AFC East & AFC North
Breakdowns
7/28/09
AFC East: BUF
| MIA | NE | NYJ
AFC North: BAL
| CIN | CLE | PIT
Every owner wants to hit on the next big thing; that is no secret.
But it infuriates me how so-called expert after so-called expert
doesn't even mention the word "schedule" when it comes
to projecting player performance. Somewhere along with player talent
and age, team offensive philosophy and supporting cast, I believe
schedule analysis – when used correctly – provides a
huge advantage over the competition. Any veteran fantasy football
owner knows it is nearly pointless to use last season's numbers
as an indicator of how a defense will fare this season, which is
a big reason I go to the trouble of analyzing
defense like I did last week. It stands to reason that if teams
like Kansas City and Denver will once again struggle on defense
- even after all the changes both teams made - that I want to see
them more often on my fantasy players' schedule than I do on someone
else's. Likewise, why do I want any of my players facing Pittsburgh
in the fantasy playoffs?
Before I continue, let's do a little Q&A to provide some
insight as to why schedule analysis is a good thing:
Q: How many times this decade a
RB from the current AFC North has finished among the top five
fantasy RBs this decade in traditional, non-PPR scoring?
A: Twice. Once during Jamal
Lewis' 2,000-yard season when he logged nearly 400 carries and
once when Willie Parker exploded for 16 TDs in 2006.
Q: What is the most likely reason
for the current AFC North's lack of success in that time?
A: How about the fact that the
Bengals and Browns face the Steelers and Ravens four times every
season while Baltimore and Pittsburgh face each other twice.
Q: How often has a RB from the
current AFC or NFC West finished among the top five since 2000?
A: Twenty-one times!
Taken one step further, 35 of the 45 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.
In short, nearly half of the top five backs this decade could
be found in two divisions and the reasons for their success are
simple: 1) most of the "West RBs" (Marshall Faulk, LaDainian
Tomlinson, Priest Holmes, etc.) were gifted three-down backs in
very good offensive systems and 2) outside of San Diego and Seattle
sporting good defenses for a few years here and there, when is
the last time a team in the AFC/NFC West had a defense that could
shut down an elite RB?
If I do nothing else this offseason
(or get credit for nothing else in my fantasy writing career),
I want to drive home the point that the schedule will quite often
tell you what players to target and avoid on draft day.
I use RBs in the above example because they are so important in
fantasy football, but the truth of the matter is that fantasy
owners need to realize the schedule is one of the more important
reasons why a player at just about any position exploded onto
the scene, had a career year or busted. Don't get me wrong, most
of the factors mentioned above (player talent and age, team offensive
philosophy and supporting cast) need to be in a player's favor
to truly have a special season but, most of the time, players
perform well because they consistently win their individual matchup,
not because they were "due" or just entering their athletic
prime. Once again, it takes a perfect storm of a number of factors
for a player to enjoy a career year, but let it be known the quality
of the opponent week in and week out is one of the more important
ones to consider.
Over the next four weeks, I will be posting my game-by-game predictions,
two divisions at a time. 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 my PSA:
RB 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.
The biggest emphasis this season was to personalize each matchup.
Before we begin, I feel it necessary to state that my projections
are subject to change, but 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, Ravens, Bears, Jets and Patriots
all qualify), 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, if the
Raiders decide to put CB Nnamdi Asomugha on the opponent's #1
WR at all times as they have stated they may, it will qualify
as a bad matchup only for the #1 WR, no the rest of the passing
game. (In previous years, a matchup vs. Oakland meant each QB
and WR was a "red" matchup.) Going forward, a QB, WR
or TE player will only be considered positive or negative if I
don't think he can win his individual matchup.
Note: The grey
highlight in each team’s schedule reflects a road game.
