This week we discuss the following:
- Patriots fortune-telling
- Weather
- Stafford or Tannehill?
- Colts running backs
- 49ers running backs
- C.J. Anderson
- Murray or Mathews
- Gordon or Beckham Jr?
Patriots fortune-telling
The Patriots offense as a whole has been up and down this year. But even in the team's good games, it seems impossible to predict which players will be productive. Over the last three weeks, Shane Vereen went from 21 looks (rushes plus targets), down to five, then back up to 17. Over that same span, Jonas Gray went from 12 carries, up to 38, then down to 0. LeGarrette Blount got twelve carries in his first week after being signed as a free agent. Brandon LaFell and Julian Edelman are clearly the team's top two wideouts, but they seem to take turns having big games according to some indecipherable pattern. Tim Wright is as likely to have zero targets as he is to have five or more.
Is all of this as random as it seems, or are there some cues we can pick up on?
Justin Bonnema: I don't think it's random, no. But it's not predictable either. The key to finding fantasy success in this offense is studying matchups a bit more than you would normally. If a team has a good run defense you might be more inclined to favor the receivers, which includes Shane Vereen. If a team is bad at stopping the run you gravitate towards the running attack, which is a tricky thing to predict. For the most part, I'd avoid the entire circus.
Ari Ingel: This team is coached by Bill Belichick, one of the greatest coaches ever in football. This is very important to understand, most teams in the NFL have a foundation scheme. For instance, the Seahawks have the run as the foundation of their offense, that is their offensive identity for the season. The Patriots have a week-to-week offensive identity. It's a rare in this league. But Belichick and Brady will alter their strategy weekly in order to take advantage of an opponent's weakness on defense. Outside of Brady and Gronkowski, don't rely on anyone except as a WR/RB three or flex with WR/RB one upside. One week they will attack you with Wright and another week they will attack you with the run game.
What should fantasy owners' strategy be going forward? If you have Gronkowski, you start him. But what do you do with the other players in any given week?
Justin Bonnema: As I said, you really have to study the matchups and decide if the short passing game with Edelman and Gronkowski gets the most attention from Brady or if they're just going to use their quorum of running backs and pound the ball. Gronkowski is the obvious start in every situation. Guys like Blount and LaFell are high risk and usually not high reward. Blount will maybe punch in a pair of touchdowns. Or maybe it will be Gray. One thing I will say, with his return I think Gray should be eliminated from our fantasy thoughts until otherwise proven worthwhile. Blount will get the goal line work. But even then, Gronkowski is the only player I'm comfortable starting every week. Edelman is 11th in the league in targets. That kind of volume cannot be replaced. You start him every week and hope he breaks one. Just know that a touchdown is unlikely. LaFell is too boom or bust for me. But if you're short on options he makes a decent flex play thanks to the Patriots trustworthy offense.
Adam Harstad: As much as New England's offense is clicking, you're going to want to start most pieces associated with it in any given week. It's on par with the Denver Broncos and Green Bay Packers in terms of overall value right now. Breaking it down on a player-by-player basis:
If you own Julian Edelman: in PPR, you start him without hesitating. He's WR18 on the season in PPR leagues a year after finishing as WR14. He's gotten 4+ catches in 10 of his 11 games, including four games with nine or more grabs. He's seventh in the NFL in receptions, and the Patriots have started giving him bonus rush attempts this season, for good measure. No real hesitation on my part there- I don't really care who he's playing, I'm starting him. In non-PPR it's a much more interesting decision- Edelman is more of a WR3 and whether you start him or not is going to depend a lot on the quality of your other options.
If you own Brandon LaFell: You start him regardless of format. He was held off the board in each of New England's first two games, but has been a high-end WR2 in both PPR and standard since then. There are weekly fluctuations, but it's the nature of the wide receiver position. If you own him, you start him.
