NFC South: ATL | CAR |
NO | TB NFC
West: ARI | STL | SF
| SEA
As is the case with most journeys, there must be a final destination.
In delivering the final of four PSAs this week, we are coming to
the end of schedule analysis road that culminates with the first
of several “Big Boards” that will hopefully serve as
your draft day guide. Later this week, I will release the most updated
projections I have for each player as many fantasy stocks have changed
significantly over the last month since we began our PSA journey
with the AFC East and North.
Before we get to that point, however, we must tackle the last
two divisions that remain a mystery: the NFC South and NFC West.
Now before we get to the breakdowns, it is worth another mention
just what playing against the AFC or NFC West has meant historically
for the RB position. Since 2000, an
AFC or NFC West RB has finished in top five of fantasy RBs a staggering
22 times! Taken one step further, 39 of the 50 top-five
RB spots since 2000 have gone to backs whose teams went up against
the AFC and/or the NFC West that season. Even more impressive,
the top-scoring RB in fantasy football each season played at least
four games against the AFC and/or NFC West.
As I have in each of the first three PSAs, allow me to clear
up a couple of misconceptions about my schedule analysis approach
right away:
- this is not a strength of schedule article that
uses 2009 results to predict 2010 and
- the schedule contributes to the projection of a player in
this system, but it is far from the only determining factor
I use.
Bear in mind that while the final numbers are important, they
are 15-game totals because most fantasy seasons have a Week 16
title game. For those unfamiliar with the way I project player
stats and individual week-to-week consistency (or for those who
need a refresher), please give this article a read for an introductory
course in Preseason Schedule Analysis.
Much like any system that projects future performance, each year
gives me the opportunity to tweak and hopefully improve the product.
After making the ability to personalize each matchup my focus
last season, I hope to add volatility to the mix in 2010. By "volatility",
I mean: 1) accessing whether my projection represents the ceiling
or floor for a given player to operate in this season and 2) understanding
that at least one-third of the teams will make a QB change at
some point and about the same percentage of NFL starting RBs will
not make it through the 16-game schedule (only 19 RBs with more
than 100 carries played all 16 games last season). As such, I
will judiciously add injury layoffs to players who I feel are
significant injury risks. I also feel it necessary to state that
my projections are subject to change. Fear not, however, as I
will release my final projections and rankings in late August.
However, the next few weeks should give all interested parties
a pretty good idea of just how strongly I feel about a player's
prospects for the upcoming season.
Perhaps more important than the final numbers for each player,
though, are the highlighted matchups. Note that I have applied
the green highlights (good matchups) to the players who I feel
should take advantage of that matchup and the red highlights (bad
matchups) to the ones that will be difficult - but not impossible
- for that player. Only a handful of defenses merit bad matchups
all over the board (the Steelers, Packers, Jets and Bengals all
qualify for the most part this year), however, just because a
player’s box is "red" one week doesn't mean the
player won't put up his usual numbers just as a "green"
doesn't necessarily mean he will. Furthermore, one WR can have
a "red" matchup but the rest of his team could be neutral
or green. For instance, when the Jets put CB Darrelle Revis on
the opponent's #1 WR, it will qualify as a bad matchup only for
the #1 WR, not necessarily for the rest of the passing game. Therefore,
a QB, WR or TE will only be considered positive/negative if I
don't think he can win his individual matchup.
Before we dive into the projections, let me revisit the volatility
I spoke of earlier. In the blue vertical column to the right of
my projection, I will place a sign (explained below) as to how
much upside or downside a player has this season. Here is the
key I will be using over the next four weeks, with no sign by
a player’s name suggesting I feel I am projecting the player
accurately:
(^) - Projection represents
the player’s floor; he has significant upside.
(+) - Projection may be selling
the player short; he has some upside.
(-) - Projection may be overselling
the player; he is a slight risk.
(!) – Projection represents
the player’s ceiling; he is a significant risk.
Note: The grey
highlight in each team’s schedule reflects a road game.
NFC SOUTH
Atlanta Falcons |
|
Totals |
|
PIT |
ARI |
NO |
SF |
CLE |
PHI |
CIN |
bye |
TB |
BAL |
STL |
GB |
TB |
CAR |
SEA |
NO |
(Run) |
|
|
9.3 |
8.5 |
7.4 |
8.9 |
7.4 |
8 |
8.8 |
|
6.2 |
9.4 |
6.2 |
9.4 |
6.2 |
5.8 |
7.5 |
7.4 |
(Pass) |
|
|
8.5 |
7.4 |
7.8 |
7.9 |
6.7 |
8.2 |
9.1 |
|
6.4 |
7.2 |
6.4 |
8.3 |
6.4 |
7.1 |
8 |
7.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Ryan |
3875 |
|
250 |
305 |
270 |
230 |
280 |
250 |
200 |
|
300 |
285 |
220 |
235 |
310 |
235 |
240 |
265 |
TD |
23 |
|
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
INT |
14 |
|
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Turner |
1395 |
|
50 |
70 |
85 |
65 |
120 |
90 |
75 |
|
125 |
60 |
140 |
80 |
115 |
140 |
80 |
100 |
Ru TD |
14 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
Re Yards |
65 |
|
5 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
|
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
9 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Snelling |
285 |
|
15 |
20 |
30 |
25 |
15 |
25 |
30 |
|
20 |
10 |
10 |
30 |
20 |
10 |
10 |
15 |
Ru TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re Yards |
190 |
|
15 |
30 |
10 |
25 |
15 |
0 |
25 |
|
10 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
22 |
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jerious Norwood |
180 |
|
10 |
0 |
10 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
15 |
20 |
25 |
10 |
35 |
10 |
30 |
15 |
Ru TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re Yards |
155 |
|
10 |
10 |
30 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
20 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
15 |
30 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
15 |
|
1 |
1 |
3 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roddy White |
1340 |
|
90 |
105 |
75 |
85 |
115 |
90 |
40 |
|
125 |
120 |
75 |
50 |
115 |
85 |
70 |
100 |
Re TD |
10 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
84 |
|
6 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
|
8 |
7 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Jenkins |
495 |
|
20 |
50 |
40 |
15 |
20 |
35 |
20 |
|
40 |
45 |
35 |
60 |
30 |
40 |
30 |
15 |
Re TD |
3 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
39 |
|
2 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harry Douglas |
570 |
|
45 |
30 |
45 |
25 |
50 |
15 |
45 |
|
30 |
40 |
45 |
50 |
35 |
20 |
55 |
40 |
Re TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
45 |
|
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
Brian Finneran/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry Meier? |
130 |
|
10 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
20 |
0 |
20 |
|
0 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
13 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Gonzalez |
930 |
|
55 |
65 |
70 |
55 |
60 |
100 |
50 |
|
75 |
50 |
65 |
45 |
75 |
60 |
55 |
50 |
Re TD |
8 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
82 |
|
5 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
|
6 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
|
Run: It seems all too often during
this four-week process, I have suggested players to avoid (or
trade) over the back half of the season after strong starts rather
than ones who may finish strong after starting a bit slow. So
it is only fair that since I drove the anti-Michael Turner bandwagon
last season, I’m ready to lead the crowd in the opposite
direction in 2010. While I’m typically not crazy about recommending
RBs opposing the AFC North, the fact the Falcons have 10 games
against NFC South and West defenses – five of which I have
marked as green matchups – makes the pro-Turner bus more
palatable. With that said, Turner cannot be expected to enjoy
a great deal of success over the first quarter of the season when
he must face the very capable 3-4 run defenses of the Steelers
and Cardinals. With any luck, the Saints will allow Turner to
have a RB1-caliber day, but the Niners in Week 4 should be yet
another challenging defense that Atlanta will struggle against.