AFC EAST
Buffalo Bills |
|
Totals |
NE |
TB |
NO |
MIA |
CLE |
NYJ |
CAR |
HOU |
Bye |
TEN |
JAX |
MIA |
NYJ |
KC |
NE |
ATL |
(Run) |
|
3.9 |
4.2 |
4.1 |
4.3 |
4.3 |
3.8 |
4.4 |
4.3 |
|
4.1 |
4 |
4.3 |
3.8 |
4.9 |
3.9 |
4.6 |
(Pass) |
|
6.2 |
7.4 |
6.7 |
7.2 |
7.2 |
6.5 |
6.3 |
7.2 |
|
6.5 |
7.2 |
7.2 |
6.5 |
7.5 |
6.2 |
7.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T Edwards |
3380 |
185 |
235 |
245 |
240 |
255 |
220 |
240 |
225 |
|
185 |
250 |
215 |
200 |
240 |
200 |
245 |
TD |
19 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
INT |
14 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Lynch |
885 |
SUS |
SUS |
SUS |
60 |
90 |
50 |
80 |
85 |
|
40 |
70 |
75 |
85 |
110 |
55 |
85 |
Ru
TD |
8 |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
240 |
|
|
|
20 |
25 |
20 |
15 |
20 |
|
15 |
25 |
15 |
20 |
20 |
15 |
30 |
Re
TD |
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
34 |
|
|
|
3 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
2 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F Jackson |
485 |
65 |
80 |
60 |
35 |
20 |
25 |
15 |
35 |
|
20 |
15 |
25 |
15 |
30 |
25 |
20 |
Ru
TD |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
330 |
25 |
20 |
30 |
20 |
10 |
35 |
25 |
25 |
|
20 |
25 |
10 |
30 |
10 |
25 |
20 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
45 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
|
3 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D Rhodes |
280 |
25 |
35 |
20 |
15 |
15 |
20 |
25 |
15 |
|
15 |
20 |
15 |
20 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
Ru
TD |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
50 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
|
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
6 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Evans |
1020 |
40 |
85 |
70 |
90 |
85 |
45 |
75 |
80 |
|
50 |
100 |
50 |
75 |
60 |
45 |
70 |
Re
TD |
7 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
74 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
6 |
|
4 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T Owens |
1055 |
55 |
85 |
80 |
60 |
105 |
55 |
65 |
70 |
|
60 |
55 |
85 |
40 |
110 |
45 |
85 |
Re
TD |
9 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
79 |
6 |
5 |
7 |
4 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
|
3 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
7 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Reed |
470 |
40 |
30 |
30 |
35 |
20 |
40 |
40 |
20 |
|
30 |
30 |
40 |
25 |
25 |
35 |
30 |
Re
TD |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
43 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S Nelson |
215 |
15 |
15 |
25 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
20 |
10 |
|
0 |
15 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
25 |
10 |
Re
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
24 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
0 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
The Bills don't figure to get off to the greatest of starts by
facing what should once again be one of the tougher defenses in
the league in the Patriots, especially since they won't have Marshawn
Lynch. However, after New England, Trent
Edwards & Co. should have some opportunity to put up some
numbers as I don't expect the Bucs, Browns and Texans to be much
better than average on defense before the bye, which may be a
good time to sell high on Edwards as the schedule gets a bit more
trying later in the year. Buffalo's biggest problem would appear
to be its own division, which won't give it much of a break as
the Jets, Pats and Dolphins should easily finish in the top half
of the league in total defense.
A typical Bills' offense would show a lot more red than I have
above, but there aren't a lot of teams in the league that will
be able to go toe-to-toe with Terrell
Owens, Lee
Evans, Josh
Reed, Fred
Jackson and Lynch. Since Buffalo will be spending much of
December in the elements, it's hard to pronounce this offense
as an all-around fantasy power. The upside, though, is that most
of this offense will be drafted as a #2 at their positions (as
in QB2, RB2, WR2) rather than a #1. As long as Edwards steps up
to the challenge - which he should - the Bills should be a fairly
consistent offensive force this season.
