Do you have a question? Send your thoughts to DMFantasyFootball@cbs.com and we'll address as many as we can. Put Attn: Dear Mr. Fantasy in the subject field. Include your name, hometown and state.
Did you miss Mr. Fantasy last week?
So did I. I looked everywhere for him, beginning with the coat closet where he usually hangs out and ending with the local Denny's.
Finally, I had to give up, leaving millions of Fantasy owners clamoring for insight in their hour of greatest need.
Well, I have good news, my friends, because that trail of plasma leading up to the coat closet this morning signaled his return -- kind of like sleigh bells with Santa Claus, only grosser -- and after a brief negotiation -- something about not wanting to settle any more trade disputes -- I talked him into answering a few e-mails.
I'll translate, as usual.
I need to pick two running backs for Week 12 from the following four: Joseph Addai, Matt Forte, Steve Slaton and Jamal Lewis. My first instinct is to go with Addai and Forte, but I am not sure if I can sit Slaton with him being hot. -- Kevin Kappl
|
|
|
Some think Steve Slaton is wearing down. Others think he just hit a rough patch.
(US Presswire)
|
|
SW: Cursed by great matchups, huh? I understand your dilemma, but I think you have a more straightforward decision than you think. First of all, forget about Lewis. Barring a 35-carry performance or a complete defensive breakdown, he won't rush for 100 yards. He hasn't yet. So why would you want to limit your upside when you have such good alternatives? Secondly, Forte seems like a no-brainer to start. He has shown the most consistency of the bunch, piling up over 100 yards in four of his last five games, and he has the best matchup at St. Louis.
Your decision ultimately comes down to Slaton and Addai, and I'd actually bench Addai -- not so much because I agree with your assessment of Slaton as "hot," considering he had 24 total yards two weeks ago against the Ravens, but because Addai, to me, qualifies as "not." And yes, I realize he just came off a 153-yard, two-touchdown performance, but that effort -- the first time he's rushed for 100 yards this season, mind you -- came against a poor Texans defense and just after he'd averaged 2.3 yards per carry over his previous two games. Might his hamstring injury have slowed him during that cold stretch? Possibly. But when you have an alternative as good as Slaton, I think you should go with the player less likely to disappoint.
I must choose two of the following running backs to start this week: Clinton Portis (at Seattle), Jamal Lewis (vs. Houston), Thomas Jones (at Tennessee) and Steve Slaton (at Cleveland). Your thoughts? -- Robert B. Palmer
SW: Without delving too deep into my thoughts, which can cover topics as diverse as grated cheese and aluminum siding, I think you should go with Portis and Slaton. Of course, that Portis decision hinges somewhat on the health of his knee, but after that fakeout he pulled Sunday night, I fully expect him to man up again and start against the Seahawks. You wouldn't have even considered benching the top-scoring back in Fantasy before the knee issue, so why cast him aside for this favorable matchup?
I covered Lewis in the previous question, so I won't talk about him again. Frankly, I just don't like the guy and would have a hard time telling anyone to start him. Your choice comes down to Jones and Slaton, and I give the nod to Slaton here based strictly on matchups. I know Jones has shown more consistently lately, but Slaton hasn't exactly bitten the dust, and that Titans defense is S-T-O-U-T.
That's "stout," for all you five-year-olds out there. Yeah, that trick works better in speaking than in writing.
My playoff chances are slipping away, so I'm already looking toward next year. Who should I keep in my dynasty league: Jamaal Charles, Ray Rice, or Rashard Mendenhall? I think Larry Johnson is more likely to lose his job than Willis McGahee or Willie Parker, but I'm concerned that Charles' recent injuries shows he can't hack it as an every-down back. What does your crystal ball reveal? Thanks. -- Chris Atwood, Rochester, Minn.
SW: My crystal ball reveals another crystal ball, which probably means something profoundly insightful that I don't want to take the time to assess right now. So let's throw out the crystal ball and go with my gut instead, and my gut says Rice -- easily.
You think Johnson has a better chance of losing his job than McGahee, really? Hasn't McGahee kind of already lost his job? I mean, McGahee has only one more 20-carry game (three) than Rice this season. And I know injuries play a factor in those numbers, but health hasn't always equated to touches for McGahee this season.
The bottom line is the Ravens see Rice as their running back of the future. They work him into the mix more and more even with McGahee active. I can't say the same for the Chiefs with Charles. I don't know that they see him as anything more than a career backup. And Mendenhall? He at least projects as an NFL starter someday, but with his injury early this season, he'll have to start over from square one next year.
Go with Rice. He has the best chance of making both an immediate and a long-term impact.
I was going to play Steve Slaton over Chris Johnson last week until I saw that virtually every ranking had it the other way around. Guess I should have listened to myself, huh? With that in mind, do you think Johnson is hitting a "rookie wall," or are the opposing defenses just stacking against the run? And did Slaton really hit a rookie wall and just have a nice matchup against Indianapolis, or can I play him with confidence (in a shallow league) for the rest of the season? -- Chad Toporski, Indiana, Pa.
SW: I don't think you want to throw the term "rookie wall" around so loosely, Chad. I don't mean to say it has no validity, but it's more the kind of trend you want to analyze in retrospect than try to predict. If you get into the habit of applying an over-generalized theory -- Oh no, the wall! The rookie wall! -- every time one of your players has a bad game, you run the risk of developing a paranoia, which can lead to ill-conceived trades and lineup decisions. More likely, any of Johnson's supposed struggles come from splitting carries with LenDale White and, as you mentioned, opposing defenses making adjustments. (Notice how much Kerry Collins' passing numbers have increased over the last two weeks as the Titans counter-adjust.) And any of Slaton's struggles have come from tough matchups. (What do you want from a guy facing Minnesota and Baltimore?) Both remain must-starts, and I wouldn't worry about either.