Turner should, however, experience a field day in Week 5 against
Cleveland’s overmatched 3-4 defense, but he may once again
struggle to get it going against a pair of quick and aggressive
run-stopping defenses like Philadelphia and Cincinnati in Weeks
6-7.
Just as we’ll see in the passing game analysis below, Atlanta
should enjoy a great deal of success on the ground over the second
half of the season, starting in Week 9 at home vs. Tampa Bay.
Baltimore (Week 10) and Green Bay (Week 12) will offer the most
resistance of any of the Falcons’ remaining opponents and
may force Turner to post fantasy RB2 numbers in those weeks, but
it would not be the least bit surprising if “The Burner”
posted at least 100 yards AND a score in every other second-half
game. Seattle and New Orleans (Weeks 15-16) should be the toughest
opponents of these “softer” matchups, but a rededicated
Turner in an offense that makes him the focus each week should
allow him to be one of the best finishers in fantasy this season.
Pass: Fantasy owners who like to
wait until the middle rounds to draft a QB may have their player
to target this season – Ryan. It’s no big surprise
that a QB with two weapons like White and Gonzalez would be sought
after, but what is in store after the bye for the Falcons’
offense has to be thrilling Atlanta fans as well as any fantasy
owner of the three man cogs of this passing game. The season gets
off to an inauspicious start with a road game in Pittsburgh before
the team heads home to play Arizona. Both teams play a 3-4 defense
that thrives on pressuring the QB and should be among the best
run-stopping teams, so Ryan will need to sharp to be useful in
fantasy. Week 3 sees Atlanta travel to another difficult venue
–New Orleans – against a Saints defense that will
blitz all day and focuses on turning their opponent over. The
Falcons oppose yet another stingy 3-4 defense one week later at
home vs. San Francisco before getting their best matchup of the
season in Week 5 at Cleveland against a much tamer 3-4 defense.
The last two games leading into the bye may halt any momentum
created against the Browns as the aggressive Eagles and Bengals’
defenses figure to give Atlanta’s offense all it can handle.
As difficult as the Falcons have it prior to their Week 8 bye,
the green matchups just fly off the board in the second half of
the season. In fact, from Week 9-14, I have Ryan facing four greens
and one neutral matchup with just one red (Green Bay, Week 12).
In Tampa Bay (twice), Baltimore, St. Louis and Carolina, Atlanta
faces a total of five flawed pass defenses that either will fail
to generate much pressure or do not have the talent necessary
to compete with the likes of White and Gonzalez. A road game in
Seattle (Week 15) may also qualify as a green matchup if I have
overestimated the ability of CB Marcus Trufant to bounce back
or the impact rookie S Earl Thomas will have. The Falcons’
fantasy slate comes to an end at home in what should be a huge
rematch against the Saints, a difficult opponent but not one that
will shut the likes of Ryan, White or Gonzalez down.
Carolina Panthers |
|
Totals |
|
NYG |
TB |
CIN |
NO |
CHI |
bye |
SF |
STL |
NO |
TB |
BAL |
CLE |
SEA |
ATL |
ARI |
PIT |
(Run) |
|
|
8.3 |
6.2 |
8.8 |
7.4 |
8.3 |
|
8.9 |
6.2 |
7.4 |
6.2 |
9.4 |
7.4 |
7.5 |
6.6 |
8.5 |
9.3 |
(Pass) |
|
|
8.9 |
6.4 |
9.1 |
7.8 |
8.3 |
|
7.9 |
6.4 |
7.8 |
6.4 |
7.2 |
6.7 |
8 |
7.7 |
7.4 |
8.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Moore |
3405 |
|
200 |
165 |
265 |
270 |
210 |
|
215 |
225 |
245 |
280 |
240 |
215 |
205 |
210 |
275 |
185 |
TD |
19 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
INT |
13 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeAngelo Williams |
1280 |
|
75 |
150 |
65 |
110 |
45 |
|
75 |
125 |
60 |
115 |
45 |
120 |
60 |
130 |
55 |
50 |
Ru TD |
9 |
|
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Re Yards |
305 |
|
25 |
10 |
35 |
15 |
20 |
|
30 |
0 |
15 |
20 |
20 |
0 |
35 |
10 |
55 |
15 |
Re TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
28 |
|
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Stewart |
990 |
|
45 |
100 |
70 |
55 |
110 |
|
30 |
80 |
85 |
70 |
45 |
60 |
75 |
80 |
50 |
35 |
Ru TD |
12 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
Re Yards |
170 |
|
10 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
0 |
|
15 |
5 |
15 |
35 |
10 |
20 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
10 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
21 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Smith |
1270 |
|
80 |
50 |
75 |
65 |
100 |
|
80 |
125 |
75 |
80 |
130 |
100 |
55 |
70 |
115 |
70 |
Re TD |
9 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
82 |
|
6 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
8 |
|
5 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
9 |
7 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brandon LaFell |
685 |
|
40 |
50 |
70 |
45 |
35 |
|
40 |
55 |
35 |
60 |
INJ |
45 |
40 |
50 |
75 |
45 |
Re TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
49 |
|
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
|
3 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
INJ |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Armanti Edwards |
365 |
|
10 |
10 |
25 |
50 |
30 |
|
25 |
0 |
40 |
20 |
25 |
0 |
60 |
25 |
25 |
20 |
Re TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
27 |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
2 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dwayne Jarrett |
240 |
|
10 |
0 |
15 |
25 |
0 |
|
25 |
15 |
35 |
30 |
40 |
10 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
15 |
Re TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
19 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dante
Rosario |
370 |
|
25 |
35 |
30 |
60 |
25 |
|
0 |
25 |
30 |
35 |
15 |
40 |
15 |
25 |
0 |
10 |
Re TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
29 |
|
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
|
0 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
Run: How quickly do opinions change
in fantasy football? Last year at this time, Williams was a popular
top-10 fantasy pick as a player who had distanced himself from
an injury-plagued Stewart with a 20-TD campaign in 2008. While
Williams was far from disappointing in 2009, he didn’t quite
live up to his draft status for a number of reasons, one of which
was an ankle injury in Week 15 that opened the door for Stewart
to have a run at the feature back role. Two-plus games, 440 rushing
yards and four combined TDs later and more than a few fantasy
owners believe Stewart should be the man and Williams should be
the complement in the Carolina backfield. Nevertheless, if you
believe in analyzing the schedule as I do, you will want the Panthers’
backfield right up until the time when you need them the most
– fantasy championship week. But first things first: Carolina
opens the season with a five-game stretch that would tax average
running games, but the Panthers could very easily pound the Giants,
Bucs, Saints and Bears into the ground with its proficient attack.
(In fact, Carolina did run roughshod over the first three aforementioned
teams last season.) Only Cincinnati in Week 3 has enough talent
and depth on all three levels of the defense to successfully bottle
up Stewart and Williams during the five-game run mentioned earlier
to start the season.
