Ian Allan's Mailbag
Posted Nov. 20 at 12:47 AM
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:
The Titans offense seems to be revitalized with Vince Young at QB. That said, I notice that neither Justin Gage nor Nate Washington are listed among your top 83 receivers in a PPR format. Is that because of Young's inability to throw or Chris Johnson's continued emergence? Meanwhile, St. Louis WR Brandon Gibson makes the rankings after his first real action.
ERIC DEGERMAN [RICHLAND, WA]
A:
I don’t buy into the theory that Vince Young is new and improved. I saw him throw a really ugly interception against Buffalo. I think he’s probably pretty much the same guy he was when they benched him last year. He’s just handing the ball off, and that running game is working right now. I realize that Tennessee was 0-6 with Kerry Collins and 3-0 with Young, but I don’t think it’s Young who’s turned things around. He just happened to come along at the right time – they’ve got their running game fixed, and their secondary is getting healthy. Had Young started those first six games, they still would have lost all of them. And they also would have won these last three with Collins. So where do we go from here, fantasy wise? With Young at quarterback and Chris Johnson running like a bat out of hell, they’ll continue to heavily emphasize the run. They’re averaging 169 passing yards per game with Young at quarterback. Justin Gage will miss at least one more game with a broken bone in his back, and Nate Washington hasn’t had 35 receiving yards in any of the last three games. The better strategy, for a guy like yourself who’s in a PPR league, is to roll the dice on Brandon Gibson (and not just because he went to high school an hour south from me). Gibson is now a starter with the Rams, and the guys who’ve been in that spot before him (Laurent Robinson and Keenan Burton) both had some value before being lost for the season with injuries. Robinson and Burton combined for 32 catches in the eight games they started. Gibson caught 7 passes last week after stepping in when Burton got hurt. All of the Rams’ remaining games are against teams with below-average pass defenses, so I think he might catch 30-plus passes in those seven games. I can guarantee you that no Tennessee wide receiver will catch 30 passes in the remaining games.
Question 2:
I am commissioner of a 12-team league. This is our 10th year. Each team keeps 2 players. We have historically not allowed teams to trade draft picks for future years; however, there is a push to change the rule starting next season to stimulate more trade activity. I have been in leagues where this has worked, and I have been in leagues where it got completely out of hand – owners selling off their entire roster for draft picks, resulting in a competitive imbalance, and a slew of unhappy owners that feel like they are going to be stuck in the middle of the pack every season if they don't go for broke and sell off next year's draft picks at the deadline. I do not want to get in a situation where each trade is evaluated for "fairness". Any suggestions on a good way to implement the trading of draft picks?
Frederick Buescher [COLUMBUS, OH]
A:
I’m not in any keeper leagues myself, so it’s not my area of expertise. But it seems like if you allow trades, it would be a good strategy. Once you’re sure your own team isn’t going to win, it makes sense to then start selling off talent in exchange talent that will help in the following season. I don’t follow baseball closely, but that’s the way it works in that sport, isn’t it – there’s a trade deadline in late July, and there always seems to be a couple of big-time players (maybe guys in the last year of their contract) who are essentially auctioned off to the contenders. If you want to stomp it out or reduce it, you could place some kind of restriction on the number of future picks that can be dealt. You also could severely punish teams for finishing in last (maybe make the last-place owner supply the food and drink at the following year’s draft). I will be interested to see what readers have to say about this issue.
Question 3:
With your help this season I am currently tied for the division lead at 7-3. Thanks. This week I have a delicate situation. We start 2 RBs and I have Benson, Addai and Charles. You see my problem? Do I drop Charles for Scott, Snelling or McCoy or do I keep him and possibly have to start him if Benson is a no-go?
DARRELL PRESTELLA [CARSON CITY, NV]
A:
If you want to win this week, you cut Charles. He may have run for 103 yards and a touchdown against Oakland, but he’s not going to do anything against Pittsburgh on Sunday. All three of those other backs will be much better. If you release Charles, however, keep in mind that you might want to re-sign him later in the year. Kansas City doesn’t run the ball well, but in weeks 14-15, that team is playing at home against two other really bad run defenses – Cleveland and Buffalo.
Question 4:
How does R. Brown's IR status elevate R. Williams since Tuesday's re-drafter?
Andrew Taylor [GROSSE POINTE PARK, MI]
A:
Williams was very good last night against the Panthers. I think he'll also be very productive next week against the Bills. Buffalo has the worst run defense in the NFL. Then the schedule gets harder. Three of the final five are against the Steelers, Patriots and Titans. All of those teams have extremely tough run defenses. The other remaining two games look like average matchups -- Houston and Jacksonville. If I were going into a draft today, Williams would be about the 5th running back on my board.
