Worst teams for fantasy? (1 Viewer)

[Clifford]

I think examining total team offense is a great insight to where the value players are, and by looking at who are historically the worst offensive teams could save some owners from overspending on high-talent/low-opportunity value plays. So I'll start the same way by looking at the bottom ten teams in terms of total yards from the past three seasons.

2010

23 Minnesota Vikings

24 San Francisco 49ers

25 Buffalo Bills

26 St. Louis Rams

27 Tennessee Titans

28 Seattle Seahawks

29 Cleveland Browns

30 Chicago Bears

31 Arizona Cardinals

32 Carolina Panthers

2009

23 Chicago Bears

24 Cincinnati Bengals

25 Kansas City Chiefs

26 Detroit Lions

27 San Francisco 49ers

28 Tampa Bay Buccaneers

29 St. Louis Rams

30 Buffalo Bills

31 Oakland Raiders

32 Cleveland Browns

2008

23 San Francisco 49ers

24 Kansas City Chiefs

25 Buffalo Bills

26 Chicago Bears

27 St. Louis Rams

28 Seattle Seahawks

29 Oakland Raiders

30 Detroit Lions

31 Cleveland Browns

32 Cincinnati Bengals

Consistently bad (2010+1 other season): 49ers (3), Bills (3), Rams (3), Seahawks (2), Browns (3), Bears (3)

My list of players on these teams that might be overvalued:

Vernon Davis

Crabtree

Gore

Stevie Johnson

Steven Jackson

Mike Williams (SEA)

Peyton Hillis

Forte

Also, I was thinking that the bad offensive teams might be above average in the run department, but actually none of the 6 consistently bad teams ranked in the top half of the league in rushing yards. Of the bottom 10 for 2010 only the Panthers ranked in the top 15 for rushing in the same year.

I plan on avoiding any and all tier2 and down players on the above six teams. I think Gore, Hillis, and Forte will continue to be good, but maybe slightly overvalued considering they play on teams that can't consistently maintain drives. All three will likely go well before Bradshaw, Shonne Greene, and Ryan Mathews who will have much greater opportunity to succeed.

 

[Donsmith753]

I know its not the same reasoning as you're looking for but the Pats can be quite bad (read infuriating) for fantasy.

 

[DawnBTVS]

I think it depends in terms of production. Is a team that shares the RB load worse for fantasy? On the flip side, do they provide slightly better "value" in later rounds because so many different players get touches and can be bye week factors?

Example Team: New England Patriots

- Often considered a wasteland in regards to the RB position but their "3rd Down" back (Kevin Faulk in past years, possibly Danny Woodhead this season) could be decent value in a PPR league as a late RB3/RB4 type.

- Same goes for the wide receivers since so many options get catches. Deion Branch had over 700 yards and 5 TD in just 9 starts last season. He could provide great value in later rounds while your league mates jump on the WR2s and WR3s of better pass heavy offenses that don't spread the ball around as much.

My undervalued players...

- Patriots receiving RB. Whomever it is will get 30-50 catches during a full season and can be a solid rotational value RB.

- WR Deion Branch who has Tom Brady's full trust but is surrounded by competent options in the passing game. He could slide under the radar a bit.

- Same situation with the St. Louis Rams and their WR corps. Depending on who jumps out and becomes the primary target, they could be a solid steal in PPR leagues where the focus by FF owners is more on Steven Jackson and the Rams running game.

- See the NO Saints and their bevy of WR options. Guys like Colston will go slightly high but a solid guy like Lance Moore or Robert Meachem could fall under the radar a bit and provide better value.

- Young TEs who may have only played 1 season and didn't blow the doors off. Guys like Jermaine Gresham (52 catches), Jimmy Graham (31 catches on a loaded New Orleans team), and Tony Moeaki (47 catches on a run heavy Chiefs team) could provide good value if taken later compared to bigger names like Antonio Gates or Jason Witten. A guy like Graham, who has to compete for his catches in NO, could benefit from having a better QB compared to other TE options who may not have as much competition.

I think trying to correlate bad NFL offenses to bad FF offenses is a mistake since a bad NFL team can still produce several solid FF players, even if they may not rack up as many yards as other peers. Also great players on bad teams will likely get far more opportunities because they will be leaned on. I would try and look at situations where a position may be tough to deduce who a #1/#2 is or due to sheer depth, which player could breakout over his teammates.

 

[adrenaline]

Looking at teams from 2-3 seasons ago is a bad idea, a lot changes with a team every season. Looking at last seasons worst offenses actually suggests it's good to look there for a RB.

 

[eakfootball]

for 2011 the favorite has to be the seahawks.

 

[1one1]

redskins seahawks bills cle oak....yuck yuck yuck yuck yuck

 

[ZWK]

Here are the 32 NFL teams ranked by 2010 VBD (using FBG numbers, for QB, RB, WR, and TE only), along with the number of players they had at baseline or better. One thing I fixed was counting Branch in NE instead of SEA.