Williams and Stewart’s owners should enjoy the ride after
the Week 6 bye with two exceptions – Week 7 vs. the Niners
and Week 11 vs. Baltimore – although both games will be
at home against very good run-stopping units. Otherwise, “Double
Trouble” (as the duo likes to call themselves) should build
up a lot of goodwill in fantasy as they face off against the likes
of St. Louis (Week 8), New Orleans (Week 9), Tampa Bay (Week 10),
Cleveland (Week 12) and even Seattle (Week 13). Granted, the Saints
stand out as a team that may not be a “easy” matchup,
but all that really needs to happen is an injury up front (to
someone like DT Sedrick Ellis, just like last season) or a quick
start by Carolina’s rushing attack in that game to make
the Saints play catch-up – and not the other way around.
One more enticing matchup remains after that long run of average-to-below
average run defenses – Week 14 at home vs. Atlanta. Arizona
(Week 15) should be up to the challenge of containing Williams
and Stewart somewhat with its strong defensive line and the run
support of players like S Adrian Wilson, but like some other teams
on the Panthers’ schedule, I hesitate labeling that as a
“red” matchup because the Panthers’ rushing
attack is that good. However, this “era of good feeling”
will have run its course more than likely by Week 16, when they
must play in Pittsburgh. What do I mean? As a point of reference,
the most rushing yards allowed by the Steelers over the past two
seasons when S Troy Polamalu has played is 122.
Pass: It’s a very good thing
for the Panthers they are a running team, because there is too
much red on Moore’s chart for my liking. If Moore showed
us anything over Carolina’s 4-1 finish last season, though,
it is that he can take care of the ball – a must for a John
Fox-coached team. Luckily, very few defenses on the schedule have
a CB matching up with a healthy Smith, so Moore should be able
to avoid the ugly performances that forced Delhomme out of the
starting job last season. Moore gets two of the four teams he
faced over the final five contests of 2009 right off the bat,
although the Giants will be healthy on defense this time and will
be a huge challenge for the Panthers up front. Assuming the Bucs’
young defensive linemen (Gerald McCoy, Brian Price) are still
playing like rookies in Week 2, the matchup is a solid one for
Moore and Smith although when given the choice, Carolina would
much rather run than pass. The next three weeks leading up to
the bye (vs. Cincinnati, at New Orleans, vs. Chicago), the Panthers
passing attack will need to be as efficient as the running game
as all three defenses should be in the top half of the league
in creating sacks and/or turnovers in the passing game. And in
the case of the Bengals and Saints, both defenses have sound CB
and S play and can generate pressure on the QB. So, if Moore is
going to crack at any point this season, Weeks 3-5 would be a
likely spot for him to do so.
Carolina gets another bad matchup right out of the Week 6 bye
in the Niners before entering the softest part of its passing
schedule. Four of the five opponents over that time (St. Louis,
Tampa Bay, Baltimore, and Cleveland) have significant shortcomings
in defending the pass. However, the caveat to this run of poor
pass defenses is that three of the four “easy” games
are on the road. The one difficult matchup during the five-game
stretch (Weeks 8-12) is a home date vs. New Orleans, which will
be the second time the teams have faced each other. The final
quarter of the fantasy slate rates about average (Seattle, Arizona
and Atlanta should be about middle of the pack in terms of stopping
the pass) until Week 16, when the Panthers must travel to Heinz
Field to meet the Steelers. Because this will be one of the few
times where the running game may not be overly productive, it
will be very important for Moore and Smith to be healthy and productive.
Regardless, a matchup against Pittsburgh on the road during the
fantasy title game is one that should be avoided if at all possible.
New Orleans Saints |
|
Totals |
|
MIN |
SF |
ATL |
CAR |
ARI |
TB |
CLE |
PIT |
CAR |
bye |
SEA |
DAL |
CIN |
STL |
BAL |
ATL |
(Run) |
|
|
9.4 |
8.9 |
6.6 |
5.8 |
8.5 |
6.2 |
7.4 |
9.3 |
5.8 |
|
7.5 |
8.8 |
8.8 |
6.2 |
9.4 |
6.6 |
(Pass) |
|
|
8.2 |
7.9 |
7.7 |
7.1 |
7.4 |
6.4 |
6.7 |
8.5 |
7.1 |
|
8 |
7.8 |
9.1 |
6.4 |
7.2 |
7.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drew Brees |
4170 |
|
260 |
265 |
335 |
195 |
340 |
330 |
310 |
230 |
240 |
|
245 |
255 |
260 |
255 |
365 |
285 |
TD |
34 |
|
2 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
INT |
10 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pierre Thomas |
910 |
|
60 |
75 |
80 |
110 |
45 |
INJ |
INJ |
50 |
65 |
|
100 |
70 |
60 |
90 |
40 |
65 |
Ru TD |
7 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Re Yards |
250 |
|
25 |
15 |
25 |
10 |
30 |
INJ |
INJ |
20 |
20 |
|
40 |
15 |
10 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
Re TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
30 |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
INJ |
INJ |
3 |
3 |
|
4 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reggie Bush |
485 |
|
25 |
15 |
35 |
60 |
25 |
40 |
50 |
15 |
80 |
|
INJ |
INJ |
25 |
65 |
10 |
40 |
Ru TD |
4 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Re Yards |
445 |
|
35 |
45 |
25 |
20 |
50 |
25 |
70 |
10 |
15 |
|
INJ |
INJ |
45 |
20 |
65 |
20 |
Re TD |
4 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
46 |
|
3 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
3 |
|
INJ |
INJ |
5 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marques Colston |
1150 |
|
70 |
80 |
90 |
35 |
120 |
70 |
125 |
65 |
50 |
|
40 |
100 |
85 |
35 |
130 |
55 |
Re TD |
11 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
Rec |
78 |
|
5 |
5 |
7 |
2 |
7 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
|
3 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
8 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Meachem |
785 |
! |
30 |
40 |
45 |
50 |
55 |
85 |
40 |
45 |
65 |
|
70 |
45 |
30 |
60 |
75 |
50 |
Re TD |
6 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
49 |
|
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
6 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devery Henderson |
485 |
|
35 |
20 |
60 |
15 |
20 |
45 |
0 |
35 |
45 |
|
50 |
20 |
0 |
40 |
30 |
70 |
Re TD |
3 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
27 |
|
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
|
3 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lance Moore |
610 |
|
35 |
40 |
45 |
40 |
25 |
55 |
40 |
35 |
15 |
|
45 |
55 |
65 |
55 |
20 |
40 |
Re TD |
4 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
52 |
|
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
|
4 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Shockey |
445 |
|
30 |
25 |
45 |
25 |
40 |
50 |
35 |
20 |
30 |
|
INJ |
20 |
25 |
35 |
25 |
40 |
Re TD |
4 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
41 |
|
3 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
INJ |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
|
Run: As I conclude my third year
of analyzing the schedule, I must admit I cannot recall ever seeing
a running schedule like the one the Saints will face in 2010.
The absence of the “middle class” of NFL defenses
from this schedule means that New Orleans’ rushing attack
may be even more Jekyll-and-Hyde than it usually is. For example,
two of the top six run-stopping teams – according to my
defensive effectiveness
ratings – will meet the Saints in the first two weeks
of the season. So while HC Sean Payton showed more dedication
to the run game than ever last season, he’s also not the
type of play-caller who wants to grind it out all day when he
has Brees and a plethora of receivers he can call on every week.
Weeks 3-4 transition nicely into two of the projected seven worst
rush defenses (Atlanta, Carolina – both at the Superdome).