Question 5:
Yawn! I know, another trade question, but this is a little different. Is trading a player for a defense ever an option? Not all years, but most, my last three picks in draft will be tight end, defense and kicker. I have Denver’s defense, but would a Bradshaw-for-Steelers-defense trade seem fair? The Steelers in December play both Oakland and Cleveland.
eric gustitus [EXETER, PA]
A:
I don’t see the defense position as any different than the others. You’re trying to get production. You look at the matchups, calculate what kind of production you think you’ll get, and see what’s available on the waiver wire and by trade. I’m in long-time league with friends who went to the University of Washington – a 12-team league, and everybody’s carrying two kickers. I’ve been hoping from kicker to kicker, using guys like Olindo Mare, Kris Brown, Dan Carpenter and Robbie Gould. But with not many options available, I tried to trade last week for Shayne Graham. He has a great stretch of matchups coming up, and I’ve got a lot of depth at running back. Yours is kind of the same deal. Look at the value Bradshaw adds to your roster; he could be very good this weekend against a poor Atlanta defense, but you may have other backs who are clearly ahead of him. And are there any serviceable defenses on the waiver wire? Clearly in week 14, you would much rather have the Steelers playing against the Browns than the Broncos on the road against Indianapolis.
Question 6:
Your man crush on Malcom Floyd lost me the last two games (and probably a playoff berth). The guy I benched for that joker was Mike Sims-Walker. So in hopes that you saw the error in your ways, I expected to see Sims-Walker ranked in the top ten. Nope. Instead he's listed as a low end #3 receiver. Why do you hate him and your readers so much by ranking him so low? This guy defies logic, trends and stats. He's matchup proof. I think that off game against the Titans secondary in Week 8 got you scared to give him his well-deserved respect.
Cody Hager [ALOHA, OR]
A:
Floyd hasn’t been as productive as I expected – so far. Last year, he scored and went over 65 yards in three of the four games he was used in a full-time role. This year, he’s caught 7 passes for 138 yards, with no touchdowns, in three games since they made him a starter. As well (and as often) as the Chargers throw the ball, I figured he’d make a nice impact, maybe being a top 25 receiver during the second half of the season. And he could still become that kind of guy. Physically, he’s similar to Vincent Jackson – 6-foot-5 and 225 pounds – and the Chargers use them in similar ways. They’re not throwing 8-yard hooks to these guys; they send them downfield. Against Oakland, Floyd caught a 53-yard pass down to the 6; against Philadelphia, he had a long catch down to the 3. If those balls had been thrown a little differently, Floyd would have scored 2 TDs in three games and you’d be e-mailing me to thank me for the tip. I advise you to hang onto him – he could still come around. As for Sims-Walker, he’s been on a hot streak – 39 catches, 603 yards and 5 TDs in seven games. I’ll concede that. I ranked him lower than usual last week because I didn’t like his matchup (because Darrelle Revis has done very well shutting down receivers this year). And not that while Sims-Walker scored in that game, he was held under 6 catches for just the second time all year. He caught 3 passes for 49 yards, and his touchdown came on a play when Revis was not covering him). So I didn’t think that advice was wildly off the mark. Sims-Walker has another below-average matchup this week, I think. Jacksonville is at home against the Bills. The Jaguars will win that game easily, but Buffalo is so poor against the run, I’m not sure they’ll have to pass often. The Bills have allowed twice as many touchdowns rushing (14) as passing (7). The Jaguars, meanwhile, have scored over twice as many touchdowns rushing (15) as passing (7). So if Jacksonville scores three touchdowns in this game, I think there’s a chance all three of them will come on running plays. So for this week, I’ve got Sims-Walker ahead of Floyd, but I don’t have him up there with the big-time players at that position.
Question 7:
Long time subscriber, first time emailer. Ray Rice, Michael Turner, Willis McGahee, Jason Snelling, Felix Jones, Reggie Bush, Brian Westbrook. PPR format. We start two. I picked up Westbrook, which of the remaining do I cut loose? There's been no official news on Westbrook's status. Is it a mistake to hold him as a potential starter during the playoffs in weeks 14-16?
