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.
It's crunch time.
With the trade deadlines reached, the waiver wire turned to wasteland, and the playoff brackets in the process of forming, Mr. Fantasy has nothing to do but sit around and tell people how to set their lineups.
So go ahead and ask the usual: him or him; him, him or him; him and him, but not without him or overlooking him. And let's not forget ... wait, what's this? A question that deals with something else entirely?
Mr. Fantasy likey.
I have an early keeper question. I drafted Matt Forte in Round 3 and Steve Slaton in Round 7. I am allowed to keep only one running back. Which is the better keeper pick? -- Joe Kreitzer
SW: Well, both look like good keepers, obviously. In our recent mock draft for 2009, Forte went in the first round and Slaton went in the second, and both picks seemed legitimate to me.
Speaking strictly in terms of value, Slaton looks like the better call. After all, you'd keep him at a five-round discount compared to a two-round discount for Forte. But I think I'd actually go against the grain here and keep Forte just because he looks like such a slam dunk in the first round that you can't afford to throw him back into the draft pool. Think about all he offers: He gets all of his team's carries, he catches balls out the backfield, and he can only improve from here. And while Slaton has upside too, the Texans have shown a reluctance to make him an every-down back. Plus, he doesn't quite play the role in the passing game Forte does.
Fantasy Football has so few slam dunks -- "untouchables," as I called them in another edition of this column -- that if you can somehow get your hands on more than one, you have a huge advantage going into the season. Since keeping Forte over Slaton still allows you to have a first-round pick, you could potentially use it on another slam dunk, giving you that all-too-rare advantage. Slaton might offer the bigger rewards for the round in which you'd keep him, but play it safe here and go with Forte.
I picked up Tyler Thigpen a few weeks ago and haven't had the guts to start him over Jay Cutler. Is it time now? I also have Donovan McNabb, who has a good matchup at home, but with a couple of picks, he could go back to the bench. Also, is Chris Johnson now a matchups play? He seems to have slowed down in the last few weeks. Part of it has been opposing defenses, but has he hit the "rookie wall?" He hasn't had as many touches as, say, Matt Forte. I think I'll start him against the woeful Lions instead of Tim Hightower, but what about the following weeks? Thanks. -- Matt Deruyter, Minneapolis
|
|
|
Owners need to come to grips with the fact that Tyler Thigpen could led them to a Fantasy title.
(US Presswire)
|
|
SW: Thigpen has certainly done more with his offense in recent weeks than Cutler has with his, and you have to like his matchup at the Raiders more than Cutler's at the Jets. (Then again, that matchup against the Raiders didn't go so well for Cutler.) It goes against every fiber of my being, but I think you have to start Thigpen here. Until he slows down, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Don't even consider McNabb, not with the alternatives you have. Of course, I'd need some pretty uninspiring alternatives to talk myself into starting McNabb -- maybe Sage Rosenfels and Gus Frerotte, something like that -- so I don't want anyone to think I told you to bench McNabb just because you have studs you can use in his place. The guy clearly has a leash, and the Eagles could yank it at any time. And if I'm fighting for a playoff spot, the one thing I want from my quarterback is the assurance he'll play all four quarters. Bottom line: McNabb scares me.
As for your reservations about Johnson, you should first know every running back is a "matchups play" to a certain degree. Obviously, a poor matchup alone wouldn't dissuade me from starting, say, Adrian Peterson, but if you told me he had to try playing against the Ravens with a sore ankle, a makeshift offensive line, and the assurance that if he breaks off more than a 20-yard run, his grandmother loses the family farm, I might just consider reserving him. So if you want to call Johnson a "matchups play," I won't argue. But I don't feel like his Fantasy appeal has at all changed from the beginning of the season.
Johnson hasn't struggled. His decrease in Fantasy points has less to do with his own performance than with the Titans' need to throw the ball against defenses stacked to stop the run. (Notice how all of Kerry Collins' 200-yard passing games have come in the last three weeks.) When defenses feel like they have to readjust to stop the pass, Johnson will go back to getting his usual 15-20 carries per game -- which is all he ever got since he has to split with LenDale White -- and hopefully break off a long touchdown run or two. Considering he plays the Lions, Browns, Texans and Colts over the last five weeks, you'll probably want to keep him active more often than not.
I have both Jay Cutler and Matt Cassel on my team. With Matt Cassel's great back-to back-games, do you think he is now worth starting over Cutler? Before this past week's game, Culter also had back-to-back good games. So I am up in the air on who I want to start this week. -- George Hock, Manteno, Ill.
SW: Oh he did, did he? I don't know about you, George, but I expected more from Cutler than the 216 yards and one touchdown he had against the Falcons two weeks ago. With two disappointing performances against two poor pass defenses, Cutler is most definitely in a slump.