Arizona (Week 5) will be much the same kind of test the Saints
will encounter against San Francisco (tough-minded, aggressive
3-4 defense), but then New Orleans gets yet another two-week gift
against the bottom-half run-stopping defenses of Tampa Bay and
Cleveland. Once again, the difficulty level increases several
times over when the Saints host the Steelers in Week 8, then goes
all the way back down to the worst projected run defense in the
league the following week at Carolina.
The one neutral matchup Thomas and Bush face all season is following
the Saints’ Week 10 bye at home vs. Seattle – a matchup
that could easily be a green matchup given the Seahawks’
history of playing poorly on the road. Of course, three of the
next four contests are against top-eight projected run-stopping
defenses (Dallas – Week 12, Cincinnati – Week 13,
Baltimore – Week 15), with the added caveat of each of those
games taking place on the road. However, because Thomas and Bush
contribute so much to the passing game, they will not be a total
loss – if healthy – during those weeks and should
be quite helpful in Weeks 14 and 16 when the Saints wrap up the
fantasy slate with two more games against two of the seven worst
rush defenses (Rams and Falcons).
Pass: The Saints have pretty much
become the NFC’s version of the Colts in that very few defenses
represent a red matchup for the passing game; in this case, Brees
and his receiving corps. In fact, it’s almost criminal that
New Orleans faces only two teams in 2010 that have enough of a
blend of talent, scheme and coaching to even warrant consideration
for a poor matchup. On the other hand, owners looking for an excuse
to spend a first or early-second round pick on Brees in fantasy
drafts certainly have one with a mind-boggling seven green matchups!
Minnesota and San Francisco are more than respectable pass defenses
and should be able to make Brees work hard for what he gets in
Weeks 1 and 2, but the Saints’ passing game could easily
go on a five-game fantasy spree against the likes of Atlanta,
Carolina, Arizona, Tampa Bay and Cleveland – all of which
I have projected as bottom-half pass defenses, including four
ranked in the bottom 10. Each team has one or two parts of the
equation necessary to slow the Saints’ passing attack down,
but only Carolina seems to be a legitimate concern (and that is
only because the Panthers’ run defense projects to be so
poor that New Orleans may run the ball in its two contests against
its division rival in Weeks 4 and 9). A telling game for the Saints’
offense may come in Week 8 vs. the Steelers, who should be the
best chess match of offense vs. defense on New Orleans’
schedule this season.
Following the bye, Brees faces a neutral matchup in Week 11 vs.
the Seahawks – one he could easily dominate – before
revisiting a 2009 classic rematch against the Cowboys, the team
that ruined the Saints’ 13-0 start to the season. Outside
of perhaps Pittsburgh, the most difficult matchup for New Orleans
could very well be a road game in Cincinnati – a team that
has enough talent and depth at CB to frustrate Brees – in
Week 13. After that, the schedule makers did Brees, Colston and
all of their fantasy owners a huge favor just in time for the
fantasy playoffs. In St. Louis and Baltimore (Weeks 14 and 15),
the Saints draw a Rams’ defense – that can neither
rush the passer nor guard New Orleans’ wideouts –
and a Ravens’ secondary that has lost their top three CBs
over the past year to ACL injuries. Granted, two of them are likely
to start the season (Fabian Washington and Lardarius Webb), but
their best one is already out for the year (Domonque Foxworth).
Finally, Week 16 offers up the Falcons, whose best hope of keeping
the Saints from exploding is to play keep-away with Michael Turner
when they have the ball on offense.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
|
Totals |
|
CLE |
CAR |
PIT |
bye |
CIN |
NO |
STL |
ARI |
ATL |
CAR |
SF |
BAL |
ATL |
WAS |
DET |
SEA |
(Run) |
|
|
7.4 |
5.8 |
9.3 |
|
8.8 |
7.4 |
6.2 |
8.5 |
6.6 |
5.8 |
8.9 |
9.4 |
6.6 |
8.2 |
6.4 |
7.5 |
(Pass) |
|
|
6.7 |
7.1 |
8.5 |
|
9.1 |
7.8 |
6.4 |
7.4 |
7.7 |
7.1 |
7.9 |
7.2 |
7.7 |
7.4 |
5.8 |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Josh Freeman |
3585 |
+ |
280 |
245 |
190 |
|
190 |
255 |
250 |
250 |
285 |
175 |
205 |
255 |
265 |
205 |
270 |
265 |
TD |
18 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
INT |
18 |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
3 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
Ru Yards |
230 |
|
20 |
15 |
15 |
|
15 |
25 |
5 |
20 |
15 |
35 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
0 |
Ru TD |
3 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cadillac Williams |
945 |
|
100 |
90 |
40 |
|
60 |
80 |
105 |
30 |
50 |
110 |
40 |
40 |
INJ |
70 |
90 |
40 |
Ru TD |
6 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Re Yards |
255 |
|
15 |
25 |
0 |
|
20 |
40 |
0 |
25 |
35 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
INJ |
25 |
15 |
15 |
Re TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
32 |
|
2 |
3 |
0 |
|
4 |
5 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
INJ |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Derrick Ward/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kareem Huggins |
615 |
|
35 |
45 |
35 |
|
45 |
45 |
15 |
55 |
70 |
25 |
40 |
15 |
80 |
30 |
25 |
55 |
Ru TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re Yards |
175 |
|
10 |
5 |
10 |
|
15 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
15 |
15 |
5 |
15 |
30 |
0 |
5 |
25 |
Re TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
26 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arrelious Benn |
710 |
+ |
25 |
30 |
55 |
|
40 |
25 |
55 |
45 |
65 |
10 |
40 |
80 |
75 |
60 |
45 |
60 |
Re TD |
5 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
49 |
|
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Williams |
855 |
!/^ |
80 |
55 |
45 |
|
35 |
80 |
85 |
40 |
45 |
25 |
35 |
100 |
40 |
60 |
85 |
45 |
Re TD |
6 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
Rec |
54 |
|
5 |
5 |
3 |
|
2 |
6 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sammie Stroughter |
385 |
|
30 |
25 |
15 |
|
0 |
25 |
25 |
40 |
35 |
45 |
30 |
0 |
25 |
30 |
20 |
40 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
37 |
|
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
0 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maurice Stovall |
405 |
|
50 |
40 |
20 |
|
25 |
35 |
15 |
55 |
20 |
15 |
30 |
15 |
35 |
0 |
20 |
30 |
Re TD |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
30 |
|
4 |
4 |
2 |
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kellen Winslow |
800 |
|
70 |
65 |
45 |
|
55 |
45 |
60 |
35 |
70 |
55 |
45 |
35 |
60 |
30 |
80 |
50 |
Re TD |
4 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
77 |
|
5 |
7 |
5 |
|
6 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
7 |
5 |
|
Run: Whatever chaos Tampa Bay endures
this season, there’s a pretty good chance it won’t
match the turmoil of 2009, when HC Raheem Morris canned then-OC
Jeff Jagodzinski just over a week before the start of the season.
While little good came out of that switch or the Bucs’ 2009
season, one bright spot was the play of Cadillac Williams, who
managed to post over 1,000 total yards with a passing offense
that scared no one and an offensive line that appeared just about
as confused as the front office. Long story short, improvement
should be expected if Williams can stay healthy – always
a big if. The 2010 campaign should get off to a decent start as
the Bucs host a below-average run defense in the Browns before
flying to Carolina in Week 2 to face the worst projected rush
defense in the league. In order to be relevant in fantasy over
the first third of the season, Williams (and possibly Ward and/or
Huggins) will need to post decent fantasy RB2 in those contests
because they are not likely to do it against the Steelers (Week
3) or Bengals (Week 5). With a bye sandwiched in between those
two games, that stretch of the schedule will make any Bucs’
back pretty much useless in fantasy until at least Week 6.