KEVIN KERBER [MINNEAPOLIS, MN]
A:
I like the Westbrook pickup. PPR format – that’s the key. If he gets healthy and back in his usual role, he might start a game for you in the playoffs. Doctors are saying they expect Westbrook to make a full recovery, so I don’t think it’s out of the question that he’ll be back on the field in week 14. I don’t think he’ll be used in a full-time, heavy-duty way as in past years; instead, I think the Eagles would give LeSean McCoy something like a third of the work. But when Westbrook is out there, he always catches some dumpoff passes, and that makes him a viable option in your format. On my scorecard, I’ve got him having played four full games this year. In those games, I have him averaging 4 catches and 81 total yards per game, with 2 TDs. I imagine for your team, you’ll start Rice and either Turner or Bush in your playoff games. But I think it makes sense to bring in Westbrook for a look-see. For cuts, I think you’re looking at Felix Jones or Jason Snelling. Jones is the better player, obviously, but he shares time and isn’t a productive pass catcher. Snelling will split time with Jerious Norwood (while Turner is out), but there are a couple of games on the schedule where Snelling might be productive. Atlanta hosts the Bucs next week, and Tampa Bay is terrible against the run. And the Falcons are at home in week 16 against the Bills, who have the worst run defense in the league. Most likely, Turner will be back by then and you wouldn’t use Snelling anyway, but fantasy-wise, he might be a little more valuable than Jones.
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 2: I am commissioner of a...
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | Nov. 20 at 02:02 AM
I think if you want to increase trading, you have to accept that evaluating trades for fairness becomes necessary. And I think you should allow trading of future picks -- it's part of the game. If one owner is willing to trade off future picks to acquire, say, Kurt Warner to help a playoff run, isn't that part of the strategy? The other playoff contenders have the same opportunity to trade picks for players, after all. I do think owners should be allowed to veto trades, say if a majority feels collusion occurred. Since you only keep two players each year, I don't fully understand the competitive imbalance concern. Middle of the pack owners who don't trade players for draft picks will be drafting whole news teams -- except for two players -- the following year; why would they be incapable of being competitive? I guess one possibility is you could prevent owners from dealing picks in the first three rounds (or something), but I look at the average year (including this one) and see a lot of key fantasy players coming out of the middle rounds. Maybe you could say every trade involving draft picks needs to return a pick within three rounds of that one: If you trade a player for a second-round pick, you have to give up a 5th-round pick in the deal. That keeps everyone with the same number of picks and doesn't cripple the teams giving up picks for players.
Question 2: I am commissioner of a...
Posted by Moishe Steigmann | Nov. 20 at 03:00 AM
Hello Frederick, Here's what my league did in your situation, and it worked great. For the non-playoff teams, we did not automatically grant the #1 pick to the team with the worst record, on so on. Rather, we held a Toilet Bowl for the bottom four teams. They played for the next two weeks, with the winner of the four-team TB getting the 1st pick, the loser of the TB Superbowl getting second pick and the winner of the runner-up game (the two losers in the first week) getting picks 3 & 4. The fifth and sixth picks went to the two teams that missed the playoffs. This was a great balance. Teams still sold off players for draft picks but there was rarely a massive fire-sale; if you sell EVERYONE, then odds are that you'll end up with the fourth pick instead of a higher one! Worked great for many years (until we moved to an auction draft...).
Question 2: I am commissioner of a...
Posted by ADAM HOLTZ | Nov. 20 at 06:56 AM
I am commissioner of a modified keeper league - we place 2- or 3-year contracts on players immediately after the draft. We allow trading of future draft picks as well, but all trades go thru a 24-hour review period. Everyone is notified of accepted trades, then has 24 hours to vote against the trade. In 4 years, no trade has been overturned by the league. We also use the same Toilet Bowl draft position format as Moishe discussed - I think these two factors together make for pretty fair trading on all sides. In a related note, Moishe, you mentioned that your league switched from a draft to an auction. May I ask how your league did that - i.e. do you wipe the slate clean, or did you incorporate keeper players into your league's first auction? My league is wrestling with the same possible change. Thanks for any help!
Question 2: I am commissioner of a...
Posted by JOHN MACHO | Nov. 20 at 10:34 AM
If someone wants to mortgage their future by trading picks, like George Allen's Redskins, let them. Let capitalism flourish, or you'll just have resentment and controversy. The key to all this is to have a long-term commitment from every team in the league. I'd collect the next 5-10 years entry fee in advance, so someone doesn't mortgage their future, then just quit on you.
Question 2: I am commissioner of a...
Posted by BILL REHOR | Nov. 21 at 02:13 AM
We have a great punishment for finishing last in one of my leagues - the other owners get to rename your team for the upcoming year. Believe me, the names the come up with are far more of an incentive to stay out of last place than any monetary punishment. NOBODY gives up on their team in that league.
Question 2: I am commissioner of a...
Posted by MICHAEL MURILLO | Nov. 21 at 05:17 AM
In my league where we trade draft picks, we have an incentive to not totally tank and finish at the bottom-- draft order is determined by how well you finish (except the champ who chooses their spot last). If you finish last, you're hurting yourself because your draft spot will suffer. This makes teams think twice about their moves and request better players in return so they can still be competitive. That's good for the league. Also, there is a limit as to how many "early" picks you can grab, and all teams must have a full allotment of picks at all times. If you give up a pick, you get one back later.
