The Gut Check No. 190 (1 Viewer)

[Matt Waldman]

'09 Second Half Wonders/'10 Breakouts?

 

[daveR]

'09 Second Half Wonders/'10 Breakouts?

Good read. Thanks, Matt!

 

[anakin]

Good job Wildman!

 

[Mohawk]

'09 Second Half Wonders/'10 Breakouts?

Great Job!

Very well written.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I'm a little surprised you had nothing to say about J.Charles.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm going to have to disagree on Maroney. Yes, he did well in the middle of the season when the other guys in front of him got hurt. However, he went back to the back of the pack after Morris and Taylor got healthier.

In the final 3 games of the year for the Pats, Maroney mustered up games of 5, 0, and 1 carries against the Jags, Texans, and Ravens (in the playoffs).

One would think that after generating nearly 80 yards from scrimmage and a TD a game over a 9 game stretch that the Pats would continue with him as the key guy out of the backfield. But key fumbles thwarted that and he went back to being a non-entity.

I agree that he might be worth a flier and that at some point he might be fantasy relevant, but that's going to be hard to predict and rely upon on a consistent basis.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'm a little surprised you had nothing to say about J.Charles.

Somewhat of an inadvertent omission, but I think it's pretty clear that Charles is and will be the NO.1 RB in KC even with Jones in town. I just don't see many question marks with him compared to others I discussed. He's good. We all saw it. He's worth the consideration as a top 15-16 RB.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'm going to have to disagree on Maroney. Yes, he did well in the middle of the season when the other guys in front of him got hurt. However, he went back to the back of the pack after Morris and Taylor got healthier.In the final 3 games of the year for the Pats, Maroney mustered up games of 5, 0, and 1 carries against the Jags, Texans, and Ravens (in the playoffs).One would think that after generating nearly 80 yards from scrimmage and a TD a game over a 9 game stretch that the Pats would continue with him as the key guy out of the backfield. But key fumbles thwarted that and he went back to being a non-entity.I agree that he might be worth a flier and that at some point he might be fantasy relevant, but that's going to be hard to predict and rely upon on a consistent basis.

So you feel an aging Taylor or Morris will be relied upon more? Do you have a feeling how the Pats intend to address an RB situation with what looks like a pretty bare cupboard talent-wise for the long-term? I'm only guessing they don't find RB to be that important since Belicheck came to town because he hasn't been able to land a feature back via the draft since he's been there and he seems to be ok with retreads. Any thoughts on their situation who you like for them?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I'm a little surprised you had nothing to say about J.Charles.

Somewhat of an inadvertent omission, but I think it's pretty clear that Charles is and will be the NO.1 RB in KC even with Jones in town. I just don't see many question marks with him compared to others I discussed. He's good. We all saw it. He's worth the consideration as a top 15-16 RB.

To the contrary, I would say he's still a huge question mark, especially with the added risk he brings with him.We've seen lots of guys (William Green, Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, and many others) finish with a huge 2nd half and go into the next season as the sure fire RB1 on their team only to have them end up being complete busts the next year.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'm a little surprised you had nothing to say about J.Charles.

Somewhat of an inadvertent omission, but I think it's pretty clear that Charles is and will be the NO.1 RB in KC even with Jones in town. I just don't see many question marks with him compared to others I discussed. He's good. We all saw it. He's worth the consideration as a top 15-16 RB.

To the contrary, I would say he's still a huge question mark, especially with the added risk he brings with him.We've seen lots of guys (William Green, Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, and many others) finish with a huge 2nd half and go into the next season as the sure fire RB1 on their team only to have them end up being complete busts the next year.

Fair enough. I've just always thought Jamaal Charles was a far greater talent than any of those guys and I think his ability is far more obvious. Then again, Jones looked talented and got hurt. Green was talented, but troubled and too distracted for football.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm going to have to disagree on Maroney. Yes, he did well in the middle of the season when the other guys in front of him got hurt. However, he went back to the back of the pack after Morris and Taylor got healthier.In the final 3 games of the year for the Pats, Maroney mustered up games of 5, 0, and 1 carries against the Jags, Texans, and Ravens (in the playoffs).One would think that after generating nearly 80 yards from scrimmage and a TD a game over a 9 game stretch that the Pats would continue with him as the key guy out of the backfield. But key fumbles thwarted that and he went back to being a non-entity.I agree that he might be worth a flier and that at some point he might be fantasy relevant, but that's going to be hard to predict and rely upon on a consistent basis.

So you feel an aging Taylor or Morris will be relied upon more? Do you have a feeling how the Pats intend to address an RB situation with what looks like a pretty bare cupboard talent-wise for the long-term? I'm only guessing they don't find RB to be that important since Belicheck came to town because he hasn't been able to land a feature back via the draft since he's been there and he seems to be ok with retreads. Any thoughts on their situation who you like for them?

I'm not sure what you mean by "an aging Taylor or Morris being relied upon more." I think the plan has been for awhile and continues to be a true RBBC BY DESIGN. So if by more you mean more than the 0 touches they were getting when they were hurt than yes. If you mean more than Maroney, that's probably something they would explore week to week, as it seems like the team was happy riding the guy that was productive each game.Since Cory Dillon's monster season 5 or 6 years ago, there has not been a lead dog for the Pats when people were healthy. Even when guys were hurt there was still an aversion to focusing on one guy.So to answer what I think will happen, if all the backs are healthy I think they will be rotated in and out, some players will play situationally, and there will be rotations as to who gets the carries by drive.Depending upon the landscape labor wise next year, they might bring him back as an RFA for low dollars while they explore other options.As for BB's draft record, the only day one back he's drafted was Maroney, so it's not like they drafted other guys and they didn't work out. I just don't think BB really values the running back spot on the roster and would rather make investments elsewhere. They may have no choice to focus on a RB next year if all the other guys are sent out to pasture, but Belichick really doesn't seem to be all that concerned about it.As for which back might be the most productive, I would say the goal line back that NE tabs. Maroney lucked into that role when the other options were hurt. But with them all healthy, I doubt that back will be Maroney, especially since his fumbles occurred at the gaol line last year.I would not really want any NE back fantasy wise, but I do agree of the options Maroney would stand to be the one to have. But that is not exactly an endorsement for Maroney, as I think he will again need injuries to other players to get a bigger workload and he is not the long term solution in NE.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'm going to have to disagree on Maroney. Yes, he did well in the middle of the season when the other guys in front of him got hurt. However, he went back to the back of the pack after Morris and Taylor got healthier.In the final 3 games of the year for the Pats, Maroney mustered up games of 5, 0, and 1 carries against the Jags, Texans, and Ravens (in the playoffs).One would think that after generating nearly 80 yards from scrimmage and a TD a game over a 9 game stretch that the Pats would continue with him as the key guy out of the backfield. But key fumbles thwarted that and he went back to being a non-entity.I agree that he might be worth a flier and that at some point he might be fantasy relevant, but that's going to be hard to predict and rely upon on a consistent basis.