Assuming Williams is still healthy and starting to pull away
from the pack in terms of touches, he may be useful against the
Saints (Week 6) as the game plan figures to be run-heavy in that
contest. The Bucs host the Rams the following week, which should
be Williams’ best shot at a huge game up to this point of
the season. Week 8 sees Tampa Bay visit Arizona for a date in
which the Cards should be able to stifle the Bucs’ running
game, but Week 9 at Atlanta presents another opportunity for Williams
to build some momentum. Another green matchup awaits at home in
Week 10 vs. Carolina, but three of the next four opponents should
be too much for the Tampa Bay rushing attack. Williams faces a
pair of neutral matchups just in time for the final two games
of the fantasy playoff run with home games against Detroit and
Seattle, which may enable owners to use him as a RB2 if their
other RB options at that point of the season are injured or facing
one of the more elite run-stopping defenses in the league in Weeks
15 or 16.
Pass: No matter how good the draft
class, it is never a good sign when a pair of rookie WRs are likely
candidates to start Week 1. While the hype surrounding Mike Williams
has been incredible, the jury (figuratively speaking, but possibly
literally speaking considering his checkered past) is still out
on whether he will be able to handle success when it comes in
the pros after getting into trouble on multiple occasions in college.
Thus, the focus of the Bucs’ passing game for owners this
fall should be Winslow and then Freeman, at least early on. The
duo should fare well initially as they meet Winslow’s old
team in Week 1, which could also signal Freeman’s coming-out
party as well if he can take advantage of the matchup. Carolina’s
Cover 2 defense will likely suppress the Bucs’ passing numbers
in Week 2, but they had better get something going against the
Browns or Panthers because the vaunted Steelers’ defense
awaits in Week 3, which could leave Tampa Bay in state of disarray
heading into its early bye week in Week 4.
As the Bucs resume play in Week 5, Freeman will be tested yet
again by the pass defenses of the Bengals (superior depth and
talent at CB) and Saints (heavy blitz team with improved depth
in the secondary). It’s not until a Week 6 home game against
St. Louis that Tampa Bay may face another opponent that it should
feel good about matching up against across the board. Two more
road games follow the Rams’ game and while neither the Falcons
nor the Cardinals will be a shutdown pass defense, they may both
have enough to contain the Bucs’ WRs. Following a home meeting
against the Panthers in which I would expect the Bucs to try to
run the ball all game long, the passing game will need to show
its growth in Weeks 11 and 12 at San Francisco and Baltimore.
Whereas the Niners will be a difficult matchup for every Bucs’
player, the Ravens may present Mike Williams with a shot at getting
deep a time or two if the offensive line is capable of protecting
Freeman long enough. After what should be two more challenging
contests for the Bucs’ young passing game, Week 15 offers
a “soft” matchup against the weak Lions’ CBs
at home. Seattle (Week 16) may not be so easy; however, the game
is at home and could easily be a showcase for a player like Benn,
assuming he has staked his claim to a starting job by that point
– as I expect him to do early in the season.
NFC WEST
Arizona Cardinals |
|
Totals |
|
STL |
ATL |
OAK |
SD |
NO |
bye |
SEA |
TB |
MIN |
SEA |
KC |
SF |
STL |
DEN |
CAR |
DAL |
(Run) |
|
|
6.2 |
6.6 |
8.2 |
7.2 |
7.4 |
|
7.5 |
6.2 |
9.4 |
7.5 |
6.5 |
8.9 |
6.2 |
7.1 |
5.8 |
8.8 |
(Pass) |
|
|
6.4 |
7.7 |
8.2 |
7.7 |
7.8 |
|
8 |
6.4 |
8.2 |
8 |
7.2 |
7.9 |
6.4 |
8.1 |
7.1 |
7.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Leinart |
3615 |
|
240 |
220 |
220 |
275 |
265 |
|
215 |
260 |
330 |
250 |
235 |
190 |
215 |
255 |
195 |
250 |
TD |
22 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
INT |
16 |
|
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derek Anderson |
55 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
55 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INT |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Wells |
1245 |
|
80 |
65 |
70 |
110 |
65 |
|
75 |
100 |
40 |
90 |
120 |
55 |
110 |
80 |
120 |
65 |
Ru TD |
9 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Re Yards |
160 |
|
15 |
10 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
|
15 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
0 |
25 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
15 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
19 |
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Hightower |
605 |
|
50 |
45 |
30 |
45 |
30 |
|
45 |
65 |
50 |
35 |
30 |
25 |
50 |
45 |
35 |
25 |
Ru TD |
6 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Re Yards |
385 |
|
25 |
40 |
15 |
20 |
55 |
|
20 |
15 |
65 |
15 |
15 |
20 |
30 |
20 |
15 |
15 |
Re TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
49 |
|
3 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
|
3 |
2 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Fitzgerald |
1140 |
|
80 |
60 |
70 |
105 |
50 |
|
70 |
115 |
65 |
110 |
75 |
40 |
130 |
40 |
55 |
75 |
Re TD |
9 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
81 |
|
6 |
5 |
5 |
7 |
4 |
|
5 |
7 |
4 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
8 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Breaston |
785 |
+ |
50 |
35 |
65 |
45 |
50 |
|
50 |
35 |
100 |
50 |
40 |
35 |
50 |
70 |
45 |
65 |
Re TD |
4 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
64 |
|
4 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
|
4 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Early Doucet |
860 |
^ |
50 |
75 |
40 |
60 |
70 |
|
35 |
55 |
75 |
40 |
70 |
65 |
35 |
100 |
55 |
35 |
Re TD |
6 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
65 |
|
3 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
|
3 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Roberts |
205 |
|
15 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
15 |
|
25 |
15 |
0 |
25 |
25 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
15 |
25 |
Re TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
15 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Patrick |
135 |
|
5 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
15 |
|
0 |
20 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
20 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
14 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
Run: It’s taken some time,
but Arizona has finally become the running team that HC Ken Whisenhunt
envisioned when he arrived in 2007. How much of that transition
was by choice and how much of it was born out of necessity may
never be known, but the Cardinals do have the RBs necessary to
pull it off. The offensive line is getting a facelift as well,
so how quickly they gel will be instrumental in determining how
quickly Wells and (to a lesser extent) Hightower can perform like
top-end RB2s in fantasy. The schedule lends a hand by giving Arizona
a pair of “soft” 4-3 defenses in the first two weeks
of the season before ratcheting up the difficulty level several
times over with what should be an improved Raiders’ run-stopping
unit in Week 3. Assuming they can enjoy some level of success
against Oakland – which should be the toughest run defense
the Cards face in the first half of the fantasy slate, it bodes
well for them against the average Chargers and Saints rush defenses
in Weeks 4-5.