Question 2: I am commissioner of a...
Posted by Moishe Steigmann | Nov. 21 at 08:55 AM
Hi Adam, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. We did a two step process. We did a two-step process. First, we voted to move to an auction that would begin one year later (i.e., the vote was in June, but it would take place not in the next draft that August but one year from August). That way, people who planned ahead would still have the year to reap the benefits. After the vote went through, we then held a separate vote (pre-determined) to see if people wanted the new auction draft to start right away with all rosters cleared. It was a blind vote and had to be unanimous (i.e., if one person said, "No," then we would wait one year). As it turned out, it was unanimous, so we started right away clean. I would HIGHLY recommend starting the auction from a clean state, even if it makes waiting one year. Also, we did keep a modified keeper system, similar to something that Ian had recommended years ago with a Franchise, Transition and Keeper player. I can fill you in, if you would like, on how it works. But, I'll wait until you ask so that this isn't longer than it has to be! Good luck!
Question 2: I am commissioner of a...
Posted by ADAM HOLTZ | Nov. 22 at 12:01 PM
Moishe - Very interested; email me at arholtz@yahoo.com
Question 2: I am commissioner of a...
Posted by RON DRUMMOND | Nov. 25 at 04:59 AM
i am a commish of a 16 team league and we have 6 keepers a year (optional). you are allowed to make future draft pick trades but any players involved are mandatory keepers for next season. also the trade is not put through until both parties pay in their entrance fee for the following season.(this eliminates an owner from selling out and skipping out).
Question 6: Your man crush on Malcom...
Posted by Farhan Hassan | Nov. 20 at 05:54 AM
Ian: I have a question for you along the same lines. Ordinarily, I would have sent you a question via mail bag; however, our league is up in arms about this and since almost all of them read your product, your input would be valuable. Yesterday, in a 12 team keeper league with 18 roster spots allowed, I traded Malcolm Floyd (I already have Vincent) for Eddie Royal. Some claim in my league that I "fleeced" the owner whp obtained Floyd since he is "waiver wire material", primarily because he has not done anything for 4-5 years. Do you agree?
Question 6: Your man crush on Malcom...
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | Nov. 20 at 06:30 AM
Farhan - Ian's got Floyd much higher than Royal for the rest of the year in the latest redrafter. And if we assume that Floyd and Royal are the respective No. 2s for their offense a year from now, I don't know that Royal should be ranked higher then. I mean, Royal doesn't even have better numbers than Floyd right now -- more receptions, but fewer yards -- and he's been starting all year while Floyd just moved into the starting lineup. Why should Royal be a more valuable player? Because he had a nice rookie season in a different offense with a different coaching staff and different quarterback? Just my two cents, but that's the answer I expect you'll get from Ian if he sees this.
Question 6: Your man crush on Malcom...
Posted by SEAN MCGUIRE | Nov. 20 at 07:14 AM
Ian, not that I want to get you into our spat, but I'm not certain Farhan conveyed all of the facts fully. Our league is actually a salary-cap based dynasty league where teams benefit the most by acquiring truly valuable players (stars) early in their career and at cheap salaries. As I see it, Malcom Floyd has been in the league 6 years, much of it either on the practice squad or buried on the depth chart behind other terrible players. I see 0% chance that this guy suddenly becomes a superstar in year 7 and has a long career as one. Although Royal is in a bad position now, he caught 91 balls and almost 1100 yards as a rookie, which is about the same as Lloyd's entire 6 year career. I see Floyd as a poor man's Kelley Washington or Bobby Wade and Royal as sophomore slumping receiver that might be Michael Clayton, but also might be Anquan Boldin.
Question 6: Your man crush on Malcom...
Posted by IAN ALLAN | Nov. 20 at 08:34 AM
When I look at a trade and mull whether to overturn it, the key thing I look at is intent. Is one owner intentionally making a bad trade to mess with the rest of the league? Are the two guys colluding? Almost always, my answer to those questions is no, and I vote to let the trade stand. I think if you're going to allow trades, you have to accept the reality that other owners are going to make trades you wish they wouldn't. Vikings fans, clearly, felt this way when Mike Lynn gave away the farm for Herschel Walker. Dallas fans no doubt were disappointed last year when Jerry Jones gave up a 1st and a 3rd for Roy Williams. That's just the reality of trades.
Question 6: Your man crush on Malcom...
Posted by Kevin Witt | Nov. 20 at 12:40 PM
Ian didn't lose those 2 games, YOU DID. It is your team so take some responsibility for who you play. Ian is here to give advice. He does a great job. Who you end up playing is on you. What fun is owning a team anyway when you just ask experts who you should play every week?