Dear Mr. Fantasy: All kinds of uncertainty

You're drafting this weekend, and you don't have a clue.

Lost in a stream of numbers and a sea of spreadsheets, with nowhere left to turn but wherever the frantic pounding on your keyboard takes you, you wound up here, with Mr. Fantasy, who's ready to confront your every question.

In this week's mailbag, the recurring theme is quarterbacks. Everyone wants an excuse to draft one early, to buck conventional wisdom and operate on pure instinct.

It's the allure of the superstar. Your team feels more like a winner with Peyton Manning or Drew Brees at the helm than with DeAngelo Williams leading the charge. Fantasy is all about the numbers, after all, and who gets bigger numbers than the quarterback? To see those yards and touchdowns pile up for your team and know you made it happen, it just feels right.

But that doesn't make it right.

It's an argument familiar to me because it's an argument I have with my dad every year. And every year, he doesn't listen to me. And every year, he loses. Poor guy.

OK, he actually finished second one year, which brings up an important point. We all have our crazy stories about how we won some league some crazy way because everything happened to break just right, so let's not get bogged down in anecdotes. The truth is any strategy can be a winning one in a game as unpredictable as Fantasy Football.

But some give you a better chance than others, which means if you go the unconventional route, you're only getting in the way of a winning formula.

Can you explain why, if six points are rewarded for all touchdowns, quarterbacks like Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers, who are projected by this site to score 347, 339 and 338 points respectively, should not get picked ahead of running backs? Chris Johnson is projected to score only 258. -- Matt Totero

SW: Yes, in such formats, quarterbacks generally outscore running backs, but it's always been that way. You haven't uncovered some sort of game-changing secret here. Even before the NFL transformed into a pass-heavy league a few years back, the quarterback was generally the highest-scoring player on a Fantasy team.

The key is it's like that for every Fantasy team.

Your roster spots aren't competing against each other. Your team is competing against someone else's. Both teams have the same positions to fill, so how your quarterback compares to your running back doesn't matter nearly as much as how your quarterback compares to the other guy's quarterback, how your running back compares to the other guy's running back and so on.

In a standard 12-team league, every team starts one quarterback, which means every quarterback beyond the top 12 is excess. With top quarterback Peyton Manning projected to score 347 points and 12th-ranked quarterback Jay Cutler projected to score 266, the drop-off isn't so extreme.

Running backs are a different story. Every team starts at least two, sometimes three, which means the position can thin out quickly. It's not just a matter of comparing the top-ranked Chris Johnson to the 12th-ranked Ryan Grant. You have to compare him to the 24th-ranked Clinton Portis -- which is like the difference between night and day -- and even then you're not accounting for the flex spot.

That pretty much tells the whole story right there. Really, the surplus of pass-heavy offenses only works in the argument's favor. The few running backs who still contribute heavily on offense and don't have to share carries with anyone else have inflated value because they're so hard to find. Meanwhile, 4,000-yard quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. Ten eclipsed the mark last year, up from two in 2005.

You get the picture? Quarterbacks aren't worth drafting as early as running backs because there's more than enough to go around. You have to work hard to get shut out at the position.

Now, if you played in a deeper league or a two-quarterback league, you might have a point, but assuming you don't, I'm sticking with the conventional wisdom on this one. It's conventional for a reason.

I reached for Joe Flacco in the fifth round, and Jay Cutler was still around in the 11th. Would it be a bad idea to keep both quarterbacks and play them according to matchups week to week? -- Gene Binder

SW: This is exactly why you don't need to draft a quarterback early. Cutler, a potential top-12 quarterback, was still available in Round 11. Good luck finding a top-40 running back then.

True, Cutler isn't the safest option, but you can always double up at the position. Really, 15 quarterbacks are capable of performing like top-12 options this year, and that's not including Ben Roethlisberger, who's sure to perform like one when he returns from his suspension, or Matthew Stafford, who has the skill set and receiving corps to develop into one.

I guess that answers your question, Gene. Two starting-caliber quarterbacks are better than one. Yes, you'd have to work to get shut out at the position, but if it did happen, you'd be in trouble. That's a lot of points to pull out of thin air.

