This week we discuss the following:
Auction strategies
(Note: check out the Auction Guide by Jeff Pasquino if you are unfamiliar with auction strategies generally.)
What are some common errors that are made during auctions (sometimes even by whole leagues), and how can those errors be exploited by sharp fantasy owners?
Kyle Wachtel: The most common error in auction leagues is spending too much on bench players. Those who allocate around 90% of their budget to their starting lineup will have a weekly advantage on their opponents. While they may be more susceptible to injuries, they will also have the bonus of roster flexibility, meaning they won't be forced to hold onto players that are should be rostered, but are not of starting quality.
Matt Waldman: I'll list a few errors that I've seen. Some owners will bid high for a fantasy RB and they will take the bait to bid higher than they should for the handcuff. Marshawn Lynch-Christine Michael could be a compelling example in 2014 drafts.
Owners often pay too high for quarterbacks. I'm cool with paying a premium for Brees or Manning, but quarterbacks 3-7 tend to get overvalued and you can get some sweet deals on the position later.
I get the sense that many owners are too worried about perceived value of a player rather than determining their own values. I highly recommend that you learn to create auction values from your own projections. If you don't have time and you rely on a set of auction values then be faithful to those values and understand which strategy those values actually favor—Studs and Duds, Middle of the Road, or Controlling the End. If you don't, then you'll have a difficult time formulating or adjusting your strategy to build a decent roster.
Can you clarify what each of those strategies entail?
Matt Waldman: Sure. Studs and Duds refers to a strategy of spending most of your cap space on a few major studs, and then rounding out your roster with very cheap players.
Middle of the Road means staying within your planned budget at each position, and avoiding players who are overpriced. I typically budget for one true stud who is top five at his position, then 3-5 other players who are projected to be in the 6-12 range at their positions. I then fill out my roster by bargain-hunting for players in the $1-$3 range.
Controlling the End means letting other people overspend early in the auction, and then scooping up the bargains that are available late, after the other owners' budgets have dwindled. Unlike the Middle of the Road strategy, you're not necessarily going to jump into the fray and land a stud early. Instead, you're looking at the second or third wave of fantasy starters who are nominated after the initial surge of overspending, if that's the pattern in your league. The hope here is to earn thrift shop-level discounts on some, if not many, of your starters.
Thanks. What are some other common errors?
Matt Waldman: One is impulse buying. It’s easy to get an itchy trigger finger in the opening 50 picks when you see stud after stud coming off the board and you have all of your money in your pocket. I don’t mind paying premium for a couple of players, but when a “couple” is used casually to mean three or four, you can derail your strategy really fast.
The opposite error is trigger shyness. For me, this happens when I don’t feel clear about a player's value once the bidding over him comes down to me and another owner. A couple of seconds of hesitation can cost you a good deal despite a bidding war that seems to go on for minutes at a time.
Finally, I see some owners get stuck with unwanted players because they became overzealous as policemen. One of my favorite aspects about auction leagues is watching owners engage in the practice of increasing the bid on players to police other owners from earning deep discounts. Some owners will jack up the price bid after bid, but they know how to make deft exits at the right time to make sure their opponents paid at least what the player was worth – if not more. The danger is that if you pick the wrong player to enforce this strategy, you can get stuck with a guy you don’t want.
Jeff Pasquino: Another common error is to fail to keep track of your money. Having a dedicated auctioneer has to be a priority. Forcing one owner to do it is unfair to him or her, and to the rest of the league as there are bound to be mistakes.
As an owner, I keep track of my money and everyone else's during the auction. I also come to the auction with not just one but several budgets, and then I pick the plan that most closely matches the first 2-3 guys I get. For example, if I buy three players for >50% of my budget, I'm in what Matt called the Studs and Duds plan, and I need to allocate money to the rest of the squad accordingly.
I can agree somewhat with Kyle about spending a good amount on the starting lineup, but I often include my first backup at RB and WR, especially in leagues that have flex spots. Even if you don't, if you have to start three wide receivers, that fourth guy will start for you at least three times this season—so he better be worth the WR4 spot on your team.
I don't like to wait too long to buy a stud—if they start to dwindle, you may get in a bidding war with 1-2 other owners who were also waiting. Nothing is worse than conserving cash only to have to blow it on second tier studs because the talent pool is now too shallow. Don't wait that long—get your studs before only 1-2 are left.
Mark Wimer: I think the number one error in auction leagues is exhibiting a lack of patience and overbidding for players (regardless of whether one is in the early 'Studs' stage or the middle rounds or at the end of the auction). As Matt mentioned, you should have your own values for players available in the auction (based on your projections and budget for each position)—and then you need to stick to your guns and only pay for the fantasy points and upside that you envision for a particular player. Don't get fixated on one guy (or two, or three) and overpay for them— for every dollar overspent on your roster, you'll be forced to underspend (settle for a lesser tier talent) at another position.
For me, the best way to avoid losing patience in the auction is to tier my draft lists according to the maximum I'll pay for each tier of players. Then as one of the guys in that tier gets overbid, I can assure myself that there are several others that I like just as well in that tier... or if ALL the guys in a particular tier are overpaid for in the auction, I can shift the difference between that tier's value and the next tier into another position (and perhaps pick up two 'Studs') or reserve the money for the end game portion of the auction.
In your experience, do a lot of leagues tend to overbid for the first few studs that are up for auction?