Miami Dolphins |
|
Totals |
ATL |
IND |
SD |
BUF |
NYJ |
Bye |
NO |
NYJ |
NE |
TB |
CAR |
BUF |
NE |
JAX |
TEN |
HOU |
(Run) |
|
4.6 |
4.1 |
4.1 |
4.5 |
3.8 |
|
4.1 |
3.8 |
3.9 |
4.2 |
4.4 |
4.5 |
3.9 |
4 |
4.1 |
4.3 |
(Pass) |
|
7.1 |
6.1 |
6.6 |
7.4 |
6.5 |
|
6.7 |
6.5 |
6.2 |
7.4 |
6.3 |
7.4 |
6.2 |
7.2 |
6.5 |
7.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C Pennington |
2905 |
235 |
205 |
200 |
205 |
170 |
|
230 |
180 |
195 |
200 |
155 |
215 |
160 |
195 |
165 |
195 |
TD |
17 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
INT |
11 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P White |
365 |
25 |
0 |
35 |
15 |
20 |
|
30 |
45 |
20 |
65 |
0 |
25 |
10 |
45 |
0 |
30 |
TD |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
INT |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Ru
Yards |
290 |
20 |
10 |
15 |
35 |
0 |
|
20 |
15 |
30 |
25 |
10 |
40 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
Ru
TD |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R Brown |
1280 |
90 |
65 |
75 |
115 |
60 |
|
100 |
80 |
40 |
120 |
75 |
85 |
90 |
105 |
80 |
100 |
Ru
TD |
11 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
300 |
30 |
0 |
35 |
15 |
40 |
|
25 |
20 |
30 |
10 |
15 |
5 |
20 |
15 |
25 |
15 |
Re
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
40 |
4 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
|
2 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R Williams |
290 |
20 |
15 |
25 |
35 |
15 |
|
20 |
10 |
25 |
10 |
20 |
15 |
15 |
10 |
20 |
35 |
Ru
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
50 |
0 |
15 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
|
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
7 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T Ginn |
770 |
60 |
65 |
35 |
70 |
35 |
|
60 |
55 |
45 |
70 |
30 |
55 |
30 |
45 |
40 |
75 |
Re
TD |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
61 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
|
4 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Camarillo |
635 |
45 |
35 |
25 |
45 |
25 |
|
35 |
30 |
45 |
55 |
40 |
80 |
25 |
50 |
60 |
40 |
Re
TD |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
62 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
|
2 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D Bess |
480 |
30 |
50 |
30 |
25 |
30 |
|
40 |
25 |
20 |
60 |
25 |
40 |
40 |
25 |
25 |
15 |
Re
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
36 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Fasano |
425 |
45 |
20 |
50 |
20 |
30 |
|
45 |
20 |
40 |
15 |
30 |
10 |
20 |
40 |
15 |
25 |
Re
TD |
4 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
41 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
|
4 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D Martin |
290 |
25 |
20 |
15 |
30 |
10 |
|
15 |
30 |
15 |
35 |
0 |
25 |
25 |
20 |
0 |
25 |
Re
TD |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
30 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|
1 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
|
It's safe to say fantasy owners probably won't fall all over
themselves to get anybody attached to the Dolphins' passing game.
Chad Pennington's
value will be sapped for a multitude of reasons, including the
"Wildcat", the possibility of Chad
Henne taking over at some point of the season and Miami's
conservative offensive philosophy. Furthermore, when Cover 2 teams
like Indy and Buffalo aren't limiting the passing numbers, the
Dolphins will be faced with some of the more aggressive blitzing
teams in the league like the Chargers and Jets (twice). Unfortunately,
there just are not a lot of plus-matchups in which players like
Ted Ginn can take advantage of this season. I've still predicted
a modest increase in Ginn's numbers as he is the one true playmaker
in the receiving corps, but his true coming-of-age season may
not come until next season.