264 HOU 3

230 PHI 4

198 NE 6

188 KC 2

187 ATL 4

162 NYG 5

159 GB 2

151 PIT 2

133 SD 3

126 IND 2

115 MIN 2

111 DEN 2

104 TEN 2

103 CLE 1

100 DAL 2

97 JAX 2

89 BAL 4

89 NO 3

87 OAK 2

82 CHI 2

78 TB 3

69 CIN 3

67 DET 3

63 BUF 3

57 SF 2

57 STL 1

39 NYJ 3

34 WAS 2

30 ARI 1

0 MIA 1

0 CAR 0

0 SEA 0

 

[Clifford]

What do the numbers to the left and right mean?

 

[ZWK]

What do the numbers to the left and right mean?

Team VBD to the left (sum of QB, RB, WR, and TE), and number of players at baseline or above to the right. For instance, 69 CIN 3 means that Cincinnati had 3 players at baseline or better, who combined for 69 VBD - Benson was RB16 with 36 VBD, Owens was WR16 with 33 VBD, and Palmer was QB12 with 0 VBD.

 

[Mr. Bojangles]

redskins seahawks bills cle oak....yuck yuck yuck yuck yuck

Seahawk homer, I know, but I think they will be much better this year. They have rightly committd to re-building an offensive line that Tim Ruskell let deteriorate. If they can some how get Gallery in FA to fill the LG spot, I think the line will be much imnproved from the last two years which should allow the running game of Lynch and Forsett to be much more effective. The passing game if either Hass, Palmer, or Kolb is at the helm should be ok, not great, but ok. If Whitehurst is the starter, well, that's a different story. Is this an offensive unit filled with pro bowlers? No, but they have guys that will be getting the ball (Lynch, Big Mike) and in fantasy football touches = points. It may not equal pro bowl but it will equal fantasy production. Hopefully the fantasy community sleeps on these guys and they can be had in rounds that will really accentuate their value.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Carolina has the chance to run away with this. Turrible play at QB and if/when Smith leaves, then put 11 in the box.

 

[greggorymac]

redskins seahawks bills cle oak....yuck yuck yuck yuck yuck

Seahawk homer, I know, but I think they will be much better this year. They have rightly committd to re-building an offensive line that Tim Ruskell let deteriorate. If they can some how get Gallery in FA to fill the LG spot, I think the line will be much imnproved from the last two years which should allow the running game of Lynch and Forsett to be much more effective. The passing game if either Hass, Palmer, or Kolb is at the helm should be ok, not great, but ok. If Whitehurst is the starter, well, that's a different story. Is this an offensive unit filled with pro bowlers? No, but they have guys that will be getting the ball (Lynch, Big Mike) and in fantasy football touches = points. It may not equal pro bowl but it will equal fantasy production. Hopefully the fantasy community sleeps on these guys and they can be had in rounds that will really accentuate their value.

Sorry Mr. Bojangles... Lynch is a RB3 and BMW is between a WR3 and WR4 depending on who starts at QB.I would say this is a 2-way tie between the Seahawks and Redskins. They're both horrible at their skill positions. At least CLE and OAK have a decent RBs.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

for 2011 the favorite has to be the seahawks.

 

[Go deep]

for 2011 the favorite has to be the seahawks.

I even like Lynch to be better than expected this year, but they still dont have a single player i would want in my starting lineup.

 

[FavreCo]

Carolina has the chance to run away with this. Turrible play at QB and if/when Smith leaves, then put 11 in the box.

Here's your answer. Carolina repeats as worst in FF and also ends up with the #1 pick in the NFL draft. Not only do they suck as Smith and DeAngelo look to get out of dodge but they play in probably the toughest division in football (besides them of course). They lose all 6 games there.

 

[Go deep]

Carolina has the chance to run away with this. Turrible play at QB and if/when Smith leaves, then put 11 in the box.

Here's your answer. Carolina repeats as worst in FF and also ends up with the #1 pick in the NFL draft. Not only do they suck as Smith and DeAngelo look to get out of dodge but they play in probably the toughest division in football (besides them of course). They lose all 6 games there.

Patriots > SaintsJets > FalconsDolphins => BucsActually, i think the NFC East and North are better as well.

 

[Clifford]

What do the numbers to the left and right mean?

Team VBD to the left (sum of QB, RB, WR, and TE), and number of players at baseline or above to the right. For instance, 69 CIN 3 means that Cincinnati had 3 players at baseline or better, who combined for 69 VBD - Benson was RB16 with 36 VBD, Owens was WR16 with 33 VBD, and Palmer was QB12 with 0 VBD.

So Charles and bowe combined for 188 Vbd?