Matt Waldman: At least 3-4 of the top prospects in the draft will be put up for bid in the very beginning of the draft and overbidding is common in the early rounds. Strangely enough it's also a perfect time to grab a stud for a bargain. I often see owners get into a bidding war with a stud at a position.
Last year, I watched owners drive up the price of A.J. Green to the point of insanity ($92 in a $200 league). The online chat function was filled with owners guffawing at the price. This is the perfect time to nominate another stud, because owners tend to overreact with caution to the next player an owner nominates after witnessing the insanity of the previous bidding war.
If you don't get to nominate after the league was willing to overpay on a premium pick, don't worry—it's likely that the owner placing the next player up for bid will pick another stud. He's either thinking like you or he's throwing that player into the ring because he's hoping for another bidding war. In the league that I mentioned above, the nominating owner after the A.J. Green insanity called up Calvin Johnson, who ended up going for only $69.
The important things to remember to make this work: (1) The previous nomination and winning bid has to be for a player who is regarded as a stud, but it's a clear case of overpaying. (2) The nomination took place very early in the draft or it's one of the first 2-3 players nominated at that position. (3) The very next player nominated (by you or someone else) is also a stud at the same position.
Running backs can be a little iffy with this strategy, but it often works great for receivers, quarterbacks, and tight ends. It's a very small window of opportunity, but it's worth trying to catch your owners in reactionary mode. With running backs you sometimes have to wait until the first 3-4 leave the board at a premium and owners get cautious.
It doesn't happen in every auction, but I find this phenomenon occurs often enough to watch and prepare for it.
Let's say that the top five or six running backs are among the first ones auctioned, and they all go for a fair amount more than you think they're worth. It's apparent that RB1s are going to fetch a premium. Do you react by staying out of the bidding for RB1s, or do you bite the bullet and overpay along with everyone else because not having a solid RB1 is too disadvantageous?
Kyle Wachtel: There are limited funds available for the entire league and so for every dollar overspent, there will be a dollar underspent. In this scenario, your focus should shift to targeting elite players at other positions for a fair price, while choosing to settle for mid-range running backs, who should also come at a discount later on.
Chad Parsons: My typical strategy is to mine value within the top-15 running backs in auctions. There are plenty of upside choices within the top-30 and in the case of overspending on the top options on my auction board, I zig when others zag. Save those extra $5-10 to get an upgrade at wide receiver, or make the budget work for a Jimmy Graham or Rob Gronkowski at tight end instead.
Jeff Pasquino: First of all, agree with Chad about zigging when other owners are zagging. If all the first 5-6 guys are overpriced running backs, that means that there is value to be had at another position. I'm nominating my top WR or QB and hoping I get him at a discount.
As far as addressing the need for a top RB, I am going to re-baseline my money based on the first 5-6 guys. If I had them pegged as $50-65 guys and they went for $75-90, I am going to go 20% over my numbers (that puts me at the $60-78 range—but keep in mind the Top three guys are gone most likely). I'm willing to overspend, but overspend by less than the rest of the league because then I'm still going to be in a better cash position than those 5-6 guys because they spent 30-50% too much on their top back.
Mark Wimer: If the top tier of running backs are all being inflated in value, then I'm going to shift my focus to another offensive position and move some of my budget from running backs to the other offensive skill positions in order to buy higher-quality starters there, while targeting high-upside running backs from my next tier to serve as my starters this season.
For example, in one auction I've undergone this year, for a start-up dynasty league, I really wanted to anchor my corps with Eddie Lacy and LeVeon Bell—but they both quickly got overly expensive. So I shifted to Ryan Mathews, Ben Tate and Alfred Morris as my starting trio, and ended up paying one-third less for those three guys than Lacy and Bell eventually went for—by sticking to my projections and values I ended up with a deeper group of running backs (with upside potential, in my opinion, especially for Mathews and Tate). I am better positioned in the event that a season-ending injury strikes one of my starters, as well, and I can play matchups between the three when I want to have more receivers on the field in any given week.
Toward the end of most auctions, a lot of players will go for $1. Do you think it's important to have enough money left to spend $2 or $3 if needed to get your guy? Or is it kind of a waste to spend extra money on bottom-of-the-roster guys who are unlikely to ever start for you anyway?
Matt Waldman: If you know that you have holes because you went Studs and Duds then you have to be patient during the middle rounds so you have money to fill that roster. But if you opted for a Middle of the Road approach, it's probably not as important. Keep in mind that there are a lot of nice values available at the end of auction drafts. At the same time, most leagues still have free agency and sweating over $1 players isn't a huge deal if you paid a good price for enough premium guys earlier.
Kyle Wachtel: As a proponent of spending heavily on your starting lineup, I prefer to watch my competition sink extra money into players who will likely be stuck on their bench when we match up against each other. Very likely, there will be players on the waiver wire throughout the course of the season that will render those $2 to $3 players as expendable pieces.
Chad Parsons: In shallow leagues (or non-best ball formats), there will be options on the waiver wire that will greatly exceed the production of the most $1 players purchased in the auction itself. With that setup, I would add those extra dollars to the $5-10 players on my target list, do your best with the final roster spot targets, then play the waiver wire early in the season. In best ball or deeper leagues, it is a different mindset. I love to underspend on a starter position or two in order to get a vast majority of my $1-5 target players with upside on my roster. Even an extra $5 with 3-4 roster spots remaining makes a huge difference in acquiring the exact players you deem to have the most upside.