Having said that, you can't play Cassel against the Steelers. You just can't. They make the best quarterbacks in the league look like Billy Joe Tolliver, and if that reference doesn't work for you, try Charlie Frye or Brooks Bollinger. I don't mean to say Cassel couldn't reverse the trend, especially with his supporting cast, but by starting such an inexperienced quarterback against such a dominant defense, you run the risk of committing Fantasy suicide. I don't mean to state the obvious, but you don't want to commit suicide.
Let's also not forget that Cassel's back-to-back 400-yard games, for as much as they rightfully shot him up the Fantasy rankings, came against two teams ranked in the bottom 10 in pass defense. The Patriots have yet to test him against a defense like Pittsburgh's, and they might choose not to. At least you know the Broncos will lean on Cutler in what figures to become a shootout against the Jets. He has a good chance to break out of his slump, and even if it continues, he should top 200 yards easily. Go with him over Cassel.
Why doesn't anyone give coaches or systems credit? Wouldn't a good Fantasy coach know that most any pro quarterback put into New England's system and circumstance would thrive? Brady in Detroit is just that sorry Tom guy. -- Kyle Smith
SW: Oh, a wise guy, eh?
So let me guess, Kyle. You all along considered Matt Cassel's rise to Fantasy prominence a foregone conclusion, and so now, seeing it happen, you wonder why we make such a big deal of it. By writing this e-mail, you hope to smack us in the face with a healthy dose of the obvious and point out the inadequacies of our analysis.
Well, the only thing you point out is the shortage of your own memory.
Because we did tab Cassel as a Fantasy sleeper from the moment Brady got hurt and for the exact reasons you mention. Why else do you think his ownership rose to 90 percent in Week 2 and 91 percent in Week 3?
But a funny thing happened: He didn't explode with Brady-like numbers. He played more like Kerry Collins, and while some suggested he might play better once the Patriots loosened the reigns and exposed him to more of the offense -- a theory few would have argued -- cutting him at the time seemed like an advisable strategy if you didn't have the roster space to stash him.
Low and behold, that theory proved accurate. Once the Patriots felt comfortable letting Cassel run the show, they began using him the same way they would have used Brady, and he began producing similar numbers. Are you claiming, Kyle, that Cassel's actual rise to Fantasy prominence, which is happening right now, doesn't deserve just as much attention as the potential for it got way back in Week 2? Really? You think we should just assume everyone saw it coming and sweep his back-to-back 400-yard performances under the rug?
Trust me: We consider a player's surrounding circumstances as much as we consider the player himself. You think Shaun Hill and, before him, J.T. O'Sullivan would have gotten so much attention if they didn't play for Mike Martz? You think Kurt Warner would have emerged as a preseason sleeper if he had to throw the ball to Brandon Lloyd and Marty Booker instead of Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin? If anything, we can sometimes go too far in the opposite direction, giving the coach and supporting cast too much credit. Look at what happened with Brad Johnson and Sage Rosenfels.
And you seriously want to compare Brady to Jon Kitna, Dan Orlovsky and Daunte Culpepper? Seriously, you do? I don't even need to use logic to win that argument.
I have the luxury and dilemma of having to choose from some pretty good running backs, and I'm not sure which way to go this week. I have to choose two between Matt Forte (at Minnesota), DeAngelo Williams (at Green Bay), Brian Westbrook (vs. Arizona), Larry Johnson (vs. Oakland) and even Peyton Hillis (at N.Y. Jets). I'm excluding Hillis right off due to the matchup against the Jets, but I have no idea which way to go with the others here. Johnson and Westbrook have great matchups, but neither has shown much lately while Forte and Williams have been stellar. I'm inclined to go with Williams and Johnson here, but it's really hard not to play Forte except for that matchup against Minnesota. Thoughts? -- Curt Watt, Little Britain, Pa.
SW: With all of those options in front of me, I can't see how I could bring myself to start Johnson, who has battled his health and temperament, as well as his own inconsistency, all season long. I realize he has an ideal matchup against the hapless Raiders, but the uncertainties trailing him all season have little to do with matchups, if that makes any sense.
Williams seems like a no-brainer, as you suggest. He has four straight 100-yard games, and even though he has to split carries with Jonathan Stewart, he still averages 15.7 per game. He'll get his touches and do plenty with them against a run defense ranked in the bottom 10.
You obviously shouldn't trust Hillis against a third-ranked Jets run defense, so your final decision comes down to Westbrook and Forte. If we were talking about a healthy Westbrook, he'd get the nod based on matchups, but injuries have hindered him over the last month, giving him an average of 3.0 yards per carry. Plus, with the ongoing quarterback controversy in Philadelphia, Westbrook looks like a riskier start maybe even than Johnson.
Go with Forte. I realize the Vikings have one of the league's best run defenses, but great running backs usually find ways to get numbers. The Bears consider Forte such a central part of their offense that even if he can't run the ball the way they'd like, he'll catch passes out of the backfield. You shouldn't expect him to break any records, but Forte had 73 yards a touchdown against the Vikings earlier this season and could certainly equal, if not surpass, those totals.