A road meeting at Qwest Field kicks off the post-bye schedule
for Arizona – a game that will test the poise of an offense
which should have found its identity by that point. An “easy”
home date against the Bucs follows the trip to Seattle, however,
it doesn’t figure to give the Cardinals a good look for
a Week 9 showdown at the Metrodome vs. the elite run defense of
the Vikings. The good news for Wells and Hightower – after
the Minnesota contest – is that Arizona faces only two more
red matchups the rest of the way. Two of the less difficult games
over that stretch figure to be a rematch against Seattle at home
(Week 10) and on the road vs. the porous run defense of the Chiefs
(Week 11). Arizona must then attempt to solve the stout run defense
of the Niners in Week 12 before getting another shot at the questionable
Rams defense one week later. Having faced two 3-4 defenses in
Weeks 11 and 12, the Broncos’ 3-4 defense shouldn’t
offer too many surprises in Week 14. Even though the game in Week
15 is away from home, Wells and Hightower get a juicy matchup
vs. a Carolina run defense that should get beat repeatedly in
2010. Despite what could be a build-up to a stellar end to the
season, the fantasy season ends on a rather disappointing note
when the Cards must face the final one of their three second-half
red matchups – a home game vs. Dallas.
Pass: Not many passing attacks
can withstand the loss of players like Kurt Warner and Anquan
Boldin and Arizona is no exception. However, the Cardinals already
had a ready-made replacement for the latter in Doucet and may
not experience as much of a drop-off when it goes three-wide as
one might expect. The bigger issue is how great the decline is
from Warner to Leinart, even though we must remember that Warner
was unable to throw down the field for the majority of the 2009
season, so the playbook may actually be more open than it has
been recently. As such, I’ll focus on the WRs today. Despite
starting out the year with a pair of consecutive road games, the
passing game should get off to a nice start against the average
pass defenses of St. Louis and Atlanta before it must face one
of the most difficult pass defenses it will face all season long
in Week 3 at home vs. the Raiders. Even though the Chargers will
be the first 3-4 defense the Cardinals will face this season,
they will catch a break in that their own defense uses the same
style kind of set and plays it every bit as well. Arizona returns
to defenses that play the 4-3 in Week 5 when it must face the
very capable, ball-hawking Saints’ team who may give up
as many big plays as they create.
In all likelihood, Arizona will enjoy a fair amount of aerial
success coming out of the bye as none of the next five opponents
can reasonably match up to the trio of Fitzgerald, Breaston and
Doucet. In fact, in Week 9 against Minnesota, it would not surprise
me in the least if the Cards abandon the run early and throw the
ball 40-50 times. The passing schedule counters with a fairly
difficult run to close the season for the non-Fitzgerald receivers
as the Niners, Broncos, Panthers and Cowboys either have deep
CB corps, above-average pass rushes, a solid pass defense scheme
or all of the above. Fitzgerald should be relatively unaffected
by this run of opponents, but his overall numbers will take a
hit due to the simple fact that he probably will not see 150+
targets again until Leinart establishes himself as an elite QB
– if that ever happens.
St. Louis Rams |
|
Totals |
|
ARI |
OAK |
WAS |
SEA |
at DET |
SD |
TB |
CAR |
bye |
SF |
ATL |
DEN |
ARI |
NO |
KC |
SF |
(Run) |
|
|
8.5 |
8.2 |
8.5 |
7.5 |
6.4 |
7.2 |
6.2 |
5.8 |
|
8.9 |
6.6 |
7.1 |
8.5 |
7.4 |
6.5 |
8.9 |
(Pass) |
|
|
7.4 |
8.2 |
7.4 |
8 |
5.8 |
7.7 |
6.4 |
7.1 |
|
7.9 |
7.7 |
8.1 |
7.4 |
7.8 |
7.2 |
7.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Bradford |
3055 |
|
225 |
195 |
245 |
195 |
225 |
220 |
165 |
175 |
|
135 |
240 |
170 |
190 |
250 |
235 |
190 |
TD |
13 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
INT |
20 |
|
2 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Jackson |
1500 |
|
70 |
80 |
90 |
85 |
125 |
115 |
130 |
150 |
|
60 |
120 |
90 |
70 |
110 |
130 |
75 |
Ru TD |
8 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Re Yards |
455 |
|
40 |
30 |
55 |
20 |
15 |
50 |
15 |
20 |
|
10 |
65 |
35 |
25 |
50 |
10 |
15 |
Re TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
60 |
|
5 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
|
2 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donnie Avery |
655 |
|
45 |
65 |
80 |
40 |
85 |
40 |
25 |
35 |
|
40 |
65 |
10 |
INJ |
45 |
50 |
30 |
Re TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
40 |
|
3 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
3 |
4 |
1 |
INJ |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laurent Robinson |
640 |
!/+ |
75 |
50 |
45 |
65 |
50 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
INJ |
70 |
55 |
70 |
65 |
40 |
55 |
Re TD |
4 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
INJ |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
48 |
|
5 |
3 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
|
INJ |
5 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brandon Gibson |
605 |
|
30 |
40 |
25 |
45 |
15 |
70 |
50 |
55 |
|
45 |
25 |
55 |
40 |
25 |
50 |
35 |
Re TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
48 |
|
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
|
4 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keenan Burton |
310 |
|
10 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
25 |
20 |
45 |
30 |
|
20 |
15 |
0 |
30 |
25 |
35 |
30 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
28 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Fells |
390 |
|
25 |
10 |
30 |
10 |
35 |
40 |
30 |
35 |
|
20 |
0 |
15 |
25 |
40 |
50 |
25 |
Re TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
36 |
|
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
|
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
|
Run: ESPN’s John Clayton
called Jackson “a freak” (in a good way) earlier this
offseason. With no capable backup and a rookie QB under center,
he’ll need to be a freak to withstand the punishment he
is almost certain to endure. If his body allows him to play 16
games for just the second time in his career, he’s a near-lock
for 350+ carries. Fortunately for him, he trades in the defenses
of the NFC North and AFC South for the NFC South and AFC West
to go along with his usual six-game trek through his own division
– annually one of the worst defensive divisions in the league.
Once he gets by a home game vs. Arizona to open the season, Jackson
will have a shot to lead the league in rushing by the time the
Rams’ bye week rolls around in Week 9. Oakland (Week 2)
and Washington (Week 3) will be plenty tough to run on, but Jackson’s
heavy workload should ensure solid fantasy production in those
contests. Then, starting in Week 4, the schedule really begins
to open up for him, beginning with a home game vs. Seattle. In
Weeks 5-8, Jackson faces a stretch of defenses, all of which I
expect to be among the bottom ten in the league in terms of stopping
the run.
The second half of Jackson’s fantasy schedule is a mixed
bag with matchups against the tough run defense of the Niners
(Weeks 10 and 16) bookending a pair of neutral and green matchups.
To what degree he can succeed against Arizona and San Francisco
will have a large impact on whether he can remain in the race
for the rushing title and fantasy relevancy over the remainder
of the season. The one saving grace of his fantasy playoff slate
is that following a road game against the Saints in Week 14 in
which he will be asked to singlehandedly keep the Rams in the
game, Jackson will spend the next two weeks playing at home, where
he was able to average over 125 total yards per game last season.
Pass: To be quite honest, I’m
going to be very hard on Bradford and his fantasy outlook this
season. There’s a decent chance he becomes a good QB in
the league, but the Rams are defying conventional wisdom by drafting
their “franchise” QB ahead of a true WR1, unless St.
Louis considers Robinson to be that receiver. Thus, the line between
a green and red matchup for the passing game as a whole figures
to be pretty thin, as I feel I have demonstrated in the Rams’
projection above. As you can easily tell, I believe there are
only three times this season where Bradford should even be considered
as a viable alternative – and even that is a dicey proposition
because in all three games the running game should take center
stage. Therefore, let’s focus primarily on Robinson and
Avery.
If Robinson can stay healthy for the first time in his NFL career,
he has a fair shot at being a WR3 candidate in 12-team leagues.