Jeff Pasquino: I wrote about a "Five and Dime" strategy (hold $10 for the last five guys) in the Auction Guide. It's a good concept but it can backfire on you if the $1 guys aren't worth $2-3. Here's the best plan when the auction gets towards the end—nominate $1 guys and don't chase them if someone bids $2, but be willing to bid $2-3 on guys you think are worth that amount. Try and sneak a $1 guy through early—but again, you better believe that he is only worth $1. Knowing your prices for all the players you expect to receive a bid is key here. You want a map of all of the money in the league. For example, if it is 12 teams and $200 each, the league has a budget of $2,400 as a whole. If you have done the math and only the Top 20 quarterbacks, 50RBs, 60WRs and 20 tight ends are worth more than a buck, that means any skill player outside of those rankings you should not bid up. I would, however, bid up anyone in the RB40-50 range, for example, and I would also consider nominating TE21 for $1 if I think that I can get him at that price.
Mark Wimer: I think it is imperative to have some extra cash available at the end of the auction. While we can't predict injuries to specific players, we can reasonably predict that every team in your league will have at least one significant injury at a position during the course of a season, and likely more than one. So depth is important in any fantasy league. I want to have good injury insurance and bye-week stand-ins on my rosters, so I'm happy to spend $1.5 or $2 instead of $1 to get the upside potential guys I want at the end of an auction.
Does your strategy change radically depending on whether it's a standard league versus a best ball league?
Matt Waldman: I've seen Studs and Duds work in both formats. I was in a best ball league last year with Peyton Manning, LeSean McCoy, Josh Gordon, and Tony Gonzalez as far and away my best players. Marvin Jones might have been my next-best player. I lead this best ball league for all but three weeks. On the other hand, a balanced format can be just as effective. It's really about your confidence level with certain players. Studs and Duds requires more confidence in a best ball league since it's rare to have a waiver wire or trading in those formats, which makes are balanced or controlled approach the safer method. In standard formats, it's easier to pick from a variety of strategies because the other ways to build a team beyond the draft exist.
Kyle Wachtel: Without question, my strategy would drastically change in best-ball leagues and shift towards a roster focused on depth rather than concentrating my budget into the starting lineup. My goal would be to find a blend of consistency and upside where every player on my roster can be expected to start at least a handful of times throughout the season.
Jeff Pasquino: You better believe it. I want guys that are boom-or-bust here because I want big scores, and I don't care if they bust in a given week as long as I have depth. Depth is key, and you want all of your players on the roster to have the potential to count in a given week. Taking a seventh wide receiver will not matter at all unless he has the potential to score a 65-yard touchdown in the right circumstance. The players who are starting lineup headaches because one week they put up 20 points and the next week they put up two—that's the type of player you want on your bench. Spend well for your bench in best ball leagues.
Titans offense
Ken Whisenhunt helped Philip Rivers bounce back in San Diego last season. Now that he's in Tennessee, can we expect Jake Locker to hit his stride?
Matt Waldman: Whisenhunt has been good with really talented quarterbacks. Locker is a really talented athlete, but a below average quarterback in terms of accuracy and decision-making. I don't see it. Locker could have his best year, but his "best year" won't be in the realm of Roethlisberger, Warner, or Rivers.
Andy Hicks: I'm a bit more optimistic about Locker than Matt, but his injury history is a big mitigating factor against him. Locker was starting to look good before his latest injury, but the Titans don't have anyone else ready to start should Locker falter again. Locker has some top talent coming through at receiver, and I particularly like Justin Hunter, but if Locker cannot stay healthy then it is all a moot point. Let's for the sake of discussion ay he does manage to stay healthy, I think he can be an effective backup fantasy quarterback. The Titans are young at receiver, running back and the offensive line, so maybe this year won't be Locker's best, but he should make significant strides if he can get play under his belt. The Titans will probably give up on him should he fail to progress or get injured again, but while I have some degree of optimism about Locker there is a firm mindset that Locker needs to stay on the park first.
Mark Wimer: Unfortunately, Jake Locker's string of significant injuries has hampered his development as a pro. Whisenhunt may be able to improve Locker into a legitimate NFL starter, but I don't see him as a legitimate fantasy starter this year.
Will Bishop Sankey be a better healthy to run behind the Titans' offensive line than Chris Johnson was? Is Sankey being drafted too low right now (ADP RB27)?
Matt Waldman: Sankey's ADP will rise this summer unless the media reports that the rookie has looked outright horrible in camp. If the line runs more gap-style plays that require the back to do what he can with a single crease rather than diagnose multiple creases then Sankey has a chance to be a fantasy RB2 this year. Chris Johnson is a more talented back, but he has not approached the game like he once did early in his career. I don't think Sankey is going too low right now, but I'm sure there are many who think he'll be a top-12 RB one day and as long as we continue to hear that he's progressing and poised to start or split time, his value will creep upward. If he breaks some long runs in preseason, it will shoot up.