As for the running game, this will be one of several cases over
the next four weeks where offensive philosophy, player talent
and supporting cast (in this case, the run blocking) will outweigh
the schedule to some degree. Ronnie
Brown should finally assume the lead-back role in this offense,
which should mean he will eclipse his previous career high of
242 carries (and 275 touches). Given the difficulty of his schedule,
he could be in line for more down weeks than I have him down for,
but I believe at age 27 and in the best shape of his career, this
will be the year that he stays healthy and be the true focal point
of this offense.
New England Patriots |
|
Totals |
BUF |
NYJ |
ATL |
BAL |
DEN |
TEN |
TB |
Bye |
MIA |
IND |
NYJ |
NO |
MIA |
CAR |
BUF |
JAX |
(Run) |
|
4.5 |
3.8 |
4.6 |
3.8 |
5 |
4.1 |
4.2 |
|
4.3 |
4.1 |
3.8 |
4.1 |
4.3 |
4.4 |
4.5 |
4 |
(Pass) |
|
7.4 |
6.5 |
7.1 |
6.2 |
6.8 |
6.5 |
7.4 |
|
7.2 |
6.1 |
6.5 |
6.7 |
7.2 |
6.3 |
7.4 |
7.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T Brady |
3975 |
285 |
235 |
325 |
195 |
245 |
250 |
275 |
|
265 |
230 |
220 |
370 |
260 |
280 |
250 |
290 |
TD |
32 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
|
3 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
INT |
10 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Maroney |
635 |
55 |
35 |
50 |
25 |
70 |
20 |
0 |
|
45 |
30 |
40 |
65 |
20 |
35 |
110 |
35 |
Ru
TD |
5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
100 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
|
15 |
20 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
14 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
2 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F Taylor |
610 |
45 |
30 |
40 |
35 |
45 |
30 |
55 |
|
20 |
20 |
50 |
35 |
70 |
40 |
25 |
70 |
Ru
TD |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
185 |
20 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
|
0 |
20 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
25 |
10 |
25 |
Re
TD |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
21 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S Morris |
385 |
20 |
25 |
15 |
25 |
20 |
55 |
25 |
|
35 |
45 |
10 |
0 |
40 |
10 |
35 |
25 |
Ru
TD |
7 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
105 |
10 |
0 |
25 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
|
0 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
13 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Faulk |
210 |
10 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
25 |
|
25 |
50 |
20 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
15 |
Ru
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
480 |
35 |
40 |
35 |
25 |
15 |
50 |
25 |
|
30 |
15 |
45 |
35 |
25 |
35 |
40 |
30 |
Re
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
55 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
4 |
|
2 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R Moss |
1305 |
90 |
60 |
120 |
40 |
75 |
90 |
110 |
|
85 |
75 |
80 |
125 |
110 |
90 |
55 |
100 |
Re
TD |
15 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
91 |
7 |
4 |
8 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
|
6 |
5 |
6 |
10 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W Welker |
1200 |
85 |
105 |
70 |
85 |
95 |
45 |
65 |
|
90 |
65 |
40 |
100 |
90 |
75 |
105 |
85 |
Re
TD |
8 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Rec |
108 |
7 |
9 |
6 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
|
11 |
6 |
5 |
8 |
7 |
6 |
11 |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Galloway |
405 |
30 |
20 |
40 |
25 |
20 |
20 |
50 |
|
25 |
0 |
35 |
35 |
20 |
45 |
0 |
40 |
Re
TD |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
27 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
|
2 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B Watson |
195 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
|
20 |
25 |
10 |
35 |
0 |
10 |
25 |
0 |
Re
TD |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
23 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
3 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
|
For someone who is coming off knee surgery, Tom
Brady won't have the benefit of a lot of easy matchups early
on to regain the trust in his knee that he'll need to be successful
once again this season. In fact, for a normal offense, easily
half the schedule could be adorned in red. But as we know, very
little is normal about the Patriots' offense, from their four-headed
monster at RB to their relentless passing game. As such, I expect
Brady to have his second-best season as a pro even though he may
not settle in entirely until after the first month and even after
considering that his pre-bye games aren't exactly pushovers. However,
the schedule will lighten up in the second half and I expect Brady
will regain full trust in his knee by midseason. Unlike most teams,
the Patriots don't need to consider the intermediate passing game
if they don't want to; they have a deep threat that requires a
constant double team and a short-game threat that is essentially
an extension of the running game. Even in his 12th season in the
league, there are very few defensive backs or schemes that Moss
can't outrun. Like Moss, Welker also has very few schemes that
can contain him, but for a very different reason - his quickness
and fearlessness over the middle.