So you feel an aging Taylor or Morris will be relied upon more? Do you have a feeling how the Pats intend to address an RB situation with what looks like a pretty bare cupboard talent-wise for the long-term? I'm only guessing they don't find RB to be that important since Belicheck came to town because he hasn't been able to land a feature back via the draft since he's been there and he seems to be ok with retreads. Any thoughts on their situation who you like for them?

I'm not sure what you mean by "an aging Taylor or Morris being relied upon more." I think the plan has been for awhile and continues to be a true RBBC BY DESIGN. So if by more you mean more than the 0 touches they were getting when they were hurt than yes. If you mean more than Maroney, that's probably something they would explore week to week, as it seems like the team was happy riding the guy that was productive each game.Since Cory Dillon's monster season 5 or 6 years ago, there has not been a lead dog for the Pats when people were healthy. Even when guys were hurt there was still an aversion to focusing on one guy.So to answer what I think will happen, if all the backs are healthy I think they will be rotated in and out, some players will play situationally, and there will be rotations as to who gets the carries by drive.Depending upon the landscape labor wise next year, they might bring him back as an RFA for low dollars while they explore other options.As for BB's draft record, the only day one back he's drafted was Maroney, so it's not like they drafted other guys and they didn't work out. I just don't think BB really values the running back spot on the roster and would rather make investments elsewhere. They may have no choice to focus on a RB next year if all the other guys are sent out to pasture, but Belichick really doesn't seem to be all that concerned about it.As for which back might be the most productive, I would say the goal line back that NE tabs. Maroney lucked into that role when the other options were hurt. But with them all healthy, I doubt that back will be Maroney, especially since his fumbles occurred at the gaol line last year.I would not really want any NE back fantasy wise, but I do agree of the options Maroney would stand to be the one to have. But that is not exactly an endorsement for Maroney, as I think he will again need injuries to other players to get a bigger workload and he is not the long term solution in NE.

Thanks for the opinion - just curious about your take. I'm pretty sure BB drafted J.R. Redmond in round three in 2000 or was that before BB got the reins? Cedric Cobbs was considered a day one talent as well. Though not much of an RB track record to even look at even so...

 

[David Yudkin]

Here were the Pats RB drafted under Belichick . . .

2007 6-34 Justise Hairston Central Connecticut St.

2006 1-21 Laurence Maroney Minnesota

2004 4-32 Cedric Cobbs Arkansas

2002 7-26 Antwoine Womack Virginia

2000 3-14 J.R. Redmond Arizona State

2000 7-33 Patrick Pass Georgia

Not a lot of investment there.

On a ypc basis, here's how things have looked in their time in NE:

Sammy Morris 4.55

LaMont Jordan 4.54

Fred Taylor 4.27

Kevin Faulk 4.25

Corey Dillon 4.22

Laurence Maroney 4.18

I have been saying for the past few years that Maroney may be a decent RB . . . he just doesn't fit in New England. He's stuck with the team because he's cheap. The team persists on calling plays that don't fit his style and have been reluctant to change anything up to plays that might be more effective.

I've poked around several times to see what underlying issues there may be with Maroney and haven't uncovered anything that could be substantiated and several folks have some guesses, but bottom line the coaching staff for some reason has not given Maroney the chance to be an every down, work horse back. I doubt we will see that happen now either.

 

[David Yudkin]

As an addendum, I think part of the reason the Pats have stayed away from signing a bigger name at RB is the $$$ involved. NE has gotten Top 5 - Top 10 rushing totals with retreads and nobodies for cheap money. That has then allowed them to pay other starters and add depth elsewhere. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and whetever they've been doing has been mostly successful.

 

[Mohawk]

I would not really want any NE back fantasy wise, but I do agree of the options Maroney would stand to be the one to have. But that is not exactly an endorsement for Maroney, as I think he will again need injuries to other players to get a bigger workload and he is not the long term solution in NE.

This is the main point of all you mentioned. As in some years I specifically avoided Denver's RBBC and Shanahan's RB dujour style, I have recently avoided NE's RB as well. I believe Maroney has the talent to be a featured back. Bellichik is too smart and too stubborn to allow any one RB to emerge as a go to guy.

 

[Creed Bratton]

I'm going to have to disagree on Maroney. Yes, he did well in the middle of the season when the other guys in front of him got hurt. However, he went back to the back of the pack after Morris and Taylor got healthier.In the final 3 games of the year for the Pats, Maroney mustered up games of 5, 0, and 1 carries against the Jags, Texans, and Ravens (in the playoffs).One would think that after generating nearly 80 yards from scrimmage and a TD a game over a 9 game stretch that the Pats would continue with him as the key guy out of the backfield. But key fumbles thwarted that and he went back to being a non-entity.I agree that he might be worth a flier and that at some point he might be fantasy relevant, but that's going to be hard to predict and rely upon on a consistent basis.

So you feel an aging Taylor or Morris will be relied upon more? Do you have a feeling how the Pats intend to address an RB situation with what looks like a pretty bare cupboard talent-wise for the long-term? I'm only guessing they don't find RB to be that important since Belicheck came to town because he hasn't been able to land a feature back via the draft since he's been there and he seems to be ok with retreads. Any thoughts on their situation who you like for them?

I'm not sure what you mean by "an aging Taylor or Morris being relied upon more." I think the plan has been for awhile and continues to be a true RBBC BY DESIGN. So if by more you mean more than the 0 touches they were getting when they were hurt than yes. If you mean more than Maroney, that's probably something they would explore week to week, as it seems like the team was happy riding the guy that was productive each game.Since Cory Dillon's monster season 5 or 6 years ago, there has not been a lead dog for the Pats when people were healthy. Even when guys were hurt there was still an aversion to focusing on one guy.So to answer what I think will happen, if all the backs are healthy I think they will be rotated in and out, some players will play situationally, and there will be rotations as to who gets the carries by drive.Depending upon the landscape labor wise next year, they might bring him back as an RFA for low dollars while they explore other options.As for BB's draft record, the only day one back he's drafted was Maroney, so it's not like they drafted other guys and they didn't work out. I just don't think BB really values the running back spot on the roster and would rather make investments elsewhere. They may have no choice to focus on a RB next year if all the other guys are sent out to pasture, but Belichick really doesn't seem to be all that concerned about it.As for which back might be the most productive, I would say the goal line back that NE tabs. Maroney lucked into that role when the other options were hurt. But with them all healthy, I doubt that back will be Maroney, especially since his fumbles occurred at the gaol line last year.I would not really want any NE back fantasy wise, but I do agree of the options Maroney would stand to be the one to have. But that is not exactly an endorsement for Maroney, as I think he will again need injuries to other players to get a bigger workload and he is not the long term solution in NE.

