Ian Allan's Mailbag
Posted Dec. 04 at 05:53 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:
I have Winslow and Zach Miller as my tight ends in a ppr league. Playoffs are week 15 and 16 and we can't change our rosters after the playoffs start. Should I drop Miller and pick up Jerramy Stevens for his matchups those weeks or stick with Miller? Todd Heap and Billy Miller are also available.
ZACH LEAVITT [ENGLEWOOD, CO]
A:
Don't be dissing Zach Miller. He's my boy. They just started the championship round in that NBC $100,000 Challenge (where you can use each player in the NFL only once in weeks 13-17), and I'm counting on Miller to be one of the guys who gives me an edge. This is the final round of the competition, with the 6,000-plus qualifiers, and I'm well positioned after week one -- Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Chris Johnson, Terrell Owens and Kris Brown came through nicely for me last week. If Marion Barber hadn't missed the second half of his game, I think I'd be in the top 50. I'm sitting at #154 right now, but there's still plenty of time left, and I've still got access to almost all of the really big gun players. For this week, rather than using Tony Gonzalez, Jason Witten or Antonio Gates, I'm sticking in Zach Miller at tight end. Terrible team, of course, but he's their best pass catcher. He's been remarkably productive and consistent, considering the cast around him -- over 40 yards in all but one of his last nine games. And he's playing against one of the truly bad pass defenses in the league -- San Diego. (And not only are the Chargers soft against the pass, they've also allowed a league-high 9 TD passes to tight ends). Miller had his best game of the season when these teams met back in week 4 -- 5 catches for 95 yards and a touchdown. If the fantasy gods are smiling on me tonight, he'll deliver those kind of numbers again. How can you -- a Zach, of all people -- consider cutting him for a thug like Jerramy Stevens? Miller is not only going to outproduce Stevens over the next three weeks; I think he's going to outproduce Winslow as well.
Question 2:
Why are you hating on DeAngelo Williams? The last 3 weeks you've had him much lower than his production would dictate. I went against you all 3 weeks and came out looking good. It doesn't hurt that my other 3 backs are Peterson, Forte, and Chris Johnson. Not trying to give you a hard time, just wondering what your thought process has been. Nobody expects 4 TDs in any game, but his rushing production has been very solid the last several weeks.
JOHN RUPPE [FORT MYERS, FL]
A:
I've been too low on Williams for most of the year -- 13 TDs and five 100-yard games since week 5, as another mailbagger points out.
With Williams, I've been distracted by Jonathan Stewart. Stewart looked very good late in the preseason and in some early-season games, so I was waiting for him to take on more of the rushing duties. And I expected Stewart (being the larger back) to be their designated goal-line guy. When you have these small, part-time backs, you go in with the mindset that they'll finish the year with about 1,000 yards and 6 TDs. And I'll admit I've been too slow on Williams.
Now that I'm champing at the bit and looking to move Williams way up my board, however, look who's coming to Charlotte? None other than Tampa Bay. The Bucs this season have had the league's most lopsided defense -- 16 TDs passing and only 1 TD run. With the Bucs having allowed only 1 rushing TD in 12 games, with what degree of confidence am I supposed to project that Williams will get in the end zone this week?
Question 3:
Your usually consistent analysis and weekly rankings do not seem to add up this week. How come you have LaDainian (#4 TD-only) ranked so high this week, yet in your analysis you give him a mediocre (at best!) prediction:
"LaDainian Tomlinson ran for only 65 yards on 19 carries until scoring on a ho-hum 41-yard touchdown with 2 minutes (it was against a blown defense -- virtually every starting running back in the league would have also scored on the play). We expect a similar type of game on Sunday ... Tomlinson historically has killed the Raiders. He's had a bunch of games with 120-plus yards and multiple touchdowns -- he ran for 198 yards and 4 TDs in a game against them last year. But Chuck Muncie and Natrone Means have also had big games against the Raiders in the past, and we're not recommending you start those guys. Tomlinson doesn't seem to have it anymore. A few weeks back, he was going up against a Kansas City run defense that's about the worst in the league and Tomlinson averaged only 3.5 yards per carry and couldn't get in the end zone.”
How does that square with a #4 ranking? I have been afraid to play him and last week doubled down on LenDale and Chris Johnson and feel good about that again; also have Tim Hightower as an option. My gut tells me go both Titans again, but #4 ranking for LT (versus CJ at #16) has me in a quandary.