I have Brandon Jacobs, Michael Turner and Matt Forte at running back and can start two. I have Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Santana Moss and Jerricho Cotchery at wide receiver and can start three. I also have a dilemma with Phil Dawson and Matt Prater. Prater has the stronger leg, but he has been inconsistent, and starting him last week in lieu of Dawson cost me the win. What do you think? -- Matthew Brennan
SW: You want to beat yourself up over a kicker, Matthew? Really? Do you have some way of predicting a kicker's field-goal-to-extra-point ratio on a week-to-week basis that I don't know about? You have bigger fish to fry than kickers. They are impossible to predict and usually don't perform all that differently from one another anyway.
I could live with either Dawson or Prater as my kicker. I'd probably go with Prater because I trust an offense led by Jay Cutler to get into scoring position more often than one led by an unproven and somewhat erratic Brady Quinn, but hey, whatever works. Mostly, you just don't want to end up with a kicker whose offense scores 21 points, giving him only three extra points, and I feel like Prater kicks for an offense so good that even if he went without a field goal, he'd still get a manageable five extra points. And more likely, he'll get at least one field goal -- he has in every game but one this season -- and that one should give him enough points to cancel out your opponents' kicker. And that's all you really want from your kicker. Get that silly position out of the way and let the meat of your roster -- the positions you can actually predict -- propel you to victory.
On that note, I'd start Turner and Forte at running back because I like their matchups and worry about Jacobs' injury. At wide receiver, I'd start the Moss duo -- Santana because, despite his inconsistency, he faces a weak Seattle secondary and has the highest week-to-week ceiling of the group and Randy because Matt Cassel has prolific passing numbers in recent weeks.
I'm down to the final week of our regular season and have a half-game lead for the final playoff spot. I have two key decisions: Should I start Drew Brees or Jay Cutler, and which two of the following four wide receivers should I bench: Brandon Marshall, Braylon Edwards, Terrell Owens and Marques Colston? I would appreciate your insight. -- Dan Kearney
SW: When facing a must-win situation, the last thing you want to do is get cute. Believe me: When you go against the book with your season on the line and it doesn't pay off, you feel like you just shot yourself in the foot. I've done both, so I know.
Therefore, you don't want to start either of those maelstroms of inconsistency, Edwards and Owens. Edwards just came off a 100-yard game with Brady Quinn under center, but until he strings a few together, I can't trust him. And Owens ... well, who knows what to expect from Owens anymore? Of course, Colston hasn't exactly resumed his studly ways since returning from a thumb injury, so he looks like a question mark himself. Start Marshall for sure, and while I could see you making an argument to start Edwards over Colston, I'd go with Colston because I feel like I can bank on the Saints to throw for 300 yards.
Which brings me to your quarterback dilemma, which I have to admit has me stumped. Four times out of five I'd tell you to start Brees because, with his consistency, you simply can't go wrong with him. But Cutler doesn't trail him by much, and he has a much tastier matchup against that disaster of a team in Oakland. I don't see how Cutler can possibly fail in that scenario, and for this week alone, I think he has a higher ceiling than Brees. I guess that means you should start him instead.
Which No. 3 Fantasy wide receiver should I start: Mark Bradley, Lance Moore or Kevin Walter? -- Frank, U.S. Air Force, Germany
SW: I've got news for you, Frank: I don't consider Moore a No. 3 Fantasy wide receiver anymore -- not at all. I consider him a No. 2.
How can you argue with his numbers? He has at least 75 yards receiving and a touchdown in each of his last three games. Shoot, I wouldn't complain about that level of production from my No. 1 receiver. The return of Colston from a thumb injury hasn't impeded his performance at all, and you know you can always count on the Saints for big passing totals.
At this point, I don't care about the matchups. I keep Moore in my lineup no matter what. Bradley and Walter don't even enter the discussion.
My dilemma is I have Brian Westbrook this week against the Ravens, but I feel I can go with Chris Johnson, Michael Turner and Maurice Jones-Drew instead. My problem comes at wide receiver, where I have Anquan Boldin, Reggie Wayne, Steve Smith and Donnie Avery. I was actually thinking about playing Avery over Smith. I just don't have the faith in Jake Delhomme to get Smith the ball. Am I nuts for sitting both Westbrook and Smith? -- Frank N. Carado
SW: I wouldn't call you nuts, Frank -- someone in my position doesn't have much credibility in that arena anyway -- but I would advise against both of your decisions. I realize Smith doesn't look that impressive with 68 total receiving yards over his last two games, but let's not forget those two games came on the heels of three straight games with at least 100 yards receiving and five straight games with at least 95 yards receiving. From where I sit, Smith still looks like a stud, and I certainly wouldn't bench him against a rather ordinary Falcons secondary.
As for Westbrook, he has a handful of injuries that have limited his numbers in recent weeks, but Jones-Drew is such a hit-or-miss option every week and happens to play the purple terror of Minnesota this week. Unless I have nothing but garbage as alternatives, I want him on my bench, and Westbrook, even at less than 100 percent, is plenty more than garbage.
And with that, this column's final statement is also its most obvious.
Do you have a question? Send your thoughts to DMFantasyFootball@cbs.com and we'll address as many as we can. Put Attn: Dear Mr. Fantasy in the subject field. Include your name, hometown and state.