You might be right, but at Maroney's ADP, does it really matter that much if you take a shot on him and he doesn't pan out? Isn't his upside enough to take a chance on at that point in the draft if you think he might be turning the corner a bit?

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'm going to have to disagree on Maroney. Yes, he did well in the middle of the season when the other guys in front of him got hurt. However, he went back to the back of the pack after Morris and Taylor got healthier.In the final 3 games of the year for the Pats, Maroney mustered up games of 5, 0, and 1 carries against the Jags, Texans, and Ravens (in the playoffs).One would think that after generating nearly 80 yards from scrimmage and a TD a game over a 9 game stretch that the Pats would continue with him as the key guy out of the backfield. But key fumbles thwarted that and he went back to being a non-entity.I agree that he might be worth a flier and that at some point he might be fantasy relevant, but that's going to be hard to predict and rely upon on a consistent basis.

So you feel an aging Taylor or Morris will be relied upon more? Do you have a feeling how the Pats intend to address an RB situation with what looks like a pretty bare cupboard talent-wise for the long-term? I'm only guessing they don't find RB to be that important since Belicheck came to town because he hasn't been able to land a feature back via the draft since he's been there and he seems to be ok with retreads. Any thoughts on their situation who you like for them?

I'm not sure what you mean by "an aging Taylor or Morris being relied upon more." I think the plan has been for awhile and continues to be a true RBBC BY DESIGN. So if by more you mean more than the 0 touches they were getting when they were hurt than yes. If you mean more than Maroney, that's probably something they would explore week to week, as it seems like the team was happy riding the guy that was productive each game.Since Cory Dillon's monster season 5 or 6 years ago, there has not been a lead dog for the Pats when people were healthy. Even when guys were hurt there was still an aversion to focusing on one guy.So to answer what I think will happen, if all the backs are healthy I think they will be rotated in and out, some players will play situationally, and there will be rotations as to who gets the carries by drive.Depending upon the landscape labor wise next year, they might bring him back as an RFA for low dollars while they explore other options.As for BB's draft record, the only day one back he's drafted was Maroney, so it's not like they drafted other guys and they didn't work out. I just don't think BB really values the running back spot on the roster and would rather make investments elsewhere. They may have no choice to focus on a RB next year if all the other guys are sent out to pasture, but Belichick really doesn't seem to be all that concerned about it.As for which back might be the most productive, I would say the goal line back that NE tabs. Maroney lucked into that role when the other options were hurt. But with them all healthy, I doubt that back will be Maroney, especially since his fumbles occurred at the gaol line last year.I would not really want any NE back fantasy wise, but I do agree of the options Maroney would stand to be the one to have. But that is not exactly an endorsement for Maroney, as I think he will again need injuries to other players to get a bigger workload and he is not the long term solution in NE.

You might be right, but at Maroney's ADP, does it really matter that much if you take a shot on him and he doesn't pan out? Isn't his upside enough to take a chance on at that point in the draft if you think he might be turning the corner a bit?

Which is exactly why I still will be taking a chance on him in some drafts.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm going to have to disagree on Maroney. Yes, he did well in the middle of the season when the other guys in front of him got hurt. However, he went back to the back of the pack after Morris and Taylor got healthier.In the final 3 games of the year for the Pats, Maroney mustered up games of 5, 0, and 1 carries against the Jags, Texans, and Ravens (in the playoffs).One would think that after generating nearly 80 yards from scrimmage and a TD a game over a 9 game stretch that the Pats would continue with him as the key guy out of the backfield. But key fumbles thwarted that and he went back to being a non-entity.I agree that he might be worth a flier and that at some point he might be fantasy relevant, but that's going to be hard to predict and rely upon on a consistent basis.

So you feel an aging Taylor or Morris will be relied upon more? Do you have a feeling how the Pats intend to address an RB situation with what looks like a pretty bare cupboard talent-wise for the long-term? I'm only guessing they don't find RB to be that important since Belicheck came to town because he hasn't been able to land a feature back via the draft since he's been there and he seems to be ok with retreads. Any thoughts on their situation who you like for them?

I'm not sure what you mean by "an aging Taylor or Morris being relied upon more." I think the plan has been for awhile and continues to be a true RBBC BY DESIGN. So if by more you mean more than the 0 touches they were getting when they were hurt than yes. If you mean more than Maroney, that's probably something they would explore week to week, as it seems like the team was happy riding the guy that was productive each game.Since Cory Dillon's monster season 5 or 6 years ago, there has not been a lead dog for the Pats when people were healthy. Even when guys were hurt there was still an aversion to focusing on one guy.So to answer what I think will happen, if all the backs are healthy I think they will be rotated in and out, some players will play situationally, and there will be rotations as to who gets the carries by drive.Depending upon the landscape labor wise next year, they might bring him back as an RFA for low dollars while they explore other options.As for BB's draft record, the only day one back he's drafted was Maroney, so it's not like they drafted other guys and they didn't work out. I just don't think BB really values the running back spot on the roster and would rather make investments elsewhere. They may have no choice to focus on a RB next year if all the other guys are sent out to pasture, but Belichick really doesn't seem to be all that concerned about it.As for which back might be the most productive, I would say the goal line back that NE tabs. Maroney lucked into that role when the other options were hurt. But with them all healthy, I doubt that back will be Maroney, especially since his fumbles occurred at the gaol line last year.I would not really want any NE back fantasy wise, but I do agree of the options Maroney would stand to be the one to have. But that is not exactly an endorsement for Maroney, as I think he will again need injuries to other players to get a bigger workload and he is not the long term solution in NE.

You might be right, but at Maroney's ADP, does it really matter that much if you take a shot on him and he doesn't pan out? Isn't his upside enough to take a chance on at that point in the draft if you think he might be turning the corner a bit?

Which is exactly why I still will be taking a chance on him in some drafts.

I already said Maroney was potentially worth a flier depending upon when you took him and that he probably had the most upside of the Pats RBs.However, his ADP is currently 124 while Faulk's is 201, Morris' is 240, and Taylor's is not in the Top 250. However, the odd part is that that order could be in reverse of how the team views the RB pecking order and how they might start the season in terms of workload (if all are healthy).I'm not saying Maroney won't get a chance again, but Taylor could be considered the starter at this point. Clearly people think he will get hurt or won't do much. Maroney has struggled with injuries almost as much as the other guys, so I'm not totally convinced that he's the clear option when weighing everything in context.