If you own Tim Wright: You probably let him ride the bench. He's basically had three huge games, two terrible games that he salvaged by grabbing a one or two yard TD, and then a whole bunch of zeroes. The problem is that, even in his relatively big games he's only gotten five, six, and seven targets. His value is as high as it is only because he's catching 88% of the balls thrown his way, and that's not something I want to be betting on. If I'm truly desperate at the position, I might put him in my lineup and pray for another 1-yard touchdown to salvage his afternoon again. But that's pretty much all he is to me- plug and pray.
If you own a New England RB: In standard scoring, I'd start Gray/Blount and bench Vereen. It might seem crazy starting either Gray or Blount when we have so little clarity, but the overall pie is so big that a 50-50 gamble at it is still worth quite a bit. Fantasy football games are rarely won or lost by a couple of points, so it's generally fine to embrace high-variance plays like that. On the other hand, neither Gray nor Blount are going to be catching passes, so I'd probably bench them in PPR and start Vereen instead. Vereen has topped three receptions in eight of his last nine games, and he's averaging nearly eight points per game from receptions and receiving yardage alone during that span. It's hard to pass up that kind of free production in PPR.
If you own Rob Gronkowski: You smash.
Andy Hicks: There are good plays if you look hard enough, but there will always be surprises. Belichick has made his name in being one step ahead of opposing defenses and that continues to this day.
Simply put start Gronkowski and Edelman every week. Start Blount, Gray, Vereen, LaFell and even Tim Wright with the right matchup or if you do not have other options. Forget about Amendola and Bolden.
Any player I've mentioned though could have a big day or a miss. Some are more likely than others, but the great thing for Patriot fans is that there are always plenty of options to use on offense. It makes things difficult for fantasy consistency though.
Ari Ingel: Check what an opponent weakness is and hope for the best. Outside of Brady and Gronkowski, I never advise drafting any Pats because they are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get. They can win you any given week as easily as they can tank you.
Will Grant: Not much else to add here. It's not random, but unfortunately for fantasy owners, the only guy who knows the formula is Bill Belichick. He keeps his opponents guessing and the Patriots have great success because of it. But from a fantasy owner's perspective, I think outside of Brady and Gronkowski, you start Patriot skill position players as a flex position and hope that you've picked the right week. And a lot of times, you won't know it until the game is over because Belichick may see something during the game, make an adjustment and blow up his whole game plan. And your team will benefit or suffer from it.
Weather
It's that time of year when the weather starts to matter. What element of the weather is the biggest threat to offensive production?
Justin Bonnema: I briefly touched on weather in Week 9, including a nice graph our friend Fantasy Douche posted on twitter that showed the correlation between wind speeds and points scored. No question that high wind speeds are the biggest threat to production. I don't worry about rain and snow nearly as much. In fact, I remember hearing a Bill Belichick sound clip several years ago—I think it was during a Patriots/Titans game—where he said "they can't get a pass rush in this stuff". He was referring to the muddy field that was slowly freezing. It's an interesting angle to consider. Perhaps bad weather actually favors a good offense to some degree as it can slow down the pass rush. But wind can ruin everything.
Does the over-under in Vegas typically react efficiently to weather reports?
Justin Bonnema: I'm not sure about that. Consider the recent Bills-Jets game that was relocated to Detroit due to snow. The line moved very little but the over/under did increase by a full point. I haven't done enough studying to determine how much, if any, the odds shift in the case of inclement weather. If the Bills-Jets gives us any indication it's that the odds aren't affected. I'm sure we all remember the Lions-Eagles snow game from last year. The over/under was 51.
Adam Harstad: I say every year that snow actually favors the offense. It freezes the ground, which makes it harder and makes for a faster track. It makes footing treacherous, which always favors the player who knows where he is going over the one who is just reacting. The 51-point over-under for the Lions-Eagles game might not be because Vegas was ignoring weather, but because Vegas correctly knew that weather conditions would be ripe for a shootout. You also mentioned the Pats-Titans blowout, and the snow undoubtedly played a big role in that one, too. As a Denver fan, I distinctly remember Jerry Porter burning Champ Bailey for a pair of long touchdowns in one game because Champ couldn't get his footing and kept slipping when he went to plant his feet.