I'm in what is essentially a play-in game this week and need some advice at quarterback. I have Kurt Warner and Tyler Thigpen. My opponent starts both Dwayne Bowe and Tony Gonzalez. My gut says to keep riding Warner against the blitz-happy Eagles, but wouldn't starting Thigpen almost negate two of my opponent's starters? -- Joe Kesner, Chicago
SW: Perhaps, and that strategy sounds all fine and dandy if you only aim to tie your opponent. But if you aim to beat him, you need your quarterback to do more than just negate his receivers. And what if Thigpen throws a touchdown pass to Mark Bradley, as he did last week? Your plan would get foiled right away.
Don't overthink this one, Joe. Go with the guy who has gotten you this far and who has yet to let you down this season (except maybe in Week 1 at San Francisco, but that was so long ago it hardly even counts). Kurt Warner rules all, and I have no reason to think the trend would change against the Eagles. It didn't this past week against the Giants, after all. I could see Thigpen ending up with more touchdowns, so I understand your dilemma, but I have a hard time turning down a guaranteed 300 yards.
Well, a whole slew of my stud players finally went off; however, T.J. Houshmandzadeh is killing me. I mean, I drafted him as a stud, and he's been anything but. I start him, and he does nothing. I sit him, and he goes off. At this point, he's taking up a rosier spot that I could use on a more consistent player. Should I cut him? -- Daniel L. Smedley
SW: I understand your frustration, Daniel. After all, about one-third of Houshmandzadeh's numbers have come in two games -- Week 3 at the Giants and Week 11 against the Eagles. I certainly wouldn't blame you for benching the guy, but cutting him now doesn't seem like a prudent course of action. For all of his struggles, Houshmandzadeh is still on pace for 112 catches for 1,085 yards and six touchdowns. Last season, he had 112 catches for 1,143 yards and 12 touchdowns. Apart from his lack of touchdowns, his numbers are exactly as they should be, which you can't say for any other member of the Cincinnati Bengals.
True, Houshmandzadeh has a limited ceiling because acting quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick can't throw for more than 200 yards in a game, but those yards have to go to someone, and they go to Houshmandzadeh before anyone else. In a season where Chad Johnson, Torry Holt and Marvin Harrison have lost all Fantasy relevance, and Terrell Owens, Randy Moss and Braylon Edwards have endured struggles of their own, Houshmandzadeh doesn't seem like such a bad draft pick.
I could make a spot for a player like him on my roster, but if you think you can do better than a 100-catch, 1,000-yard receiver on waivers this late in the season, knock yourself out.
We have to start two running backs, two wide receivers and a "flex" (RB/WR/TE). I have Brian Westbrook, Matt Forte, Tim Hightower and LenDale White at running back and Braylon Edwards, Roddy White, Wes Welker and Bernard Berrian at wide receiver. Typically, Forte, Westbrook, and Roddy White are no-brainer starters regardless of matchups, and the other slots rotate on a week-to-week basis. Should I take Westbrook off this list? If I follow the CBSSports.com "Guru" predictions, I should start LenDale White, Hightower, Roddy White, Berrian, and Welker. That just doesn't seem right! -- Tom Cooke
SW: Yeah, I'd remove Westbrook from that list because of his health and the Eagles' uncertainty at quarterback. However, I'd replace him with Forte, who has emerged as one of Fantasy Football's untouchables with his every-down status and ability to catch as well as run.
So you want to start Forte and Roddy White, obviously. As for your other starters, I'd go with LenDale White because he faces the Lions, Braylon Edwards because of his recent success, and Hightower because I trust him over Welker to score touchdowns, especially with the Patriots playing the Steelers.
And here's piece of general advice: Don't drive yourself crazy overanalyzing those "Guru" predictions. They certainly have value as another piece of information to help you finalize your decisions, but you don't want to follow them blindly. The "Guru" has the misfortune of committing to exact numbers each week, meaning it doesn't get a chance to discuss what factors might interfere with a player reaching those numbers. In other words, if the "Guru" thinks the Panthers will go run-heavy against the Packers' poor run defense, it might predict a big game for Jonathan Stewart -- one that would net him more points than a safer option like Forte. If, though, the Packers jump out to an early lead and the Panthers have to play catch-up, Jake Delhomme will have the big game, not Stewart.
The "Guru" doesn't have the luxury of weighing those outcomes. It deals with actual yardage and touchdowns, meaning it has to commit to either the monster game for Stewart or the inconsequential one (since something in the middle wouldn't make as much sense). Keep that bit of information in mind, because as a discerning Fantasy owner, you have the opportunity to gauge both the upside and downside for Stewart, in which case you'd probably opt to take the safe approach and start Forte instead, regardless of predictions. I know I would.
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.