 

[krsone21]

As an addendum, I think part of the reason the Pats have stayed away from signing a bigger name at RB is the $$$ involved. NE has gotten Top 5 - Top 10 rushing totals with retreads and nobodies for cheap money. That has then allowed them to pay other starters and add depth elsewhere. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and whetever they've been doing has been mostly successful.

I think this philosphy worked for a while when Tom Brady was at the top of his game and the WR's and what not were at the top of there games as well but now that Tom Brady has taken a few hits and slowed down a little and the injuries to Welker and Moss slowing down a little bit as well I think not having a workhorse running back to take the preassure off the passing game a bit is hurting the team at this point. I have no doubt in my mind that with a workhorse running back to take the preassure of of the passing game I could easly see the Patriots making a run for the super bowl for the next 2-3 years but without it I think the team is going to suffer some and it will make things more difficult for Tom Brady and company. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

When Taylor and Maroney were both healthy in first four games of 2009, Taylor had more yards in his best game than Maroney had in the entire four game stretch, and while Maroney performed well at first when Taylor and Morris were both hurt, eventually he gave the coaches a reason to stop trusting him, especially in the red zone... let's remember that Taylor got healthy enough to score twice in the season finale.

 

[baconisgood]

I honestly don't understand why you mention Peyton Manning's name in the QB section. Noting that Manning was the #10 fantasy QB from week 10-17 is pretty meaningless since he didn't play complete games in weeks 16+17 and those games dragged his average down by 3-4 pts per week. Secondly who cares about the name of the #10 QB over that stretch? It can only mislead you into mentally comparing player X to player Y when what is important in fantasy is to compare player X to the range of players at his position.

 

[David Yudkin]

As an addendum, I think part of the reason the Pats have stayed away from signing a bigger name at RB is the $$$ involved. NE has gotten Top 5 - Top 10 rushing totals with retreads and nobodies for cheap money. That has then allowed them to pay other starters and add depth elsewhere. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and whetever they've been doing has been mostly successful.

I think this philosphy worked for a while when Tom Brady was at the top of his game and the WR's and what not were at the top of there games as well but now that Tom Brady has taken a few hits and slowed down a little and the injuries to Welker and Moss slowing down a little bit as well I think not having a workhorse running back to take the preassure off the passing game a bit is hurting the team at this point. I have no doubt in my mind that with a workhorse running back to take the preassure of of the passing game I could easly see the Patriots making a run for the super bowl for the next 2-3 years but without it I think the team is going to suffer some and it will make things more difficult for Tom Brady and company. Just my opinion of course.

I tend to agree in principle but disagree in practice. If a team can get Top 5 production by rotating in backs and using them situationally and get BETTER numbers because of it, I'm not sure having one guy carry the load helps the cause any.After all, which would make for a better team, the same number of carries with a 4.4 ypc or a 4.1 ypc? I don't think the Pats need a work horse back . . . they need a dynamic back. A guy that is a threat to take it the distance and eat up large chunks of yardage in a few carries.They already have a stable of lunch pail clunkers that can move the pile for an extra yard or two. That plays into the mantra of the defense, who would much rather have the Pats take time off the clock and not score in bunches than have an aerial assault on several deep plays. If teams had to worry that someone could scamper 50 yards then they would have to scheme accordingly. I don't see anyone like that on the Pats roster right now (Maroney would be the closest), but opponents would much rather NE ran the ball than passed it.

 

[baconisgood]

However, his ADP is currently 124 while Faulk's is 201, Morris' is 240, and Taylor's is not in the Top 250. However, the odd part is that that order could be in reverse of how the team views the RB pecking order and how they might start the season in terms of workload (if all are healthy).

Why is this odd? I'm pretty sure you and I had a similar discussion last year- if ALL the RBs are healthy then NONE of them are worth owning. The only reason to own a NE RB other than sheer desperation is the chance to start him when 2+ other backs get hurt. In this sense only Maroney is worth owning since he is the only RB who is on the young side of 32.

let's remember that Taylor got healthy enough to score twice in the season finale.

Lets remember that he managed a total of 7 carries in that game and 2 in the playoff game. Even when he was healthy at the beginning of the year he got 9, 8 and 22 touches. Sammy Morris got 3, 8, 11 and 19 touches while Faulk had 9, 4, 8, 7 and 6 touches to start the season.

 

[Sweet Love]

As an addendum, I think part of the reason the Pats have stayed away from signing a bigger name at RB is the $$$ involved. NE has gotten Top 5 - Top 10 rushing totals with retreads and nobodies for cheap money. That has then allowed them to pay other starters and add depth elsewhere. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and whetever they've been doing has been mostly successful.

I definitely think that is part of the "formula"...and the one time they deviated from it, Dillon was looked at as a cancer and was had for cheaper than his true worth. In fact, I would say they take it a step further. I truly think they reward "shut up and play" type behavior. I am sure a guy like Faulk could have gotten more money elsewhere, yet he stayed. Maybe that is because he and his agent are smart (there is little doubt in my mind had he left NE a few years back, he would not be in the league today...ala Blaylock to the Jets a few years back). I am not sure whether Bellicheck makes guys aware that their true value is on the Pats, but somehow he gets guys like Morris, Faulk and the WR/DB whose name is escaping me (Brown?) to stick around and I believe part of that is because he gives them opportunities to play.

 

[David Yudkin]

I also find it intersting as far as Maroney goes that last year his ADP was 186 and this year it's 124. I'm not sure what changed in NE to warrant his ADP increasing by 5-6 rounds when the team has the same guys in the backfield as they did then.

 

[baconisgood]

I also find it intersting as far as Maroney goes that last year his ADP was 186 and this year it's 124. I'm not sure what changed in NE to warrant his ADP increasing by 5-6 rounds when the team has the same guys in the backfield as they did then.

Morris, Faulk and Taylor are all a year older, Law firm didn't get the rumored goal line carries- but most importantly when those other backs went down Maroney actually got the touches. They didn't go out and grab some waiver wire guy and give him 5 touches a game.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I honestly don't understand why you mention Peyton Manning's name in the QB section. Noting that Manning was the #10 fantasy QB from week 10-17 is pretty meaningless since he didn't play complete games in weeks 16+17 and those games dragged his average down by 3-4 pts per week. Secondly who cares about the name of the #10 QB over that stretch? It can only mislead you into mentally comparing player X to player Y when what is important in fantasy is to compare player X to the range of players at his position.

I'll break it down for you. Manning is a quality quarterback. 19 points per game is still a nice average for players not in Manning's stratosphere - especially a rookie playing for a team that didn't win a single game the year before. I think it is significant to understand that Stafford was playing well within a certain context.