Andy Hicks: Like Matt, I believe Sankey's ADP will rise once we get into training camp. The Titans have made improvements on the offensive line and Sankey should start from day one. Shonn Greene is a backup at best. He is 29 and had two knee surgeries in the last two months. I have him ranked 15th and think that once the training camp reports come out this is where he'll land. Of course as Matt said if he turns up at camp looking and running like Maurice Clarett then we have to re-evaluate. Right now he is underrated. As for the Chris Johnson reference, Johnson needs a new environment to play to a decent level again and it was best for all concerned that he move on.
Mark Wimer: Sankey is a rookie, so I am generally in wait-and-see mode on these guys until they make the transition to the the speed of the NFL game. RB 27 looks about right for Sankey's value right now, though that can certainly rise if he proves to be adaptable to the NFL game early in training camp.
Is Kendall Wright poised to become an every-week fantasy starter, or is his upside potential as the slot receiver limited?
Matt Waldman: It's limited until the quarterback for the Titans—whomever it may be—demonstrates enough skill to let Wright be the best he can be. The ability is there for Wright, but the quarterback is not. He's quality fantasy depth with WR3 upside right now.
Andy Hicks: Kendall Wright may be a good possession receiver, but he doesn't get many touchdowns. If Justin Hunter comes through as I expect this year, then Wright will fit into the No.2 role perfectly. Lots of receptions, 10 or 11 yards a catch and less than a handful of touchdowns every year. That puts him in the WR3/Flex category for my liking, but if Jake Locker can really take a big step this year then maybe he can reach fantasy WR2 level. That is an extreme upside though and I'd put him several levels below as the risk factors are significant.
Mark Wimer: Wright could be a solid fantasy number three wide receiver this year, in my opinion. As Matt pointed out, his upside is capped due to the Locker situation, but there will be enough targets and production for Wright to start in most league formats (especially when he is matched up against a weak pass D).
WRs on the rise
Three wide receivers expected to play much bigger offensive roles this season are Terrance Williams (DAL), Kenny Stills (NO), and Markus Wheaton (PIT). What kind of potential do you see in these players as breakout candidates?
Chad Parsons: Terrance Williams is the name in big lights of this list as Dallas did little to address the receiver position via free agency or the NFL draft. Miles Austin is out of the picture and Williams was a starter-caliber fantasy performer when seeing a full slate of snaps as a rookie in 2013. Dez Bryant will soak up safety attention and Dallas' defense is poised to turn many games into shootouts again this season. Kenny Stills has the feel of a slightly better version (at best) of Devery Henderson or Robert Meachem's role in the Saints offense—great for best ball formats, but maddening in leagues with weekly lineup decisions. Markus Wheaton has a lower ceiling than Williams and not as much 'big week' potential as Stills to pull of the rear in this trio.
Matt Waldman: Williams could crack the top 15 if Dez Bryant or Jason Witten gets hurt. Otherwise, his unadulterated fantasy upside is in the 20-36 range of wide receivers. He's a worker and a fast learner. This has been evident during his final year at Baylor, workouts at the Senior Bowl, and his first year in Dallas. All three coaching staffs have mentioned his improvement. He's a good, but not great athlete. If his routes and rapport with Romo continue to grow, he could have eventual Roddy White upside, but I'm not counting on it this year or even next.
Stills is a lot like Williams, but with a little more going for him after the catch. He's also paired with a terrific vertical passer. The Saints offense is run through Graham, Colston, and the scatback/WR hybrids (Sproles, Cooks, Thomas). Stills might earn more opportunities because of Lance Moore's departure, but Graham, Cooks, or Colston has to get hurt for Stills to become a fantasy WR2. He's a solid fantasy option late because there's that upside and a decent floor but I'd be shocked if he becomes a fantasy WR1 in this system. The system will have to change first. The talent is there for Stills to become a WR2, but like I said, I don't think it's in the Saints' game plan.
It's the same deal with Wheaton. He has WR2 upside, but it might take injuries or underwhelming play from the likes Antonio Brown, Lance Moore, or Martavis Bryant. Wheaton has enough physical talent that could take over for Brown and have a WR1 season if he has made the mental transition to the NFL. Otherwise, I see him as a WR2 or WR3 in the Steelers' offense and this depends a lot on Bryant's early development.
Stephen Holloway: I agree with Chad and Matt that Terrance Williams should be taking the next step forward this season. He was involved in the Cowboys offense from the start a year ago. In week four, he caught seven passes on eight targets for 71 yards and then he scored touchdowns in each of the team's next four games. For the season, he was the third highest targeted Cowboy and should remain the same this year, while closing the gap with Witten. The Cowboys have passed for over 4,200 yards in each of the last three seasons and should do so again in 2104, giving Williams abundant opportunity to improve on his rookie stats of 44 catches for 736 yards and five touchdowns.
I think that Kenny Stills can be much more than just the fly route player for the Saints. With the departure of Lance Moore to Pittsburgh, and Darren Sproles to the Eagles, Stills will have a bigger role with the Saints. It would not surprise me for Stills to increase his targets from 50 in his rookie season to near 90 in year two and compete on an even level this year with Terrance Williams. The rookie Brandin Cooks will also be involved, but his role in his first season may be more situational play.
Wheaton also has an opening to more participation with the departures of Emmanuel Sanders to Denver and Jerricho Cotchery to Carolina, but he has more competition than either Williams or Stills. Lance Moore comes to the Steelers from the Saints and brings a lot of experience. The team also drafted Martavis Bryant, who has the height that quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has wanted for several years. Expect more of a wide receiver by committee vibe behind the Steelers' leading receiver Antonio Brown.
