Ian Allan's Mailbag
Posted Feb. 05 at 10:22 PM
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:
If Dallas does cut Terrell Owens, do you see any teams that would be interested in him, given the fact that he comes with baggage?
Farhan Hassan [SAINT PAUL, MN]
A:
He's a coach killer -- a major pain in the ass. And that becomes a bigger issue now that he's 35. He still thinks he's one of the league's elite receivers, and wants to be treated as such, but he's starting to slip. He's now more of a top 5 or 10 receiver, rather than a dominant force like Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson or Steve Smith. He'll come up big in a few games, but he'll bitch and moan that he's not getting the ball enough in a handful of other games. That's why there's a good chance the Cowboys will release him at some point in the offseason. As for which franchise would be willing to take on that kind of baggage, I have no idea. They've been looking for a big-time receiver in Jacksonville for years. Tampa Bay? Tennessee? The Jets? He'll land somewhere.
Question 2:
Love the great analysis and insight. I've got Jamal Lewis in a dynasty league (drafted him instead of pulling the trigger on Matt Forte - d'oh!), and I'm flat out disgusted with him - nary a 100-yard rushing game all year, yet I noticed that he still managed 1,000 rushing yards on the season! Are there any other RBs who have accomplished that feat -- 1,000 with no 100s?
ADAM HOLTZ [ROCHESTER, MN]
A:
I think you're onto something. I'm 97 percent certain you're right. I called the Elias Sports Bureau, but they don't keep the data sorted in that way. So I spent 45 minutes going through all of the 1,000-yard rushers since the league went to a 16-game season, checking the week-by-week numbers of likely candidates -- guys who just got over the 1,000-yard mark and had low per-carry or "long run" marks (plus guys that I remember starting 14-plus games). I was able to dig up Ottis Anderson and Edgar Bennett, who each had seasons with just one 100-yard game. But I'm pretty sure that Lewis is the first to do it with no 100s.
On the fantasy side, Lewis is just one of big group of backs who's getting long in the tooth. We saw Shaun Alexander quickly slip into oblivion a few years back, and LaDainian Tomlinson (30 in June) seemed to drop a notch last season.
Older backs that have passed their pull date (in my opinion):
Warrick Dunn (34), Fred Taylor (33), Ahman Green (32), Edgerrin James (31), Deuce McAllister (30).
Older backs that are in the "buyer beware" class:
Ricky Williams (31), Sammy Morris (31), LaMont Jordan (31), Thomas Jones (30), Jamal Lewis (30), Brian Westbrook (29), Tomlinson (29).
Question 3:
You ran an article about strength of schedule in last season's magazine. You showed a correlation between projected SOS and fantasy performance. Unfortunately someone other than me decided that a 6-month-old magazine was not worth keeping and it was thrown away. Would you tell me what were the thresholds (in W-L) for projected improved and impaired performance?
Gregory Oswell [ESCONDIDO, CA]
A:
I spent a few days examining Strength of Schedule. My conclusion was that it does tilt the odds in your favor. I looked at both wins/loss and schedules based on points allowed (scoring defense) and found that the wins and losses was the stronger and more accurate performance indicator.
After looking at all schedules since the NFL started using its current Free Agency system in 1993, my conclusion was to treat schedules in the range of 120-136 to 136-120 as "neutral". Above that level, I believe, you start to see offenses benefitting. In the 15-year sample I examined, 71 teams entered the season with schedules projecting to be 119-137 or easier. By a 51-20 margin, those teams scored more points than they had the year before. Overall, those 71 teams won 68 more games and averaged 34 more points per season. A win per team -- that's a lot.
As they schedules get even easier, the results get more significant. If you look only at teams with schedules of 116-140 or easier, you're looking at an expected 44 points per season of improvement.
You get mirror-type results at the other end of the spectrum, of course. If you've got a schedule of 140-116 or harder, that's a good indicator that you're going to finish a win or so below where you should. That's not etched in stone, of course. Tennessee projected to play the 9th-hardest schedule last year but wound up playing the 5th-easiest. And the Steelers projected to play the hardest schedule ever but wound up playing only the 7th-hardest schedule and winning the Super Bowl.
It's not an exact science. You're just tilting the odds in your favor. It's like re-working a six-sided dice, replacing the one with another side with a four on it. It doesn't guarantee you'll beat that guy in a roll off, but it sure helps your chances.
Projected easiest schedules for 2009 (in order):
Bears, Vikings, Packers, Cardinals, Ravens, 49ers, Browns.
Projected hardest schedules:
Dolphins, Panthers, Patriots, Falcons, Buccaneers, Jets, Bills.
Question 4:
Can you list your Top 10 players for next year in a "keeper" format. I find so many of the top players being possible one year wonders. I'd hate to draft a Micheal Turner or Matt Forte at #2 or #3 over a proven multi-year producer. How about if passing TDs are 6 points? I would think that would put a Peyton Manning in the top few spots.
CHRIS BRANDENBURG [LAFAYETTE, IN]
A:
I spent a half hour playing around with the lists -- not from a purely numerical sense, but just kind of how I like the players. In a keeper format, its tougher to go off stat projections, since you have to factor in a player's remaining lifespan while also factoring in the extra value of stats in 2009 and 2010 being more important than 2013 and 2014 (also factoring whether your fantasy league will still exist at that time).
I differ from you on the quarterbacks -- even at 6 points for quarterbacks. There are a lot of good ones out there. Manning, Brady, Brees, Cutler, Rivers. I don't really have a strong preference amongst that group. Cutler and Rivers are a lot younger than the others. So I'd hesitate before taking one of those guys with a top 5 pick, since there's a good chance one of them might be available at pick 25.
I find myself attracted to the young standout wide receivers -- Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson, Roddy White, Andre Johnson. Those are great players, and they're going to be around for a lot of years. Megatron, for example, will be 23 on opening day; he could be a top-5 wide receiver in most of the next dozen years. You have to compare that against running backs like Peterson, Forte, Steven Jackson and Turner. With the beating those guys take, I don't think you can confidently assume that any of them have more than three good seasons left. That's just the reality of the running back position in the NFL -- rare is the LaDainian Tomlinson type of guy who can string together five or six productive seasons in a row.
A rough draft top 25, assuming 12 teams and a scoring system of 1 point for every 10 run/rec yards, 1 point for every 20 passing yards and 6 points for TDs:
Pos Age
RB 24 Adrian Peterson
RB 23 Matt Forte
RB 26 Steven Jackson
RB 26 DeAngelo Williams
WR 26 Larry Fitzgerald
WR 23 Calvin Johnson
WR 27 Roddy White
RB 24 Maurice Jones-Drew
RB 23 Chris Johnson
RB 27 Michael Turner
WR 28 Andre Johnson
WR 30 Steve Smith
WR 25 Brandon Marshall
RB 23 Marshawn Lynch
RB 23 Steve Slaton
RB 26 Marion Barber
WR 30 Reggie Wayne
RB 26 Frank Gore
QB 26 Jay Cutler
QB 27 Philip Rivers
QB 30 Drew Brees
QB 33 Peyton Manning
QB 32 Tom Brady
RB 27 Clinton Portis
RB 29 Brian Westbrook
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 1: If Dallas does cut Terrell...
Posted by Ben Sodenkamp | Jun. 11 at 09:57 AM
test
Question 4: Can you list your Top...
Posted by VERNON JONES | May. 10 at 08:15 AM
You put together a list of top receivers over the last 15 years with the longest catches. I was wondering if you could go back to 1975 and do that list. Its very interesting to see and I am curious if guys like Roger Carr , Willie Gault, and Marino's receivers make the list. Thanks