 

[Matt Waldman]

When Taylor and Maroney were both healthy in first four games of 2009, Taylor had more yards in his best game than Maroney had in the entire four game stretch, and while Maroney performed well at first when Taylor and Morris were both hurt, eventually he gave the coaches a reason to stop trusting him, especially in the red zone... let's remember that Taylor got healthy enough to score twice in the season finale.

And while I like Taylor if he's healthy and if he's still young enough to flash burst and stamina, I'd rather take chance on Maroney at a certain round knowing that he has more upside physically, age-wise, and in skill than any of the backs on that roster. If I had to make that decision in the first five rounds, forget it. But after round 8 it's worthwhile because the margin of penalty with picking "the wrong guy" goes down as the draft progresses. Picking the wrong guys in rounds 1-8 is different than picking the wrong guys in rounds 8-16.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

However, his ADP is currently 124 while Faulk's is 201, Morris' is 240, and Taylor's is not in the Top 250. However, the odd part is that that order could be in reverse of how the team views the RB pecking order and how they might start the season in terms of workload (if all are healthy).

Why is this odd? I'm pretty sure you and I had a similar discussion last year- if ALL the RBs are healthy then NONE of them are worth owning. The only reason to own a NE RB other than sheer desperation is the chance to start him when 2+ other backs get hurt. In this sense only Maroney is worth owning since he is the only RB who is on the young side of 32.

let's remember that Taylor got healthy enough to score twice in the season finale.

Lets remember that he managed a total of 7 carries in that game and 2 in the playoff game. Even when he was healthy at the beginning of the year he got 9, 8 and 22 touches. Sammy Morris got 3, 8, 11 and 19 touches while Faulk had 9, 4, 8, 7 and 6 touches to start the season.

I don't care if Taylor only gets 8-10 carries a game as long as there's a good chance 1-3 of them will come inside the 5. He's a perfect "emergency" back to have at the end of your bench.

 

[baconisgood]

I honestly don't understand why you mention Peyton Manning's name in the QB section. Noting that Manning was the #10 fantasy QB from week 10-17 is pretty meaningless since he didn't play complete games in weeks 16+17 and those games dragged his average down by 3-4 pts per week. Secondly who cares about the name of the #10 QB over that stretch? It can only mislead you into mentally comparing player X to player Y when what is important in fantasy is to compare player X to the range of players at his position.

I'll break it down for you. Manning is a quality quarterback. 19 points per game is still a nice average for players not in Manning's stratosphere - especially a rookie playing for a team that didn't win a single game the year before. I think it is significant to understand that Stafford was playing well within a certain context.

No, Manning is the GOAT QB and a perennial top 5 fantasy QB. The context you gave was that Stafford and Manning had similar 2nd half's to the season- which is pretty bogus given the above. Context is supposed to enhance understanding, I disagree that is what you mention of Manning did.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I honestly don't understand why you mention Peyton Manning's name in the QB section. Noting that Manning was the #10 fantasy QB from week 10-17 is pretty meaningless since he didn't play complete games in weeks 16+17 and those games dragged his average down by 3-4 pts per week. Secondly who cares about the name of the #10 QB over that stretch? It can only mislead you into mentally comparing player X to player Y when what is important in fantasy is to compare player X to the range of players at his position.

I'll break it down for you. Manning is a quality quarterback. 19 points per game is still a nice average for players not in Manning's stratosphere - especially a rookie playing for a team that didn't win a single game the year before. I think it is significant to understand that Stafford was playing well within a certain context.

No, Manning is the GOAT QB and a perennial top 5 fantasy QB. The context you gave was that Stafford and Manning had similar 2nd half's to the season- which is pretty bogus given the above. Context is supposed to enhance understanding, I disagree that is what you mention of Manning did.

I see your point and if you worry that I misled you and anyone reading the column my apologies. Yet, I maintain that Stafford was playing at a higher level than one might casually glance at from the overall numbers. I care about the No.10 QB over that stretch. If it were Manning or someone else. The fact that Stafford was playing at that level last year demonstrates that he was performing well as a rookie. Considering that in recent years there is generally a smaller gap in points between the 7th ranked QB and the 14th ranked QB, means getting Stafford as a QB2 might get you a producer on the level of a QB1.

 

[David Yudkin]

If we set the bar of decent RB production in 0 PPR leagues at 10 ppg, here's the road map of how NE RBs have done in the past 4 seasons (including post season games):

Maroney

52 games played, 19 DNP, 23 games of 10+ points

Morris

32 games played, 20 DNP, 13 games of 10+ points

Faulk

68 games played, 3 DNP, 9 games of 10+ points

Dillon

19 games played, 0 DNP, 8 games of 10+ points

Jordan

8 games played, 8 DNP, 3 games of 10+ points

BJGE

21 games played, 12 DNP, 3 games of 10+ points

Taylor

7 games played, 10 DNP, 2 games of 10+ points

This shows me what we already know . . . that a lot of guys have gotten banged up and a lot of players have gotten a chance with other players out. So as discussed earlier in the thread (and in other threads over the years), starting a RB from the Pats when they are all active and in the lineup likely isn't worth it. The challenge will always be once you have drafted and rostered a team is which players(s) will be hurt in any given week. Any piece of the pie could be a decent option with a rash of injuries to the Pats backs (or your fantasy team). But relying on one of them would likely be a bad thing for your fantasy team.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

What's even sillier about the Peyton ppg comparison is that it looks like you counted the games where Peyton left early, but stripped out the game where Stafford left early. Though I could just be looking at it wrong.

I see your point and if you worry that I misled you and anyone reading the column my apologies. Yet, I maintain that Stafford was playing at a higher level than one might casually glance at from the overall numbers. I care about the No.10 QB over that stretch. If it were Manning or someone else. The fact that Stafford was playing at that level last year demonstrates that he was performing well as a rookie. Considering that in recent years there is generally a smaller gap in points between the 7th ranked QB and the 14th ranked QB, means getting Stafford as a QB2 might get you a producer on the level of a QB1.

I disagree, I think you're doing the opposite here. Stafford was actually much, much worse than the 2nd half PPG numbers lead on. What you've failed to mention about these second half PPG numbers is that virtually all of them came in one game against the Browns. His second half consists of six games. One great one, one mediocre one, and four awful ones. He was not better in the 2nd half of the season, he just had one really good game all year that happened to come in week 11. The rest of his second half is the same as, or maybe even worse than his first half. His 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best games both from a fantasy standpoint and an efficiency standpoint all came in the first four weeks of the season.Stafford from week 8 on:

14-33 168yds 5.1ypa 0 TD 1 INT

22-42 203yds 4.8ypa 2 TD 5 INT

29-51 224yds 4.4ypa 1 TD 0 INT

26-43 422yds 9.8ypa 5 TD 2 INT

20-43 213yds 5.0ypa 1 TD 4 INT

11-26 143yds 5.5ypa 1 TD 2 INT

Stafford had the one great game during the second half of the season. The rest of the second half he sucked miserably both from an efficiency standpoint (4 TD vs. 13 INT, and a horribly low YPA) and from a fantasy standpoint.