Jeff Pasquino: I'll echo the comments about Terrance Williams. This time last year, Miles Austin was the second starting wideout for Dallas. Well, so much for that. Now Austin is gone and trying to recover his career in Cleveland while former rookie Terrance Williams steps up and into the starting role opposite of Dez Bryant. Williams posted an extremely respectable 44-736-5 last season on just 74 targets, a number that should approach double digits this season. Williams has lots of upside with defenses focusing on Bryant and tight end Jason Witten. I really like his outlook this year with great matchups for Dallas in both the NFC East and the AFC South this season.
Markus Wheaton has been compared to the former Steeler Mike Wallace, so that's the starting frame of reference I have for him. Do I expect those types of numbers for his second year? Of course not, but I do expect him to start and make a significant impact to Pittsburgh's passing offense, which should be the major way that the Steelers operate this season. He will be pushed by rookie Martavis Bryant, but Wheaton's head start in the offense and system will give him the leg up.
Stills is the tougher one to call, but with Drew Brees all boats and fantasy numbers rise with that stud quarterback. New Orleans always talks about working the ground game back in, but with no feature tailback emerging, I still expect nearly 5,000 yards from Brees again this year. Jimmy Graham and Marques Colston may dominate targets, but when you throw 600 times a year, there's going to be targets for everyone. Rookie Brandin Cooks will get some love too, but with no Darren Sproles or Lance Moore, there is plenty of room for Stills to get a lot more targets this season.
Andy Hicks: Stills to me looks like Chad said, out of the Devery Henderson, Robert Meachem mold. Maybe he develops and becomes a more productive receiver, but until I see something that contradicts the assumption of a deep route specialist I will be unlikely to take him in a draft that isn't best-ball.
Markus Wheaton didn't do much in his rookie season, but with the departure of Emmanuel Sanders has an opportunity. Unfortunately for him Lance Moore was signed as a free agent and fourth round draftee Martavis Bryant adds a different option to the passing game. Where they all slot in remains to be seen through training camp and preseason. As Matt said his upside is limited by the offense, his skill set and the numerous options the Steelers will have.
Terrance Williams probably has the biggest upside this year, but again we need to see if he has improved from his rookie season. His best stretch last year was between week four and week 10 where he recorded 24 receptions for 438 yards and five touchdowns in those seven games. His last six games saw a big drop with only 15 receptions for 238 yards and 0 touchdowns. I'm just not sure if he will be the receiver he will eventually be this year. Like Matt said he needs work on his routes and building a rapport with Tony Romo. His ADP is probably about right as he seems to be a WR3 candidate this year.
Mark Wimer: Of these three, Stills is the player I am most excited about. He is behind a rapidly-aging Marques Colston who is increasingly subject to nagging injuries that are managed by draining or pain-management techniques. I think this year Stills could move into a 1A-1B relationship with Colston or outright become the Saints' top wide receiver, so I have him ranked at #18 on my wide receiver board as of now. Williams has Dez Bryant in front of him and Wheaton has Antonio Brown (both players in their prime years) so I don't think either of those guys is as likely as Stills to move into position for a truly phenomenal year fantasy-wise.
Injury-proneness
How much does your perception of injury-proneness affect your willingness to draft a player? When assessing injury-proneness, do you go by previous injury history, or by body type, or by playing style, or a combination, or something else? Or is worrying about injury-proneness a counterproductive distraction?
Adam Harstad: To start off with, I believe that "injury prone" is a real thing. I do believe that certain human beings are physiologically predisposed to getting injuries from certain types of contact. You'd expect some people to have weaker or stronger bones and ligaments, just due to the amount of physical variety among the population. With that said, I think most "truly injury prone" players get weeded out long before they reach the pros. If you can't play football without getting hurt, you're not going to have a good enough high school career to get a college scholarship. And even if you're lucky enough to get a scholarship, you aren't going to survive your four years healthy enough to make it to the NFL. By the time we're looking at players who already made it into the league, most of the "injury prone" members of the population have already been caught and removed from the sample.
With that said, certain rare exceptions do sneak into the league from time to time. Sean Lee has never played more than 20 consecutive games before an injury has forced him to miss time. Bob Sanders never played more than 17 games. Darren McFadden never played more than 12 games before getting hurt and missing time. Perhaps the most egregious example, Danario Alexander has never played more than 10 consecutive games in his entire NFL career. There's a reason why, even after his standout 2012 season and his cheap cost to acquire, no NFL teams were interested in making an offer to Danario Alexander last offseason. They had very good reason to believe that his body simply could not hold up to the rigors of football at the NFL level. And sure enough, Alexander wound up missing the entire 2013 season to injury again.
On the other hand, a lot of guys earn the "injury prone" label when it's not warranted, in my opinion. Rob Gronkowski is considered injury prone despite the fact that he played in the first 47 games of his career (including playoffs) before missing any time. Percy Harvin played in 56 games before he missed any time to injury (although he did miss three games with persistent migraine issues that have since been resolved). Those are both a far cry from the Danario Alexanders and Darren McFaddens of the world. Matthew Stafford was considered injury-prone after missing time in his first two seasons, but he hasn't missed a game in the three years since. In perhaps the most egregious example, Fred Taylor was given the nickname "fragile" early in his career, until he played in a remarkable 100 out of 112 possible games from age 26 to 32.