The combination of Flacco and Cutler does more than help you play matchups. Each quarterback acts as an insurance policy for the other, protecting you from disaster. Both Flacco and Cutler are relatively unproven, so you wouldn't want to go all-in on either. I think Flacco will take that next step forward and join the growing list of 4,000-yard passers, but what do I know? I sit at a computer 12 hours a day.

I'll take it one step further: If you don't draft a Peyton Manning, Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers, getting a starting-caliber backup is critical. Some people might take that as an endorsement to target Manning, Brees or Rodgers in Rounds 1 and 2, but if you ask me, drafting two quarterbacks in the middle rounds is less of a sacrifice than drafting one early.

I have the top pick in our upcoming draft and thought Chris Johnson was a no-brainer. But after reading some of the articles floating around the Internet, I'm considering going with Adrian Peterson instead. I probably can't go wrong either way, but is Johnson really the best No. 1 pick? -- Kevin Paiser

SW: I've read some of those articles too, and to be honest, I think they're a little ridiculous. So Johnson exceeded 400 touches last year, and whatever percentage of running backs who accomplished that at some point in their careers declined by however many yards the next year. Big deal. Last year, everyone said the make-or-break mark for running backs was 370 carries. Johnson finished short of that, so he should be fine, right? Why's everyone changing the story now?

Owners seem to be looking for reasons not to take Chris Johnson first overall. (US Presswire)

Every year, someone important comes up with some number to scare you away from some highly-rated player. It's like these people spend so much time saying, "You couldn't possibly take anyone else, could you?" that they eventually convince themselves you not only could, but should. Or maybe they just need something to talk about.

The fact of the matter is Johnson outscored Peterson by 66 points last year, putting him in a completely different stratosphere from every other running back. He was the only non-quarterback to top 300 points, and the next-closest was 38 points away. Yeah, his chances of repeating those numbers are slim, but if he even comes close and you pass him up for Peterson, you'll feel pretty ridiculous.

I can't guarantee Johnson won't get hurt, but I can't guarantee Peterson won't either. Football is a violent, unnatural game where every player risks his body on every play. You're telling me you can predict the next one to go down? Please.

Just take Johnson. You'll sleep better and live longer -- and you might just have a better Fantasy team to boot.

I'm in a 10-team non-PPR league where every team keeps three players. I'm already keeping Reggie Wayne and Rashard Mendenhall and have to decide between Dallas Clark and Pierre Thomas. Which would you advise? -- Mark Hankins

SW: I can understand the temptation to keep Clark. With 100 catches for 1,106 yards and 10 touchdowns, he put up the numbers of a No. 1 wide receiver last year, and you don't often see that from a tight end.

Or at least, you didn't used to.

The fact of the matter is the position exploded with receiver-caliber talent last year. Vernon Davis, Brent Celek, Jermichael Finley, Owen Daniels and Zach Miller emerged as not just viable options, but high-end options. When you consider most Fantasy teams start only one tight end, there's enough high-end options for just about everybody.

Besides, Clark had never topped 900 receiving yards before last season, so you have to think he benefited to some degree from Anthony Gonzalez's absence. If you project him to finish in the 850-yard range, at least nine other tight ends have a chance of equaling his production. In short, you can live without him.

You might not get another chance to draft a running back of Thomas' caliber, however. He'll concede the occasional trick play to Reggie Bush, but with the departure of Mike Bell and the loss of Lynell Hamilton, he's pretty much the main man out of the Saints' backfield. He'll be the kind of player you start every week, regardless of matchups.

I have the No. 5 pick in a points-per-reception league and Rashard Mendenhall and Jamaal Charles as my keepers. Obviously, if he's there, I'll take Andre Johnson in the No. 5 spot, but if he goes in the top four, would you go for Maurice Jones-Drew or Ray Rice or lean more toward Randy Moss? -- Duke Johnson

SW: This is where I put my credibility on the line, Duke, because I'm not sure the obvious move is the best one.

Like the argument for running backs over quarterbacks in the first round, this is a case of relative score vs. raw score. Yes, in points-per reception leagues, wide receivers see the biggest boost in production, but that's true for all wide receivers.