Heavy rains can make the field muddy and sloppy, which slows everyone down and favors the defense. Wind, of course, makes passing (and kicking) a riskier proposition, and also favors the defense. But snow, in particular, is often a harbinger of some good fantasy days.
Ari Ingel: Vegas takes everything into account. Pay attention to their odds and the way people are betting.
Andy Hicks: I agree with Adam and Justin that wind can make a big difference, and maybe ice as well. But cold weather alone, unless the ground is icy, has very little effect on the outcome in my opinion.
Ari Ingel: Obviously a sunny day with 80 degree weather is easier to play in than a game with 30 mph winds in 20 degree weather. From what I have heard from players, cold really doesn't play much of a factor. Severe wind, snow, and rain can certainly affect a game big time, but if the wind is less than 15 mph, don't really adjust anything.
Will Grant: I think technology can definitely cancel out the impact of cold weather. Shoes are designed better to give traction on the slippery ground and the new NFL gloves make catching the ball just as easy in cold weather as warm. Rain and active snow might make it easier to strip the ball out of a ball carrier's hand, but is potential additional turnovers enough to get you to choose one defense over another? Maybe if they were very closely ranked but I don't see anyone starting Atlanta defense in a rain storm over Seattle defense on a normal day.
I think cold and rain play more into the mental aspect of the game. I've watched my fair share of freezing cold games in Chicago to know that it's just miserable to be in the open when the weather is brutal. As the game wears on, players have a hard time recovering mentally. The only thing worse than being blown out in a game is being blown out while it's 20 degrees below zero. Finally, if the field conditions are poor, and players are slipping or sliding when they are making their cuts, I'm sure it plays into a player's mind the next time his route calls for a hard cut or direction change.
How does bad weather affect the passing game, specifically?
Adam Harstad: The fact that the league-wide YPA average is higher every season in September and October than it is in November and December indicates that passing gets tougher the later we get into the season, although that's not really proof that weather is to blame. There could always be an alternate explanation—perhaps, say, that getting plays on film provides a greater advantage to the defense than the offense. If that were true, we'd expect defenses to gain a larger and larger advantage as the season went on. Alternatively, offenses could be disproportionately impacted by injuries, which would also allow defenses to accumulate a growing edge throughout the season.
Still, without doing anything else to break down the data, I'd call the league-wide drop in YPA suggestive, at the very least.
Andy Hicks: Gut feel tells me that defenses get better as the season wears on due to more film being available and the defense is able to limit an offenses ability to make the big plays as frequently.
Stafford or Tannehill?
What quarterback do you like better going forward: Matthew Stafford or Ryan Tannehill?
Justin Bonnema: Tannehill without question. Only Aaron Rodgers has scored more points than him the last two weeks and he's the seventh highest scoring quarterback since Week 4. The Dolphins offense is very good and has some very passer-friendly games remaining.
Adam Harstad: At the quarterback position, rushing is often the great trump card, so I'd much prefer Ryan Tannehill over Matt Stafford for the rest of the season.
Ari Ingel: Yes, everyone here is saying Tannehill ... I disagree with that. Don't chase last week's points. The Lions FINALLY have an easy schedule against VERY beatable pass defenses. They just played the Dolphins, and then at Cardinal's and then at Patriots. So essentially the three best pass defenses in the league in a row. Don't ignore that. Next on tap: Bears, Bucks, and Vikes all at home and then Bears on the road. If you haven't been paying attention, those teams are horrible against the pass. They also have all their weapons healthy for the first time this season, and what weapons they are: Mega, Tate, Reggie, Bell and three capable tight ends. Yes, the Lion's O Line has not been great, but the easier schedule and the three homes games in a row should help a lot.
As for the Dolphins ... they have an easy matchup this week against the Jets, but then two tough games against the Ravens and the Pats.