So what separates the truly injury prone from the merely unlucky? The key to me is looking for an underlying pattern to the injuries that a player suffers. If the player keeps getting hamstring injuries, it's probable that that player has a true propensity towards hamstring injuries. If a player keeps getting concussions, then that becomes a real injury concern going forward. If a player has torn multiple ligaments, it's possible that his ligaments are just weaker than the average player's, and he's at a heightened risk going forward. But if a player has a sprained ankle, a concussion, and a torn ACL, that suggests to me that he's instead just been unlucky- which means I don't expect him to be at heightened risk for further injury going forward.
Chad Parsons: I always enjoy hearing Adam's take on this subject and have taken much of it into account in terms of my outlook for players. Jene Bramel has also been a prominent voice in regards to this subject and the medical side of 'proneness' and the like. My personal take is that repeated injuries to the same body part or cascading (related) ones concern me. Other than that, it is a very physical game with a short shelf life for a majority of them in the NFL—some are just plain luckier than others to string together a few years of missing little time.
Matt Waldman: I go by a combination of injury history, body type, and playing style at the position if I'm worried about injury. However, I don't try to figure out "injury-proneness." Until a team of data scientists with medical degrees can give us hard data-driven research, I think in most cases it's counterproductive. I try to approach it on an individual basis and I listen to Dr. Jene Bramel a lot.
Still, there are some isolated situations where I think injury-proneness is either overrated or underrated. I think it's overrated with mobile quarterbacks with big-play ability. We see immobile pocket quarterbacks take shots that are more deleterious to their careers than guys who can control their contact as runners. That said, there are individual mobile quarterbacks that display reckless tendencies that are worrisome.
Robert Griffin III displayed some recklessness that I hope he'll outgrow. Jake Locker's recklessness concerns me. Johnny Manziel is more careful than it appears. He'll get smashed early in his career trying to do things he got away with in college, but I doubt it will be anything as daring as what Griffin and Locker have tried.
I think running backs with high pad level is an overrated injury concern. Eric Dickerson, Eddie George, and Adrian Peterson ran this way. However they all possessed good vision and weren't reckless with how they hit the hole and cut. They also knew how to attack defenders. Darren McFadden runs with a style that's upright, but I never thought he was as consistent with how he attacks individual opponents as a finisher. I also think he lacks the same caliber of vision.
I think slower than average processing of information is an underrated factor. However, this requires watching enough of players to see this behavior.
None of these are foolproof things.
Jeff Pasquino: Adam's assessment at the end here is where I stand. If there's a pattern, and it is muscular related, odds are that it will re-occur and cause problems for a long time. Hamstrings, ankles, shoulders, wrists—they can be problematic for a long while. Broken bones or fractures are freaky and tend to heal even stronger. I'd worry about weak knees, legs or joints much more.
Andy Hicks: I think over analyzing injury history is counterproductive. Things like a player's body type rarely factors into an assessment for me. Players are injury prone until they aren't and durable until they're not. My decision to avoid drafting players on their recent injury history is relatively high though. For players like Steven Jackson, Arian Foster and Roddy White who are aging and spent a lot of last year injured, I will avoid them unless they really fall. Players who have missed several chunks of the last two seasons such as Percy Harvin are almost no go zones. There is no set rule about this though as a player like Rob Gronkowski is worth a bit of risk, despite having a more checkered injury history than Harvin. Adam makes a lot of good points, especially for a player he really likes in Harvin, but I arrive at a different conclusion. Another example of playing both sides of this argument is that I think Darren McFadden for the first time in years is good value, despite his awful injury history. I think ultimately when you do rankings, projections or just overall player analysis you factor in injury risk and have an assigned value for each player. Some people may spend a lot of time determining injury proneness, others none at all. I'm probably somewhere in the middle.
Mark Wimer: It is important to distinguish between types of injuries when you assess a player's injury-proneness. First, there are single-instance injuries like broken fibulas or forearms—as long as these types of injuries have been allowed to heal properly, the bone is often sturdier than before, so in a case like Aaron Rodgers, I ignore the injury (broken collarbone) that sidelined him last year, and it has no bearing on my assessment.
In cases of chronic injuries, I am more concerned and often expect some missed time from the player in question, depending on the length of his injury history. The prime example here this year is Cleveland's Miles Austin, who has habitual problems with his hamstrings. The guy simply can't seem to find the correct training regimen and treatment for his chronic hamstring issues, and they dogged him throughout his final years in Dallas. I don't expect him to play a full 16 game season, and that impact his projections and my assessment of his upside potential beyond my projections. Let's just say I won't be anxious to add Austin to my fantasy teams this year.
Concussion history is something to take very seriously as the league has a very elevated sensitivity to this issue due to external and ongoing legal proceedings. I cringed when I hear Jordan Reed admit to hiding his initial concussion during 2013, and then suffering a much worse second brain trauma which ended his season. Once a player has been concussed, that guy is more susceptible to future incidents, and the league's regimen around clearing concussed players has become extensive. I think multiple-week absences from the field are going to be more and more common when a player suffers a concussion, so I look closely at this risk factor when I develop my projections. Thus, Reed is far lower on my tight end board this year than most other Footballguys. Jermichael Finley is another guy with an extensive concussion history that isn't going to be on my fantasy teams this year no matter where he ultimately lands.