Patrick Wilson [WASHINGTON, DC]
A:
I wish I had another four hours to work on the weekly product. Then, after finishing the text and rankings, I could go back through the deal and re-edit it -- check and make sure all the text meshes with all the rankings. With Tomlinson, my initial impressive was that I didn't think he was a guy you'd want to use this week. Clearly, Tomlinson has slipped a few notches and isn't an elite running back anymore. He's fast looking like another Shaun Alexander. But when you get down to the brass tacks of actually running the numbers, Tomlinson still projects to be better than almost all other running backs this week. Oakland's defense is about the best in the league right now against the pass; Nnamdi Asomugha is the NFL's hottest cornerback (held Steve Smith and Roddy White to a combined 3 catches). The Raiders gave Philip Rivers problems back in week 4, when he went 14 of 25 for only 180 yards, with 2 interceptions. And at the same time, Oakland's run defense is about the worst in the league. Only three teams have allowed more rushing yards, and only three teams have allowed more rushing touchdowns. So I think we can say that for this game, San Diego should rely on more of a run-based offense. Oakland isn't much of a team -- just 3-9 -- so I think we can say with confidence that San Diego will score 2-3 offensive touchdowns (I've got them at 2.3). And if you go along that assumption, it seems like there's a real good chance San Diego will get a rushing touchdown in this game. If that follows, well No. 21 -- declining guy that is -- has about a 90 percent chance of being the guy to score that touchdown. Also toss in that Tomlinson has averaged over 42 receiving yards in his last seven games -- they're using him on those little dumpoff passes. When you run the numbers for all of these backs -- White, CJ, Hightower -- Tomlinson projects to be the best guy.
Question 4:
I have Maurice Jones-Drew in PPR league. Am I crazy or does he score more fantasy points when facing a tough run D as opposed to a soft run D? Seems like he puts up more yards and TD's when he's catching passes out of the backfield.
JOHN RUPPE [FORT MYERS, FL]
A:
That's one of the nice things about pass-catching running backs (as opposed to guys like Ryan Grant and Michael Turner, who are strictly runners). When the running game isn't working, they can still be productive. In the case of Jones-Drew, he's been almost as good this year when the Jaguars have been playing against tough run defenses. He had the 9-catch game against Minnesota, and he caught 6 passes against the Steelers.
By my count, Jones-Drew has faced four teams this year with top-level run defenses -- Pittsburgh, Minnesota and Tennessee twice. He's played one neutral-type matchup -- Buffalo -- and the other seven games have all been against teams that appeared to have lesser run defenses.
JONES-DREW AGAINST GOOD RUN DEFENSES
@Ten. 9.0 pts (5-13 run, 4-37 rec, 0 TD)
Pitt. 15.0 pts (5-7 run, 6-23 rec, 1 TD)
Ten. 24.3 pts (17-66 run, 3-27 rec, 2 TD)
Minn. 20.7 pts (3-4 run, 9-113 rec, 0 TD)
Avg 17.3 pts (8-23 run, 5.5-50 rec, .8 TD)
JONES-DREW AGAINST BAD RUN DEFENSES
@Ind. 26.6 pts (19-107 run, 4-59 rec, 1 TD)
Hou. 6.9 pts (7-32 run, 2-17 rec, 0 TD)
@Den. 28.8 pts (22-125 run, 2-23 rec, 2 TD)
Clev. 7.8 pts (12-29 run, 3-19 rec, 0 TD)
@Cin. 14.2 pts (10-33 run, 2-29 rec, 1 TD)
@Det. 29.1 pts (11-70 run, 2-21 rec, 3 TD)
@Hou. 10.1 pts (12-49 run, 3-22 rec, 1 TD)
Avg 17.6 pts (13-64 run, 2.5-27 rec, 1 TD)
Question 5:
Ian, this season the wild card winner and the best record will both come from the same division in our league. Should they still face each other in the first round or should the best record face the worst of the other two teams?