Andy Hicks: I am on the same page as Ari here. I have to go with Matthew Stafford. Despite the recent struggles they have three home games in a row, then a trip to Chicago. The three home games are against the Bears, Buccaneers and Vikings so unless the offensive coordinator has lost his mind the passing game has to be used heavily. Tannehill on the other hand has a tougher draw, but he is certainly usable. Home games against the Ravens and Vikings are good, while the away games against the Jets and Patriots are more likely to result in low passing yardage.
Will Grant: I have to agree with Ari and Andy here. Chicago is 28th in the league, giving up 5.9 yards per play. Their secondary is prone to giving up the long ball. Charles Tillman is on IR and they have absolutely no answer to Calvin Johnson. Tampa Bay and Minnesota are also in the bottom half of the league, and their offenses are weak enough to give the Lions plenty of chances. Stafford is going to rebound and I'd rather have him on my team going forward the rest of the season.
Colts running backs
Is Daniel Herron going to overtake Trent Richardson, or will the Colts keep giving Richardson the majority of the carries (including goal line carries), as they have pretty much all year?
Justin Bonnema: I think the Colts continue to make good of their trade and Richardson continues to get most carries, including those around the goal line.
Adam Harstad: I don't know what the Colts are going to do with the carries, but it's looking like Herron might get the lion's share of the receptions, and that's where the real value is in that backfield. He's the guy I'd rather own going forward.
Ari Ingel: We haven't seen enough of Herron to tell yet. Until we see more from Herron, I wouldn't start either if you can avoid it. If unavoidable, roll the dice and hope for the best and that is the absolute best advice anyone can give you.
Andy Hicks: At this stage it would be almost ridiculous to not go with Dan Herron. The Colts are primed for a playoff berth and Richardson offers them nothing that a guy off the street couldn't do. The price they paid has to be written off as a bad decision and move forward with backs who at least resemble NFL quality. Herron may not be that guy, but he has shown that he is better than Richardson. The Colts own stubbornness in persisting with Richardson would be the only way he becomes more valuable than Herron.
Will Grant: Indianapolis is going to be RBBC for the rest of the season. Richardson is due a big payday at the end of the season, and the Colts will need to evaluate if he's worth keeping around. But he's only had two games with more than 20 touches this season, and he has just 30 total over the last three games. Herron is probably the better option but he'll be held back by Richardson stealing some touches every game.
49ers running backs
Will Carlos Hyde overtake Frank Gore by the end of this season, or will his owners have to wait until next season for him to have RB2 value or better?
Justin Bonnema: I do think he ends up get the majority of carries but it won't be enough to shake him of an uncertain timeshare. Furthermore, the 49ers offense is not one I'd feel comfortable investing in.
Adam Harstad: I don't think the two options are as mutually exclusive as they are presented. Carlos Hyde might overtake Frank Gore, but I think if he does, it will still remain a big enough timeshare that RB2 value going forward would still be a stretch.
Ari Ingel: San Fran is not going to bench Gore this year, that said, Hyde could easily get a few more touches each week. Gore is the heart of that offense and team leader. That sure as hell isn't Kaepernick.
Andy Hicks: I think the 49ers ride Gore until he can't be ridden anymore. Despite being 31 he is still averaging four yards a carry, clearly ahead of the rookie Hyde who is only averaging 3.6 yards a touch. Neither are being used much in the passing game, despite Gore's proven reputation. Next year is a different story as the 49ers will have to decide whether to keep Gore or attempt to give greater responsibility to Hyde. That almost may be the result of any potential coaching change. Gore for now as a fantasy RB2 at best, while Hyde resides in Flex/reserve territory for the remainder of the year.
Will Grant: If Gore is healthy, he's going to get the majority of the carries. Hyde has been getting fewer than 10 touches a game, and there's no reason to expect that to change the rest of the season without an injury. Seattle has a pretty tough run defense, so neither may be a good play this week.
C.J. Anderson
Where do you rank C.J. Anderson among fantasy running backs going forward?
Justin Bonnema: He is an RB1 and a waiver add that's going to swing playoffs. Even if Ball and Hillman come back I doubt Anderson loses volume, especially around the goal line.