Knee reconstructions are increasingly successful and the rehab from the surgeries aren't as prolonged as previously, but there are still wide variances between guys who successfully return quickly from their catastrophic knee injury (Adrian Peterson) in the first 9-12 months after their injury and guys who struggle to make it work (Robert Griffin III III during 2013). Let me put it this way—I don't necessarily expect an ACL injury to cause problems for a player the following season, but my assessment will depend on how far in the past the current ACL (etc.) injury is, and also how quickly the player in question has rehabilitated previous serious injuries.
Finally, there are severe injuries that could permanently paralyze or even kill the player in question if he is re-injured in the affected area. David Wilson's neck disk fusion isn't fully healed and he also has spinal stenosis in play in his diagnosis—I plan to steer clear of Wilson this year because I worry he'll be rushed back to the field before his neck is fully stable. And even if he isn't rushed, he may not be able to play at his full 100% because of fear over his neck injury or re-injuring his neck.
Browns running backs
The Browns depth chart at RB is entirely different from what it looked like a year ago. Ben Tate will enter training camp as the presumed starter, but how safe is his starting job? Is Terrance West a legitimate threat to challenge for the starting job? And where does Isaiah Crowell fit in?
Chad Parsons: I plainly do not trust Ben Tate to hold the job for all that long. His straight ahead style and lack of passing game prowess tempers his fantasy ceiling quite a bit in my eyes. Unfortunately, Terrance West is not one of my favorite rookie backs coming out this year. Crowell is the quintessential flyer to stash as the most talented pure runner of this depth chart, but his off-the-field concerns pushed him from a top-100 pick on talent alone to undrafted. From a value perspective, stashing Crowell in deeper leagues (or monitoring in short-roster redraft leagues) is more appealing than paying the rising price of Terrance West as the Ben Tate hedge.
Matt Waldman: I think Tate is a better back than West. If Crowell plays like he's capable, he can be better than both. The issues for Crowell is his willingness to play with minor injuries and is he smart or wise enough to approach his career on and off the field like a professional? These are very realistic questions.
West is a back with the physical skills to play in the NFL, but he's not a superstar athlete at his level and his decision-making needs a lot of work. He's not as natural of an interior runner as I'd like to see. If he can become more decisive, he could become a Rudi Johnson-like player. However, Johnson was a much more developed runner conceptually as a young player than West. Tate is a decent value at 20 because he's good enough to be a top-12 RB. West's value is "meh" to me if Crowell makes it through camp and earns praise for his work ethic and performances. If Crowell falters then I'm looking at Dion Lewis, who I think is also more talented than West, but we'll see if the new regime trusts him. Remember the old regime acquired Lewis and the former Pitt RB looked very good last preseason before breaking his leg. The new regime might not even care to give Lewis a chance due to size, style, and distrust of injury.
Jeff Pasquino: The Browns are going to be a mess this year, sorry to say it. They were starting to turn things around with Brian Hoyer, Josh Gordon and Jordan Cameron, but now they have Gordon likely to be suspended for at least half the season and possibly more, plus they are now going to be deep into a quarterback controversy with Johnny Manziel. The coaches are all saying the same thing about running the ball a ton this year, but that game plan goes out the window if you can't score and are down 14-0 at halftime. For now, I will give it to the Browns that they want to probably lead the league in rushing attempts, and they have a good defense to keep them in it, but I don't see how any defensive coordinator doesn't stack the box with eight or even nine defenders and shuts down the run game. Ben Tate will be the lead back, and I like him, but he has yet to show that he can carry a big workload. I think both West and Crowell see work (until one emerges as a bigger threat). If Cleveland had their way, they would probably run Tate 15 times a game, West 10 and Crowell 10 with Manziel having a few of his own each contest. I see that ratio being the way they start the year, but getting 40 carries is going to be tough when they are losing in the second half. As far as a tailback to roll the dice on, I would avoid Cleveland backs altogether but consider Crowell or West as later round fliers. Tate offers little upside and a lot of downside.
Stephen Holloway: Ben Tate has been a decent running back for the Texans the past few years, but failed to repeat the success he had in his rookie season when he averaged 5.4 ypc on 175 carries. He had 24 and 23 carries in the first two games of his rookie season and went over 100 yards rushing in both games. He had two more 100-yard games later that same year. In the two years since, he has had only two more games with greater than 20 carries and only one over 100-yard rushing game. Over those two seasons, he has averaged 4.3 ypc with only 246 carries over 25 games. He has missed games in every season. I agree with Chad that I just don't trust him to be a bell-cow with sustained success. In addition, like Jeff said he finds himself in the middle of an offensive mess for 2014. The team's best wide receiver will likely miss the season so their wide receiver roster is loaded with journeymen transplants and they seem likely to either be starting a rookie at quarterback or switching to him after a discouraging start. The Browns added not one, but two rookie running backs in the draft, further clouding Tate's status and potential bell-cow status.