 

[krsone21]

As an addendum, I think part of the reason the Pats have stayed away from signing a bigger name at RB is the $$$ involved. NE has gotten Top 5 - Top 10 rushing totals with retreads and nobodies for cheap money. That has then allowed them to pay other starters and add depth elsewhere. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and whetever they've been doing has been mostly successful.

I think this philosphy worked for a while when Tom Brady was at the top of his game and the WR's and what not were at the top of there games as well but now that Tom Brady has taken a few hits and slowed down a little and the injuries to Welker and Moss slowing down a little bit as well I think not having a workhorse running back to take the preassure off the passing game a bit is hurting the team at this point. I have no doubt in my mind that with a workhorse running back to take the preassure of of the passing game I could easly see the Patriots making a run for the super bowl for the next 2-3 years but without it I think the team is going to suffer some and it will make things more difficult for Tom Brady and company. Just my opinion of course.

I tend to agree in principle but disagree in practice. If a team can get Top 5 production by rotating in backs and using them situationally and get BETTER numbers because of it, I'm not sure having one guy carry the load helps the cause any.After all, which would make for a better team, the same number of carries with a 4.4 ypc or a 4.1 ypc? I don't think the Pats need a work horse back . . . they need a dynamic back. A guy that is a threat to take it the distance and eat up large chunks of yardage in a few carries.They already have a stable of lunch pail clunkers that can move the pile for an extra yard or two. That plays into the mantra of the defense, who would much rather have the Pats take time off the clock and not score in bunches than have an aerial assault on several deep plays. If teams had to worry that someone could scamper 50 yards then they would have to scheme accordingly. I don't see anyone like that on the Pats roster right now (Maroney would be the closest), but opponents would much rather NE ran the ball than passed it.

We will agree to disagree....When the Patriots won there three Super Bowls they had one main ball carrier that year, 2002-Smith, 2004-2005-Dillon. So this tells me that when the Patriots have one guy who is the main ball carrier they are a better team instead of going with a true RBBC.

 

[David Yudkin]

As an addendum, I think part of the reason the Pats have stayed away from signing a bigger name at RB is the $$$ involved. NE has gotten Top 5 - Top 10 rushing totals with retreads and nobodies for cheap money. That has then allowed them to pay other starters and add depth elsewhere. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and whetever they've been doing has been mostly successful.

I think this philosphy worked for a while when Tom Brady was at the top of his game and the WR's and what not were at the top of there games as well but now that Tom Brady has taken a few hits and slowed down a little and the injuries to Welker and Moss slowing down a little bit as well I think not having a workhorse running back to take the preassure off the passing game a bit is hurting the team at this point. I have no doubt in my mind that with a workhorse running back to take the preassure of of the passing game I could easly see the Patriots making a run for the super bowl for the next 2-3 years but without it I think the team is going to suffer some and it will make things more difficult for Tom Brady and company. Just my opinion of course.

I tend to agree in principle but disagree in practice. If a team can get Top 5 production by rotating in backs and using them situationally and get BETTER numbers because of it, I'm not sure having one guy carry the load helps the cause any.After all, which would make for a better team, the same number of carries with a 4.4 ypc or a 4.1 ypc? I don't think the Pats need a work horse back . . . they need a dynamic back. A guy that is a threat to take it the distance and eat up large chunks of yardage in a few carries.They already have a stable of lunch pail clunkers that can move the pile for an extra yard or two. That plays into the mantra of the defense, who would much rather have the Pats take time off the clock and not score in bunches than have an aerial assault on several deep plays. If teams had to worry that someone could scamper 50 yards then they would have to scheme accordingly. I don't see anyone like that on the Pats roster right now (Maroney would be the closest), but opponents would much rather NE ran the ball than passed it.

We will agree to disagree....When the Patriots won there three Super Bowls they had one main ball carrier that year, 2002-Smith, 2004-2005-Dillon. So this tells me that when the Patriots have one guy who is the main ball carrier they are a better team instead of going with a true RBBC.

Your years are wrong. NE won in 01, 03, and 04. In 03, Smith and Faulk split the workload almost in half. Either way, I think you are concluding things that aren't there. IMO, the main difference between the Pats from then vs. the Pats from now is on the defensive side of the ball.Gone are Harrison, Bruschi, Vrabel, Seymor, Law, Phifer, Izzo, McGinnest, Washington, Samuel, Colvin, Ted Johnson, and Milloy. Their entire defense turned over and they have not been the same since.

 

[Matt Waldman]

What's even sillier about the Peyton ppg comparison is that it looks like you counted the games where Peyton left early, but stripped out the game where Stafford left early. Though I could just be looking at it wrong.

I see your point and if you worry that I misled you and anyone reading the column my apologies. Yet, I maintain that Stafford was playing at a higher level than one might casually glance at from the overall numbers. I care about the No.10 QB over that stretch. If it were Manning or someone else. The fact that Stafford was playing at that level last year demonstrates that he was performing well as a rookie. Considering that in recent years there is generally a smaller gap in points between the 7th ranked QB and the 14th ranked QB, means getting Stafford as a QB2 might get you a producer on the level of a QB1.

I disagree, I think you're doing the opposite here. Stafford was actually much, much worse than the 2nd half PPG numbers lead on. What you've failed to mention about these second half PPG numbers is that virtually all of them came in one game against the Browns. His second half consists of six games. One great one, one mediocre one, and four awful ones. He was not better in the 2nd half of the season, he just had one really good game all year that happened to come in week 11. The rest of his second half is the same as, or maybe even worse than his first half. His 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best games both from a fantasy standpoint and an efficiency standpoint all came in the first four weeks of the season.Stafford from week 8 on:

14-33 168yds 5.1ypa 0 TD 1 INT

22-42 203yds 4.8ypa 2 TD 5 INT

29-51 224yds 4.4ypa 1 TD 0 INT

26-43 422yds 9.8ypa 5 TD 2 INT

20-43 213yds 5.0ypa 1 TD 4 INT

11-26 143yds 5.5ypa 1 TD 2 INT

Stafford had the one great game during the second half of the season. The rest of the second half he sucked miserably both from an efficiency standpoint (4 TD vs. 13 INT, and a horribly low YPA) and from a fantasy standpoint.