Adam Harstad: So far it seems the only thing that can stop Denver's running backs is the presence of its other running backs. With Hillman and Ball both on the shelf for an unknown length of time, Anderson is poised to continue romping in the coming weeks. There's a bit of risk that his backfield mates will return at an inconvenient time during the playoffs, but hopefully by then Anderson will have continued playing well enough to keep the starting job locked down. I think you pretty much have to consider him a fantasy RB1 for the rest of the season.
Ari Ingel: He's an RB1 for the rest of the year unless Hillman and Ball come back. If that happens, despite how well Anderson has played, it very well may be a fantasy RBBC. Remember, Hillman was killing it when he was the starter too. Personally, I prefer Anderson, but who knows what the coaches will do.
Andy Hicks: These situations remain fluid, but for this week I have to rank C.J. Anderson as a mid-range RB1. He has had three consecutive games of 100+ yards and in his first game with over 15 carries he broke out with 167 rushing yards.
One bad game however and the Broncos lose nothing by moving to the next guy. Ronnie Hillman and Montee Ball are at least a couple of weeks off at this stage so Anderson has a chance to be the clear guy, but if he underperforms then we are back to where we were at the start of the season.
Will Grant: Anderson's value in the passing game means he's going to see touches, even if Ball or Hillman return. That being said, like most folks here, I would consider Anderson a low end RB1 or high end RB2 as long as he's the primary back.
Murray or Mathews
Who will score more points the rest of the way: Latavius Murray or Ryan Mathews?
Justin Bonnema: Ryan Mathews. When he's healthy he competes as one of the most gift runners in the league.
Ari Ingel: I would take Mathews, he's an every down back for them and they really would like to be a run based offense. Murray has great upside, but they do have the older guys and Reece is pretty legit too. I like Murray, but I would go with Mathews.
Andy Hicks: Murray has looked good, but we have to get real here. He has only had 14 carries in five games this year and has yet to have more than four in any one game. Sure he looked great in limited touches against the Chargers and Chiefs, but the clear answer here has to be Mathews. After a lengthy lay off, Mathews has had two good games in a row and appears to be the only Charger back worth starting in every week. Murray could go nuts, but he is a high ceiling, low floor kind a guy with more chance of the floor being hit than the ceiling.
Will Grant: Mathews. Simply because he's going to see more opportunities and his team is going to be playing with a lead more often than Murray. Murray had a big game last week, but he did it in very limited action. Mathews is getting 15 touches a game since his return. He's the smarter play going forward.
Gordon or Beckham Jr?
Who will score more points the rest of the way: Josh Gordon or Odell Beckham Jr
Justin Bonnema: Josh Gordon is so much more talented and so much more experienced that I'll take him over all but about five or six other wide receivers right now. The only advantage that OBJ has over Gordon is quarterback (maybe) and strength of schedule (sort of). The Giants do get a pair of road games against the fantasy friendly AFC South before hosting Washington. It'll be close but I'll still take Gordon.
Ari Ingel: If you are choosing between the two of them, you really don't have problems. Love them both and there is no way to know. Both should produce like WR1's with the Giant's having a slightly easier schedule.
Andy Hicks: You have to go with the more experienced Gordon ahead of the boom (another one) rookie receiver. Gordon was the number one receiver last year, despite missing two games and hasn't missed a beat in his first game back. Beckham will be heavily targeted and while he has a n impressive skill set and can only get better he is still just a rookie. It's a nice problem to have if you have to choose between the two, but Gordon will be more consistent as a WR1.
Will Grant: Beckham's back injury might cause you to overthink this but he's been fine this week and should be good to go by Sunday. He's taken over the number one spot in the Giants passing offense and you need only watch the replay of that crazy one-handed catch to know why this kid is going to be a monster. Josh Gordon is back and fresh off his 16 target game against the Falcons last week. Fresh legs and a chip on his shoulder make him a solid, even dangerous player moving forward, but Beckham is the guy I'd rather have in my starting lineup.
That will do it for this edition of the Footballguys Roundtable. Please join us again next week.