Andy Hicks: I'm leaning towards Jeff's thinking here. I just can't see anyway the Browns put out a cohesive unit this year. The owner is impatient and on his third coach in three years, the new coach is a rookie and Kyle Shanahan is on his own away from his well-credentialed father. Add in the Josh Gordon fiasco, the Johnny Manziel circus and question marks about the running backs and this is a meltdown waiting to happen. Ben Tate comes in as the penciled in starter, but if either of the rookies looks like they can out produce him Tate isn't a big enough name to worry about. Maybe Mike Pettine and Kyle Shanahan have the magic touch and get something going here before the season is over. I think the likelihood of Tate lasting the whole season as the lead back is slim. Whether West or Crowell are good enough remains to be seen. They are good value in drafts though and worth a chance. I would monitor training camp reports though as the likelihood of one or both of them being totally lost is real and Tate can be re-examined accordingly.
Mark Wimer: I think that Tate has the top job to lose, but with his history of being banged up and not playing through nagging injuries, there may well be some chances for West and Crowell to show what they can do at the NFL level during regular season. If West or Crowell impress while Tate is on the sidelines, I would anticipate the player who does so to claim a share of the touches in Cleveland. Basically, I see the situation in Cleveland as semi-settled, but still fluid. Tate is going to have to prove his dominance and stay on the field to hold off West and Crowell.
Let me put it this way—in the dynasty league where I won Tate as my number three fantasy running back during the auction, I also drafted Crowell to back him up during the rookie draft.
Tom Brady
Tom Brady had a down year in 2013, finishing outside the top 12 fantasy quarterbacks. Do you see him bouncing back this season, or are his days as a top-five fantasy quarterback behind him?
Matt Waldman: I think Brady's demise is a bit overstated. His healthy receivers were so young and unrefined that it would have derailed any quarterback's timing, rapport, and trust. Seriously, how does a quarterback not second-guess his receivers and hesitate even for a split-second after numerous mistakes and no one stepping up? Also, if you look at the Patriots' offensive line performance, I don't think there was another team in the NFL that allowed more QB hits and pressures than New England. They also allowed pressure to arrive faster than most teams last year.
Brady's down year wasn't because his skills declined due to age. If his line and receivers play better, he's still capable of elite production. While I think it will be tough for Brady to earn that top-five production if the trend of Gronkowski, Vereen, and Amendola getting hurt continues, the skill is still there for him to reach that level if his surrounding talent plays like it has in the past.
Adam Harstad: Tom Brady's 2011-2012 seasons were the fourth highest scoring two-year stretch in fantasy history. Only Drew Brees, Nick Foles, and Peyton Manning scored more fantasy points over their final eight games of 2013. I'm thinking rumors of his fantasy demise are still premature.
Chad Parsons: Tom Brady as a fantasy performer has been night-and-day depending on the status of one Rob Gronkowski. According to Rotoviz.com, in the past four years Brady and Gronkowski have played 50 games together compared to 14 games with Gronkowski on the sidelines. Brady's seasonal pace with his stud tight end? Nearly 4,700 yards, 36 touchdowns, and seven interceptions. Without Gronkowski, Brady has a pedestrian like of 4,200 yards, 27 touchdowns, and 13 interceptions. Overall, Tom Brady has scored over four fantasy points per game with Rob Gronkowski. Aaron Dobson progressing (and staying healthy) in year two would be great. So would a healthy Danny Amendola and Julian Edelman. Add Shane Vereen to that list. But Rob Gronkowski is the centerpiece that will determine Brady's weekly viability back as a top-5 option in 2014.
Stephen Holloway: Brady will be a great draft pick this year. I concur with Adam and Matt that Brady's lack of production a year ago was not due to his declining skills or age. If anything, his strong competitive edge will drive him and the Patriots to improvements in 2014. The number of missed games should greatly decrease and last year's three wide receivers should all be more acclimated to the system and their roles. Brady screams value for the coming season.
Jeff Pasquino: New England is not about fantasy stats at all—they just want to win enough games to win the AFC East, try and get the first or second seed and take their shot at another playoff run. Brady has had his stat-heavy season with Randy Moss and they went 16-0, but what did it get them? They fell short of the championship. So now Brady puts the team first and distributes the ball, run or pass, to keep the team ahead on the scoreboard and not worry about the numbers. He doesn't care about goal line dives for a score or short touchdown passes, just wins. I see him as the modern version of Troy Aikman—a winning quarterback but not a fantasy stud. He's competent and will keep your team from having too bad of a fantasy score but odds are he won't win your fantasy league for you.
Andy Hicks: I again side with Jeff here. I don't think there is much chance of Brady returning to the top five. He just doesn't have the weapons. Randy Moss, Aaron Hernandez and Wes Welker are gone. The only genuine threat in Rob Gronkowski is going to be a constant health concern and the younger receivers haven't shown they can be big time threats just yet. New England have played up the running game more and I really believe that if the Patriots wanted to get Brady into a top five fantasy QB they could, but that just isn't going to help[ them win a Super Bowl. There will be moments where Brady will have to turn it on, but for the most part at age 37 those days are gone.
Mark Wimer: Possibly no Rob Gronkowski to start the season (again), definitely stuck with Julian Edelman and Danny Amendola as his number one and number two wide receivers, with the 'great' Brandon LaFell (coming over from Carolina) as one of the depth players behind Amendola. The talent pool behind Gronkowski and the top two receivers is very shallow, leaving this team with few options in the event of another round of injuries on the supporting staff. As I stated last year, even Tom Brady can't overcome the low level of his supporting cast (and he's reaching the twilight of his career—Brady will be 37 in August). I think his days as an elite quarterback are behind him.
That will do it for this edition of the Footballguys Preseason Roundtable. Please join us again next week.