However, it is questionable whether he or Avery should be used
prior to Week 4 because Arizona, Oakland and Washington all have
the pass rush and CBs necessary to pressure Bradford. Seattle
(Week 4) may be another team to add to that mix, but the Seahawks
will not be a heavy blitzing team and will likely count on the
rookie QB making mistakes on his own rather than rush him into
doing so. Assuming the WR pair is still able to go in Week 5,
Avery and Robinson should enjoy a modicum of success over the
next three weeks with the porous pass defense of the Lions, the
somewhat-overrated Chargers’ back four (Week 6) and the
Bucs’ young pass rush (Week 7), although the Rams cannot
take those last two games for granted as St. Louis’ offensive
line will need to stonewall capable (if healthy) pass rushers
such as San Diego’s Shawne Merriman and Shaun Phillips.
Carolina’s Cover 2 defense is the final test before the
bye, but look for a run-heavy game plan in that game. To be kind,
the post-bye slate for Avery and Robinson is treacherous, so if
there is an opportunity for fantasy owners to sell either player
for something useful during the first half of the season, they
would be well-advised to do so.
San Francisco 49ers |
|
Totals |
|
SEA |
NO |
KC |
ATL |
PHI |
OAK |
CAR |
DEN |
bye |
STL |
TB |
ARI |
GB |
SEA |
SD |
STL |
(Run) |
|
|
7.5 |
7.4 |
6.5 |
6.6 |
8 |
8.2 |
5.8 |
7.1 |
|
6.2 |
6.2 |
8.5 |
9.4 |
7.5 |
7.2 |
6.2 |
(Pass) |
|
|
8 |
7.8 |
7.2 |
7.7 |
8.2 |
8.2 |
7.1 |
8.1 |
|
6.4 |
6.4 |
7.4 |
8.3 |
8 |
7.7 |
6.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Smith |
3610 |
|
270 |
215 |
225 |
270 |
235 |
155 |
185 |
200 |
|
290 |
270 |
235 |
225 |
260 |
320 |
255 |
TD |
22 |
|
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
INT |
14 |
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Ru Yards |
90 |
|
5 |
10 |
0 |
5 |
15 |
5 |
10 |
0 |
|
0 |
5 |
15 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
Ru TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Gore |
1385 |
|
65 |
105 |
140 |
125 |
30 |
INJ |
150 |
70 |
|
110 |
120 |
55 |
65 |
125 |
120 |
105 |
Ru TD |
11 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
INJ |
2 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Re Yards |
365 |
|
35 |
20 |
55 |
25 |
5 |
INJ |
15 |
30 |
|
25 |
10 |
40 |
10 |
30 |
60 |
5 |
Re TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
43 |
|
3 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
INJ |
2 |
4 |
|
4 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Westbrook |
295 |
|
15 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
15 |
70 |
15 |
15 |
|
20 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
40 |
Ru TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Re Yards |
65 |
|
0 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
20 |
15 |
0 |
5 |
|
0 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
11 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Crabtree |
1000 |
|
85 |
60 |
75 |
65 |
40 |
40 |
70 |
35 |
|
100 |
60 |
85 |
50 |
70 |
100 |
65 |
Re TD |
6 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
76 |
|
6 |
5 |
7 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
|
7 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Josh Morgan |
540 |
|
45 |
35 |
30 |
25 |
35 |
10 |
10 |
60 |
|
45 |
35 |
35 |
20 |
50 |
30 |
75 |
Re TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
46 |
|
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
|
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ted Ginn |
210 |
|
10 |
0 |
20 |
45 |
5 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
|
30 |
20 |
0 |
25 |
15 |
0 |
25 |
Re TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
12 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Hill |
365 |
|
25 |
30 |
0 |
35 |
25 |
50 |
0 |
20 |
|
20 |
45 |
25 |
35 |
25 |
20 |
10 |
Re TD |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
30 |
|
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
|
2 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vernon Davis |
1065 |
|
70 |
65 |
45 |
70 |
105 |
40 |
75 |
50 |
|
70 |
100 |
45 |
80 |
70 |
110 |
70 |
Re TD |
9 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
Rec |
83 |
|
6 |
5 |
3 |
6 |
7 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
|
5 |
7 |
4 |
7 |
5 |
8 |
6 |
|
Run: If Gore can put together 16
starts for just the second time in his NFL career, this season
could be truly special for the sixth-year RB. In fact, only one
red matchup shows up on his running schedule in what appears to
be the easiest slate by far for any fantasy RB in 2010. Of course,
his health is the key to taking advantage of this opportunity.
Because of this, I’ll point out the matchups that could
give Gore trouble, but in all honesty, his eight green matchups
should remain that way.
Prior to the Week 9 bye, Gore’s toughest opponents figure
to be at Seattle (Week 1) – against a defense on the road
that had his number, for the most part, until the teams’
first meeting last season – as well as Philadelphia and
Oakland (Weeks 4-5). These two 4-3 defenses could fluster Gore
for different reasons – the Eagles are a quick, blitzing
defense that may have some success shooting the gaps while the
Raiders are big enough up front to match the raw power of the
Niners’ linemen. After that trio of games, the only remaining
potential trouble spots could be in Weeks 12-13 on the road against
Green Bay and Arizona – a pair of attacking 3-4 teams that
will blitz but also have the stout defensive lines necessary to
hold up. Otherwise, Gore owners should sit back and enjoy the
ride while handcuffing Dixon to their stud RB because this is
a fantasy schedule worth taking advantage of, especially with
a RB of Gore’s caliber behind a mauling, physical run-blocking
line.
Pass: With all the praise I heaped
upon the running game’s schedule, it may come as a shock
that San Francisco would even consider passing the ball in 2010.
While the passing game’s slate is not quite as favorable,
it still rates as one of the easier ones in the league –
which is why fantasy owners should make a push to secure Davis
as their starting TE, Crabtree as their WR2 or Smith as their
backup QB. In fact, if owners can live with a bumpy six-week stretch
to open the season, then it should be a fun ride for most of the
rest of the year. Even though two green matchups appear in the
first four contests, it is a bit disconcerting that three of the
games will be on the road. A road game in Seattle figures to make
communication a nightmare while a Week 2 home game vs. New Orleans
will be interesting in that Smith will be forced to manage the
ball game against the turnover machine that is the Saints’
defense.
After road games in Kansas City and Atlanta – games in
which Davis should dominate – the Niners’ passing
game will endure its toughest two-week stretch of the season in
consecutive home games vs. Philadelphia and Oakland. Carolina
and Denver both (Weeks 7-8) each have very capable CB play, but
both will lack a consistent pass rush and may need to commit extra
help up front to keep Gore somewhat in check. It’s easy
to like what lies in store for San Francisco following the Week
9 bye as the second half of the schedule lines up questionable
pass defense after questionable pass defense, with the exception
of Green Bay in Week 13. It’s hard to imagine the pass defenses
of the Rams (twice), Bucs, Cardinals, Seahawks or Chargers will
be able to contain both Crabtree and Davis for any amount of time.
Perhaps the biggest treat for owners of Smith, Crabtree and/or
Davis? A Week 16 rematch in the perfect conditions of the Edward
Jones Dome against a Rams team that is definitely in transition.