If you think about it, the biggest difference between the elite and the mid-level wide receivers isn't their number of catches. It's their yards and touchdowns. If you increase the emphasis on receptions, those other numbers no longer have the same impact. Suddenly, DeSean Jackson and Greg Jennings don't seem all that valuable compared to Wes Welker and Hines Ward.

So if points-per-reception leagues actually close the gap between the elite and the middle-level wide receivers, why is our first reaction to go all-in for the elite ones? It doesn't make any sense.

Instead, you should look for where the altered scoring widens the gap, and more often than not, it's at the running-back position. In standard leagues, the running backs who factor in the passing game often rank alongside the ones who don't, but in points-per-reception leagues, they can surge ahead by a good 30-50 points.

That's a big difference -- the kind that wins championships -- which means if you play in a points-per-reception league, your primary goal should be to get the receiving running backs, the Maurice-Jones Drews and Ray Rices of the world, leaving the Michael Turners and Rashard Mendenhalls for the people who mistakenly pursue receivers early.

Since you've already made the mistake of keeping Mendenhall along with Charles, you've kind of blocked yourself at running back, meaning you should probably forego Jones-Drew and Rice for a 100-catch Johnson. But I'd certainly prioritize them over Moss, who might not get more than 70-80 catches this year.

In a 12-team seasonal league, I managed to snag Maurice Jones-Drew with the sixth overall pick, then got Michael Turner on the way back. The rest of my draft went as follows: Ryan Mathews, Wes Welker, Michael Crabtree, Jahvid Best, Kevin Kolb, Zach Miller, Devin Aromashodu, Carson Palmer, Steve Breaston and Mike Williams, with a kicker and DST mixed in there. I normally don't like to take running backs back to back, nevermind with my first three picks, so I'm skeptical about my team. Is there enough strength at running back to offset what I think are question marks everywhere else? -- Jay Henrichsen

SW: I think you'll do just fine, Jay. Yeah, Welker and Crabtree won't scare anybody, and I'd like to get a more reliable backup than Palmer for the unproven Kolb, but if Crabtree, Kolb and Miller develop the way they should, you'll find yourself with surprisingly few holes. And even if they don't, those three running backs are so stout that you might not even notice. Jones-Drew and Turner are both top-five picks, and Mathews, given his performance this preseason, is a legitimate first-rounder himself.

I mean, how could you not take those players? I don't know what everyone else was doing, but by the looks of it, they completely neglected the most important position in Fantasy, which means you should have plenty of potential trade partners.

And there's your fallback plan. If you end up struggling at a position -- I'm thinking quarterback -- you could use one of those three running backs to fill your need and more. Hey, you have to get Best in the lineup somehow.

I've seen Rashard Mendenhall go in the second or third round in most of your mock drafts. I would consider that a reach beyond belief. I've been in three drafts so far this summer, and although Mendenhall is ranked fairly high on most national lists, most Fantasy owners, including myself, just aren't sold on the guy. He's been dropping to Rounds 7-10, with lower-ranked running backs going well before him. He's a guy that owners really don't want, so I'm not sure why you're so high on him. -- Chris Krueger

SW: Oh, I don't know. He's one of about 10 running backs with a monopoly on his team's rushing attempts. He topped 1,100 rushing yards last year even though he didn't take over starting duties until Week 4, when he proceeded to rush for 60 yards or more in eight of the next nine games. He's basically Ryan Grant, only younger and with less competition from the passing game, at least until Ben Roethlisberger returns, so yeah, I see your point. At a time when specialization rules the backfield, with different players entering on different downs and in different packages, I can't imagine why anyone would want one of the few players who handles the ball both between the 20s and at the goal line.

Pardon the sarcasm, Chris. It's just that my drafting experience has been considerably different from yours. Maybe I've gone up against too many of the people making those national lists, but even if that's the case, I happen to agree with them. Mendenhall is no worse than a second-round pick, so if you can get him later than that, thank your lucky stars and tally up your victories.

Stay in touch with the most passionate Fantasy staff in the business by following us via Twitter . You can e-mail us your Fantasy Football questions to DMFantasyFootball@cbs.com . Be sure to put Dear Mr. Fantasy in the subject field. Please include your full name, hometown and state.