DARRELL PRESTELLA [CARSON CITY, NV]
A:
Most fantasy leagues mirror the NFL, I think, with the wild card teams being seeded lower than all of the division champions. Unless it's spelled out differently in your rulebook, I think that's the way you go. The mother league, by the way, may look into this issue in the offseason. It was discussed and dismissed last year, with one team (my memory eludes me) stating that it voted no because a division winner should always receive the reward of at least one home playoff game. Last year, recall, multiple wild card teams had to play on the road against division winners with lesser records (11-5 Jacksonville won at 10-6 Pittsburgh, while the 10-6 Giants won at 9-7 Tampa Bay). I think you'll see at least two of those games again this year. The Colts and the Ravens are the current wild cards (with 4 losses each), while the 7-5 Broncos have sewn up the AFC West. On the NFC side, at least one wild-card will finish with a better record than the winner of the NFC North.
Question 6:
My league (standard scoring) closes pick-ups after week 13 (stupid, I know). I wasn't expecting to make the playoffs, because I needed two miracles to happen, but they did! Now I'm stuck with mediocre backs in Barber, Jamal Lewis, Kevin Faulk, and Justin Fargas. I see that Fargas is low on your rankings, so fine, leave him out. But you have Lewis (24) over Faulk (31) and I just feel that Cleveland may start using their other packages that they've been implementing and leave Lewis on the sidelines. Plus, Tennessee should completely shut the Browns down w/o a decent QB. In my gut I feel Faulk, but I trust your opinion. Can you give me a reason why I should use Lewis?
Ryan Logan [MINNEAPOLIS, MN]
A:
The Titans aren't as good against the run as they should be. In their last 10 games, they've allowed an average of 105 rushing yards per game, and all but two of their opponents in those games have scored a rushing touchdown. So I think our estimate for Lewis is fair: 80 total yards, with a 45 percent chance of a touchdown. The Browns are starting Ken Dorsey at quarterback, so you know they're not going to abandon the run and start passing on every play -- even after they fall way behind. With Faulk, you pick up the pass-catching production. He's been going 30-plus as a runner and a receiver pretty much every week. So he's probably a safer choice to give you something like 70 total yards. Even though he's playing just part-time, he can't be shut down. I've got Faulk at 72 total yards for this weekend, with a 40 percent chance of a touchdown -- slightly behind Lewis in total value.
Question 7:
I need lineup help for the first round of the playoffs. MBIII is facing the Steelers defense with some sort of toe injury. Am I crazy to consider starting Hightower over him since he is playing the Rams?
JASON WILHELMSEN [SMYRNA, GA]
A:
I don't think anybody can put together any kind of case for starting Marion Barber ahead of Tim Hightower. The Rams have allowed 21 rushing touchdowns; the Steelers have allowed 5. St. Louis is allowing 90 more rushing yards per game. Edge there for Hightower. Barber should be slightly more productive as a receiver. The dreadlocks are even.
Question 8:
Another keeper question from a team out of contention:
Am I crazy for wanting to keep Thomas Jones over Brian Westbrook?
Chris Muschong [DEWITT, MI]
A:
It's a fair question, in my eyes. The Jets have assembled a very nice offensive line, and Jones is running well for them. With Westbrook, you'll get a lot more production as a receiver. Westbrook is one year younger but has had a lot more problems with injuries. The other factor in this: if the Eagles decide to dump Andy Reid in the offseason, that could radically change their offense. Under a new coach and in a new system, Westbrook might not be used as extensively as a pass catcher.
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: Why are you hating on...
Posted by STEVE CATES | Dec. 05 at 12:55 AM
I agree totally. I have Deangelo and he has been ranked down around 20. I finally listened to Ian after 4 weeks of starting him, and I benched him and his 4 TD's against Green Bay. Why does it take him so long to move him up the board? Very disappointed!
Question 2: Why are you hating on...
Posted by Joseph Smith | Dec. 05 at 12:10 PM
It goes without saying, however, no matter how high or low players are ranked ... you're still in charge of setting your lineup each week. The last time I looked, fantasy football is, well, still a game of chance. Did anyone else predict 4 TDs in one game? I think not. It's your team ... make the tough decisions and then stand by them after the Monday night game is over. In my opinion, Fantasy Index is still one of the overall best sources out there. With that said, it's still up to you to filter out the "outliers" in Ian's data (if you can). Of course, this isn't the only website on fantasy. There's a ton of fantasy and regular football info out there to help in the decison-making. To me, putting partial blame on this product seems a little out of bounds.