Excellent point that I should have explored further although I didn't strip any games out. I simply measured first half vs. second half and if a player missed time, he missed time. However in Stafford's case, because his injuries limited his game totals, his halves would have been better to be calculated than a uniform weeks 1-8 and 9-17 as they were. Still according to that calculation, I'd say Stafford was statistically about as good as he was during the first half if you're looking from a fantasy standpoint. If you want to factor that one excellent game out be my guest. If you want to factor out that Stafford didn't have a running game after Kevin Smith went down in the first half of the season, go ahead. If you want to factor out that Stafford had a gimpy Calvin Johnson and no other receiver of his caliber to make stick throws on the move to, that's your choice. I think playing from behind when the defense has the stacked deck and the offense is tailored down due to a lack of talent for Stafford to use to the offense's potential is worth pointing out. The problem was my execution of those points. Lesson learned. I should have given that Stafford segment a closer look

 

[Mohawk]

You might be right, but at Maroney's ADP, does it really matter that much if you take a shot on him and he doesn't pan out? Isn't his upside enough to take a chance on at that point in the draft if you think he might be turning the corner a bit?

That's a good point. I would consider Maroney in the 10th round, but probably not higher. He's way too inconsistent.

 

[LawFitz]

What's even sillier about the Peyton ppg comparison is that it looks like you counted the games where Peyton left early, but stripped out the game where Stafford left early. Though I could just be looking at it wrong.

I see your point and if you worry that I misled you and anyone reading the column my apologies. Yet, I maintain that Stafford was playing at a higher level than one might casually glance at from the overall numbers. I care about the No.10 QB over that stretch. If it were Manning or someone else. The fact that Stafford was playing at that level last year demonstrates that he was performing well as a rookie. Considering that in recent years there is generally a smaller gap in points between the 7th ranked QB and the 14th ranked QB, means getting Stafford as a QB2 might get you a producer on the level of a QB1.

I disagree, I think you're doing the opposite here. Stafford was actually much, much worse than the 2nd half PPG numbers lead on. What you've failed to mention about these second half PPG numbers is that virtually all of them came in one game against the Browns. His second half consists of six games. One great one, one mediocre one, and four awful ones. He was not better in the 2nd half of the season, he just had one really good game all year that happened to come in week 11. The rest of his second half is the same as, or maybe even worse than his first half. His 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best games both from a fantasy standpoint and an efficiency standpoint all came in the first four weeks of the season.Stafford from week 8 on:

14-33 168yds 5.1ypa 0 TD 1 INT

22-42 203yds 4.8ypa 2 TD 5 INT

29-51 224yds 4.4ypa 1 TD 0 INT

26-43 422yds 9.8ypa 5 TD 2 INT

20-43 213yds 5.0ypa 1 TD 4 INT

11-26 143yds 5.5ypa 1 TD 2 INT

Stafford had the one great game during the second half of the season. The rest of the second half he sucked miserably both from an efficiency standpoint (4 TD vs. 13 INT, and a horribly low YPA) and from a fantasy standpoint.

Amazingly When will people realize that the game log is a necessary add on to any PPG avg analysis? We could add some stat geek measurements like std deviation to help portray this dynamic, but nothing to me is as good as the all revealing game log. When I look at Stafford's all revealer from last season I see a pretty crappy rookie season save for one monster game against a poor Browns defense.

At this point at least, Stafford is getting way more hype than deserved based on his rookie performance. He has BUST written all over him IMO.

 

[David Yudkin]

You might be right, but at Maroney's ADP, does it really matter that much if you take a shot on him and he doesn't pan out? Isn't his upside enough to take a chance on at that point in the draft if you think he might be turning the corner a bit?

That's a good point. I would consider Maroney in the 10th round, but probably not higher. He's way too inconsistent.

I'm not sure what a decent ROI would be for a 10th round pick, but Maroney has been eligble to play in 71 games over his career (regular and postseason) and has produced at a fantasy starter level of 10 fantasy points (0 ppr leagues) 23 times.That's basically 1 out of 3 games (higher if you knew going in that he was injured and you could start someone else). My first pass on this is that that would probably be a decent outcome for 10th round RB picks, but I'd have to research to confirm if that's good, bad, or indifferent.

 

[Jayrod]

What's even sillier about the Peyton ppg comparison is that it looks like you counted the games where Peyton left early, but stripped out the game where Stafford left early. Though I could just be looking at it wrong.

I see your point and if you worry that I misled you and anyone reading the column my apologies. Yet, I maintain that Stafford was playing at a higher level than one might casually glance at from the overall numbers. I care about the No.10 QB over that stretch. If it were Manning or someone else. The fact that Stafford was playing at that level last year demonstrates that he was performing well as a rookie. Considering that in recent years there is generally a smaller gap in points between the 7th ranked QB and the 14th ranked QB, means getting Stafford as a QB2 might get you a producer on the level of a QB1.

I disagree, I think you're doing the opposite here. Stafford was actually much, much worse than the 2nd half PPG numbers lead on. What you've failed to mention about these second half PPG numbers is that virtually all of them came in one game against the Browns. His second half consists of six games. One great one, one mediocre one, and four awful ones. He was not better in the 2nd half of the season, he just had one really good game all year that happened to come in week 11. The rest of his second half is the same as, or maybe even worse than his first half. His 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best games both from a fantasy standpoint and an efficiency standpoint all came in the first four weeks of the season.Stafford from week 8 on:

14-33 168yds 5.1ypa 0 TD 1 INT

22-42 203yds 4.8ypa 2 TD 5 INT

29-51 224yds 4.4ypa 1 TD 0 INT

26-43 422yds 9.8ypa 5 TD 2 INT

20-43 213yds 5.0ypa 1 TD 4 INT

11-26 143yds 5.5ypa 1 TD 2 INT

Stafford had the one great game during the second half of the season. The rest of the second half he sucked miserably both from an efficiency standpoint (4 TD vs. 13 INT, and a horribly low YPA) and from a fantasy standpoint.

Amazingly When will people realize that the game log is a necessary add on to any PPG avg analysis? We could add some stat geek measurements like std deviation to help portray this dynamic, but nothing to me is as good as the all revealing game log. When I look at Stafford's all revealer from last season I see a pretty crappy rookie season save for one monster game against a poor Browns defense.

At this point at least, Stafford is getting way more hype than deserved based on his rookie performance. He has BUST written all over him IMO.

Does not compute

 

[Team Legacy]

Impressed with this article Matt. Very thought provoking.

 

[Matt Waldman]

What's even sillier about the Peyton ppg comparison is that it looks like you counted the games where Peyton left early, but stripped out the game where Stafford left early. Though I could just be looking at it wrong.