Seattle Seahawks |
|
Totals |
|
SF |
DEN |
SD |
STL |
bye |
CHI |
ARI |
OAK |
NYG |
ARI |
NO |
KC |
CAR |
SF |
ATL |
TB |
(Run) |
|
|
8.9 |
7.1 |
7.2 |
6.2 |
|
8.3 |
8.5 |
8.2 |
8.3 |
8.5 |
7.4 |
6.5 |
5.8 |
8.9 |
6.6 |
6.2 |
(Pass) |
|
|
7.9 |
8.1 |
7.7 |
6.4 |
|
8.3 |
7.4 |
8.2 |
8.9 |
7.4 |
7.8 |
7.2 |
7.1 |
7.9 |
7.7 |
6.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Hasselbeck |
2950 |
- |
205 |
245 |
325 |
270 |
|
205 |
235 |
180 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
275 |
220 |
220 |
275 |
295 |
TD |
18 |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
1 |
2 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
3 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
INT |
15 |
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
3 |
0 |
3 |
INJ |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charlie Whitehurst |
660 |
- |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
265 |
190 |
205 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INT |
8 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julius Jones |
490 |
- |
15 |
35 |
20 |
65 |
|
15 |
50 |
10 |
45 |
INJ |
25 |
25 |
60 |
40 |
20 |
65 |
Ru TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Re Yards |
105 |
|
0 |
10 |
10 |
20 |
|
0 |
20 |
5 |
15 |
INJ |
5 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
16 |
|
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
0 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
INJ |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justin Forsett |
740 |
+ |
50 |
75 |
50 |
35 |
|
55 |
20 |
40 |
25 |
70 |
65 |
105 |
35 |
30 |
45 |
40 |
Ru TD |
4 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re Yards |
255 |
|
15 |
10 |
40 |
5 |
|
15 |
5 |
15 |
35 |
20 |
15 |
30 |
10 |
5 |
15 |
20 |
Re TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
31 |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leon Washington |
525 |
|
20 |
10 |
65 |
30 |
|
40 |
10 |
65 |
15 |
40 |
20 |
35 |
45 |
20 |
75 |
35 |
Ru TD |
3 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Re Yards |
295 |
|
10 |
40 |
15 |
25 |
|
20 |
15 |
20 |
25 |
10 |
25 |
20 |
25 |
10 |
25 |
10 |
Re TD |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
31 |
|
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TJ Houshmandzadeh |
845 |
|
45 |
35 |
75 |
50 |
|
50 |
70 |
25 |
35 |
50 |
45 |
100 |
45 |
60 |
75 |
85 |
Re TD |
5 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
79 |
|
4 |
3 |
7 |
6 |
|
6 |
7 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
8 |
5 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deion Branch |
320 |
|
25 |
30 |
15 |
40 |
|
40 |
15 |
35 |
20 |
INJ |
INJ |
10 |
0 |
35 |
40 |
15 |
Re TD |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
INJ |
INJ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
23 |
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
INJ |
INJ |
1 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Golden Tate |
545 |
|
25 |
65 |
40 |
50 |
|
30 |
35 |
15 |
30 |
50 |
25 |
15 |
35 |
45 |
55 |
30 |
Re TD |
3 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
38 |
|
2 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
|
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deon Butler |
270 |
|
20 |
15 |
35 |
10 |
|
0 |
25 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
20 |
35 |
0 |
40 |
Re TD |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
23 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Williams |
150 |
|
5 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
|
10 |
15 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
20 |
30 |
Re TD |
2 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
14 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Carlson |
825 |
|
60 |
40 |
80 |
70 |
|
40 |
35 |
55 |
65 |
40 |
70 |
80 |
55 |
30 |
45 |
60 |
Re TD |
7 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Rec |
73 |
|
6 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
|
3 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
|
Run: If there is a more confusing
RB situation in the NFC, I’m not sure what it is. Jones
must be some kind of standout in practice as he seems to have
caught the eye of HC Pete Carroll and OC Jeremy Bates, just like
he did with ex-HC Jim Mora, Jr. last year. It appears he will
enter the season as the starter. The part that boggles the mind,
however, is that Forsett and Washington give this rather ordinary
offense two potentially explosive players. Whereas most teams
would try to create a package of plays where both players could
be on the field at the same time, Seattle appears content on relying
on the “strength” of its numbers, making any Seahawks’
RB a risky fantasy play. Thus, I’ll only stick to the few
matchups that I believe Seattle may have a chance to take advantage
of, all the while hoping that Carroll and Bates understand that
the depth chart should read Forsett, Washington and then Jones
with the first two splitting most of the carries.
Although Week 3 in San Diego is a possible green matchup, the
first one that Seattle should be able to exploit is on the road
in St. Louis the following week. The Rams’ defense doesn’t
figure to be all that great against any running offense, but I
don’t feel it is particularly well-suited to defend zone-blocking
and zone-running teams because they are not the most athletic
front seven the league will ever see. After that, another truly
positive matchup doesn’t come the Seahawks’ way until
Weeks 12 and 13 against Kansas City and Carolina. While DC Romeo
Crennel figures to have the Chiefs playing better against the
run near the end of the season, Kansas City lacks the personnel
up front to stop the run against all but the weakest rushing attacks
in the league. The same sentiment could be echoed for the Panthers
the following week. The final two weeks of the fantasy schedule
could serve as a boon for owners of whichever back has emerged
to lead this committee by the time the fantasy playoffs have begun.
Neither Atlanta (Week 15) nor Tampa Bay (Week 16) figure to be
any better than average vs. the run, meaning either Forsett or
Washington could emerge as this season’s Jerome Harrison
if injury strikes the other speed back.
Pass: As much fun as the Seahawks’
running game was to break down, the passing game isn’t all
that much better. Houshmandzadeh is the very definition of a possession
receiver while Tate has a chance to be a good downfield threat
someday. However, the key to Seattle’s offensive hopes in
the passing attack this season rest on the shoulders of Hasselbeck
and Carlson. That QB-to-TE combination may have a difficult time
getting started this season because San Francisco and Denver each
have the back seven necessary to shut it down. Each team also
has CBs good enough to bottle up Houshmandzeh and whatever receiver
Carroll or Bates decides to start opposite him. San Diego (Week
3) will be the third straight 3-4 defense Seattle will see to
open the campaign, but represents the least difficult matchup
the Seahawks will have faced up to that point. With the Chargers’
recent inability to defend the TE, expect great numbers from Carlson.
In Week 4, Seattle hits the road to visit a Rams’ defense
that it should be able to sustain some momentum against, whether
Hasselbeck eyes Carlson or Houshmandzadeh in that matchup would
appear to be the toughest question to answer.
Assuming the Bears’ defense is still healthy after Seattle’s
Week 5 bye, the Seahawks may revisit their offensive ineffectiveness
of 2009 for the next several weeks as the most neutral matchup
between Weeks 6-11 would be a pair of contests against the Cardinals
– a team whose blitzing style will severely test Seattle’s
transitioning offensive line. With every team over that six-week
period being so aggressive with their blitz packages, Hasselbeck
is a poor bet to stay healthy during this period of time. The
slate eases up for a short spell with home games against the Chiefs
and Panthers, but goes right back to a Niners’ defense that
will bring the heat in Week 14. Assuming there are still some
owners who relied on any 2010 Seahawks’ player alive in
their fantasy playoff chase, Weeks 15 and 16 may offer some degree
of comfort. Whereas Houshmandzadeh may have a bit of trouble against
the likes of Falcons’ CB Dunta Robinson and the Bucs’
duo of Aqib Talib and Ronde Barber, Carlson should dominate.
Suggestions, comments, musings about the article or fantasy football
in general? E-mail me.
|