 |
6.1 |
9.4 |
8.8 |
9.1 |
5.8 |
(Pass) |
|
|
7.7 |
7.5 |
6.4 |
7.2 |
|
6.7 |
8 |
7.8 |
9.1 |
7.5 |
8.2 |
6.7 |
7.2 |
9.1 |
9.7 |
7.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Roethlisberger |
1955 |
|
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
|
SUS |
SUS |
210 |
205 |
265 |
210 |
205 |
255 |
225 |
145 |
235 |
TD |
14 |
|
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
|
SUS |
SUS |
2 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
INT |
8 |
|
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
|
SUS |
SUS |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
Ru
Yards |
70 |
|
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
|
SUS |
SUS |
15 |
10 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
Ru
TD |
2 |
|
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
|
SUS |
SUS |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Byron Leftwich |
1365 |
|
245 |
250 |
195 |
240 |
|
265 |
170 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
TD |
9 |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INT |
7 |
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rashard Mendenhall |
1205 |
- |
75 |
60 |
115 |
40 |
|
90 |
80 |
70 |
50 |
105 |
75 |
140 |
55 |
70 |
55 |
125 |
Ru
TD |
7 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Re
Yards |
215 |
|
15 |
25 |
0 |
10 |
|
25 |
5 |
20 |
35 |
15 |
5 |
0 |
20 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
Re
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
28 |
|
2 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
|
2 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Dwyer |
265 |
+ |
20 |
15 |
15 |
25 |
|
35 |
10 |
15 |
20 |
15 |
10 |
25 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
25 |
Ru
TD |
6 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
25 |
|
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
4 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hines Ward |
1000 |
|
65 |
55 |
80 |
65 |
|
100 |
55 |
40 |
75 |
65 |
45 |
100 |
95 |
65 |
15 |
80 |
Re
TD |
9 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
81 |
|
5 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
|
8 |
4 |
3 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
7 |
8 |
5 |
2 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Wallace |
1055 |
+ |
85 |
75 |
65 |
90 |
|
60 |
40 |
80 |
45 |
100 |
80 |
55 |
105 |
65 |
60 |
50 |
Re
TD |
6 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
70 |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
8 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
Emmanuel Sanders/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antwaan Randle El |
445 |
|
40 |
35 |
15 |
15 |
|
45 |
30 |
50 |
25 |
40 |
35 |
20 |
0 |
40 |
20 |
35 |
Re
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
30 |
|
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heath Miller |
580 |
|
40 |
55 |
35 |
60 |
|
35 |
40 |
15 |
25 |
45 |
35 |
30 |
35 |
25 |
45 |
60 |
Re
TD |
6 |
|
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Rec |
54 |
|
3 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
|
4 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
|
Run: The conventional wisdom is that Pittsburgh will return back
to its running roots this season, but OC Bruce Arians is not exactly
a conventional play-caller or someone who has a history of calling
more runs than passes (his teams have passed more often in five
of his six years as a NFL play-caller). However, Mendenhall’s
biggest concern right now is keeping a hold of the short-yardage
duties because he will run enough to be very productive in fantasy
from a yardage perspective. Much like the passing game (detailed
below), the running game gets off fairly easy in the weeks Roethlisberger
will miss, with only Baltimore standing out as a difficult run
defense. In fact, the schedule shows only one top-tier run defense
in the first half of the season, so if Pittsburgh hasn’t
made a solid short-yardage choice by Week 1, it’s possible
Mendenhall will have wrapped it up in time for a more difficult
second-half slate. In addition to Cincinnati (Week 9), the Steelers
face off against what should be capable run defenses in New England
and Oakland. Only Buffalo’s defense should give a breather
to the Pittsburgh running game that closes with a ridiculously
difficult run schedule in Weeks 13-15 (Baltimore, Cincinnati,
NY Jets), making Mendenhall much less attractive to own at fantasy
playoff time.
Pass: In what figures to be a six-game audition for Leftwich,
he’ll get every opportunity to show his wares with a pretty
strong receiving crew. Amazingly, Miami may offer the most resistance
to the Steelers in what figures to be Leftwich’s last start.
Of course, there is usually a price to pay when a team gets that
much help from the schedule early on; when Big Ben returns, his
first game will be on the road against the blitz-happy, turnover-forcing
Saints defense. After another road game vs. a stout Bengals’
squad, Bill Belichick’s New England team figures to be yet
another difficult challenge. In fact, only a Week 12 matchup in
Buffalo figures to be a game in which the Steelers can flex their
passing muscles. The fantasy playoffs are far from easy as well,
offering up the two teams I feel have the best secondaries in
the league this season – the Jets and Bengals – in
Weeks 14 and 15. The Panthers are no slouch in the secondary either,
but the run defense should be dreadful enough to the point that
Pittsburgh will focus its gameplan around the ground game that
day. While Hines Ward should turn in yet another 80-catch, 1,000-yard
season, look out for Mike Wallace. He’s no Santonio Holmes,
but the schedule doesn’t offer up a lot in the way of defenses
that feature two high-quality CBs or top-notch safeties. Since
Wallace possess elite deep speed, Pittsburgh would be wise to
take regular shots down the field.
Suggestions, comments, musings about the article or fantasy football
in general? E-mail me.
|