I see your point and if you worry that I misled you and anyone reading the column my apologies. Yet, I maintain that Stafford was playing at a higher level than one might casually glance at from the overall numbers. I care about the No.10 QB over that stretch. If it were Manning or someone else. The fact that Stafford was playing at that level last year demonstrates that he was performing well as a rookie. Considering that in recent years there is generally a smaller gap in points between the 7th ranked QB and the 14th ranked QB, means getting Stafford as a QB2 might get you a producer on the level of a QB1.

I disagree, I think you're doing the opposite here. Stafford was actually much, much worse than the 2nd half PPG numbers lead on. What you've failed to mention about these second half PPG numbers is that virtually all of them came in one game against the Browns. His second half consists of six games. One great one, one mediocre one, and four awful ones. He was not better in the 2nd half of the season, he just had one really good game all year that happened to come in week 11. The rest of his second half is the same as, or maybe even worse than his first half. His 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best games both from a fantasy standpoint and an efficiency standpoint all came in the first four weeks of the season.Stafford from week 8 on:

14-33 168yds 5.1ypa 0 TD 1 INT

22-42 203yds 4.8ypa 2 TD 5 INT

29-51 224yds 4.4ypa 1 TD 0 INT

26-43 422yds 9.8ypa 5 TD 2 INT

20-43 213yds 5.0ypa 1 TD 4 INT

11-26 143yds 5.5ypa 1 TD 2 INT

Stafford had the one great game during the second half of the season. The rest of the second half he sucked miserably both from an efficiency standpoint (4 TD vs. 13 INT, and a horribly low YPA) and from a fantasy standpoint.

Amazingly When will people realize that the game log is a necessary add on to any PPG avg analysis? We could add some stat geek measurements like std deviation to help portray this dynamic, but nothing to me is as good as the all revealing game log. When I look at Stafford's all revealer from last season I see a pretty crappy rookie season save for one monster game against a poor Browns defense.

At this point at least, Stafford is getting way more hype than deserved based on his rookie performance. He has BUST written all over him IMO.

Does not compute

This is one of those situations where stat-wise I should have done a better job analyzing it (and I'd say I generally do with this one as an exception). However, stats need a context of defined skills and techniques that a player displays in a game and often you want to see how players deviate from a set of rules. Just my opinion, but to say that Stafford as bust written all over him because of game by game numbers shows a lack of insight into what skills make a quarterback good/not good at this stage of his development. The danger of relying solely on stats is that you miss out on the actual game knowledge. You become a bean counter rather than as student of the game. At the same time, stats can fill in some blanks to provide more depth to what you're seeing/not seeing. I think there needs to be a balance of both, but I would rather err observation with some stats than all stats and no understanding of how to watch the game. Personally, I couldn't disagree with you more about Stafford being a bust because there is such a small statistical list of rookie QBs with decent fantasy starter seasons that judging them on such a standard would be ridiculously incomplete and harsh. Stafford showed what is typical of a lot of quality NFL quarterbacks with top-notch physical skills: the tendency to force some throws in situations where he really had nothing to win by doing it but at the same time had nothing to lose because the team was in such a bad position.

Good conversation, although I cringe about this particular segment...

 

[Matt Waldman]

Impressed with this article Matt. Very thought provoking.

Thanks Scott. This is a piece I have done annually for years.

 

[PhantomJB]

What's even sillier about the Peyton ppg comparison is that it looks like you counted the games where Peyton left early, but stripped out the game where Stafford left early. Though I could just be looking at it wrong.

I see your point and if you worry that I misled you and anyone reading the column my apologies. Yet, I maintain that Stafford was playing at a higher level than one might casually glance at from the overall numbers. I care about the No.10 QB over that stretch. If it were Manning or someone else. The fact that Stafford was playing at that level last year demonstrates that he was performing well as a rookie. Considering that in recent years there is generally a smaller gap in points between the 7th ranked QB and the 14th ranked QB, means getting Stafford as a QB2 might get you a producer on the level of a QB1.

I disagree, I think you're doing the opposite here. Stafford was actually much, much worse than the 2nd half PPG numbers lead on. What you've failed to mention about these second half PPG numbers is that virtually all of them came in one game against the Browns. His second half consists of six games. One great one, one mediocre one, and four awful ones. He was not better in the 2nd half of the season, he just had one really good game all year that happened to come in week 11. The rest of his second half is the same as, or maybe even worse than his first half. His 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best games both from a fantasy standpoint and an efficiency standpoint all came in the first four weeks of the season.Stafford from week 8 on:

14-33 168yds 5.1ypa 0 TD 1 INT

22-42 203yds 4.8ypa 2 TD 5 INT

29-51 224yds 4.4ypa 1 TD 0 INT

26-43 422yds 9.8ypa 5 TD 2 INT

20-43 213yds 5.0ypa 1 TD 4 INT

11-26 143yds 5.5ypa 1 TD 2 INT

Stafford had the one great game during the second half of the season. The rest of the second half he sucked miserably both from an efficiency standpoint (4 TD vs. 13 INT, and a horribly low YPA) and from a fantasy standpoint.

Amazingly When will people realize that the game log is a necessary add on to any PPG avg analysis? We could add some stat geek measurements like std deviation to help portray this dynamic, but nothing to me is as good as the all revealing game log. When I look at Stafford's all revealer from last season I see a pretty crappy rookie season save for one monster game against a poor Browns defense.

At this point at least, Stafford is getting way more hype than deserved based on his rookie performance. He has BUST written all over him IMO.

Amazingly narrow-minded posting. Nothing to me is as good as the all-revealing complete picture vs. a strict reliance on numbers.Stafford separted his shoulder in the monster Cleveland game. The game after that was only 4 days later on Thanksgiving and he didn't practice all week prior to starting. He also lost his TE Pettigrew right about then also with whom he was just beginning to develop a rapport as a threat to take a little pressure off Johnson. AFter his last start he was put on IR.

Personally, I think 2010 will still be very inconsistent for Stafford due to tough schedule and continued growing pains, although that is partially offset by widely acknowledged impovements in his available weapons. He's probably overvalued in dynasty rankings right now but certainly not a bust, IMO.

But to base such a strong and definitive opinion solely on sterile stats and not taking account the overall situation can be very misleading.

 

[Team Legacy]

Matt Waldman from Footballguys.com will be one of our guests this Friday night to discuss his article Gutcheck #190 - Read it here:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=534944

All this plus important updates on the Fantasy Players Association. Don't miss this show! If you want to call up the show and talk to Matt to thank him or ask him anything, ring us up at 347-324-5404. Let's fill up the switchboard for Matt!

This friday night, 11:00 pm EST @ www.blogtalkradio.com/redvsblue We'll have the LIVE chat going as well.

Matt Waldman is our 11:30 guest!

 

[Team Legacy]

SPECIAL START TIME GANG 10:30 EST TONIGHT!

Matt Waldman from FBG.com will be a guest discussing the Gutcheck 190!