Despite their top 10 finishes in fantasy points scored by the
RB position in each of the past three seasons, the Patriots’ approach
to spreading the wealth at RB is a fantasy nightmare. In my early
projections, I have all four backs scoring 100+ points in PPR
leagues, but none of them scoring more than 131. What's worse
is there is no kind of predictable consistency, outside of Kevin
Faulk possibly posting good receiving totals in games vs.
the Ravens, Jets and Titans. I have a feeling HC Bill Belichick
still wants Maroney to pull away from the pack and establish himself
in the same fashion Corey Dillon and Antowain Smith have done
in the past. But as we have seen lately, we can't count on that
happening anymore as fantasy owners.
New York Jets |
|
Totals |
HOU |
NE |
TEN |
NO |
MIA |
BUF |
OAK |
MIA |
Bye |
JAX |
NE |
CAR |
BUF |
TB |
ATL |
IND |
(Run) |
|
4.3 |
3.9 |
4.1 |
4.1 |
4.3 |
4.5 |
4.9 |
4.3 |
|
4 |
3.9 |
4.4 |
4.5 |
4.2 |
4.6 |
4.1 |
(Pass) |
|
7.2 |
6.2 |
6.5 |
6.7 |
7.2 |
7.4 |
6.9 |
7.2 |
|
7.2 |
6.2 |
6.3 |
7.4 |
7.4 |
7.1 |
6.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Sanchez |
2915 |
210 |
130 |
215 |
225 |
175 |
225 |
165 |
220 |
|
185 |
190 |
165 |
245 |
200 |
205 |
160 |
TD |
15 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
INT |
13 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T Jones |
780 |
60 |
50 |
55 |
45 |
65 |
50 |
55 |
40 |
|
45 |
55 |
75 |
55 |
35 |
50 |
45 |
Ru
TD |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
230 |
15 |
20 |
20 |
15 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
15 |
|
10 |
15 |
15 |
20 |
10 |
15 |
20 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
29 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Washington |
510 |
40 |
25 |
50 |
25 |
25 |
30 |
20 |
60 |
|
30 |
15 |
35 |
30 |
55 |
30 |
40 |
Ru
TD |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
385 |
30 |
25 |
25 |
35 |
20 |
25 |
10 |
30 |
|
30 |
40 |
20 |
15 |
25 |
30 |
25 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
49 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
5 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S Greene |
735 |
55 |
30 |
45 |
10 |
40 |
40 |
100 |
25 |
|
60 |
55 |
45 |
75 |
45 |
55 |
55 |
Ru
TD |
10 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
20 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Cotchery |
895 |
55 |
40 |
60 |
75 |
55 |
80 |
25 |
85 |
|
35 |
70 |
50 |
100 |
70 |
65 |
30 |
Re
TD |
5 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
71 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
5 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
7 |
|
4 |
5 |
4 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
C Stuckey/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D Clowney |
430 |
60 |
15 |
30 |
25 |
35 |
45 |
35 |
20 |
|
20 |
15 |
10 |
40 |
15 |
40 |
25 |
Re
TD |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
26 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B Smith |
255 |
10 |
10 |
20 |
25 |
10 |
30 |
15 |
30 |
|
20 |
25 |
15 |
15 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
Re
TD |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
26 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D Keller |
700 |
40 |
20 |
55 |
50 |
45 |
25 |
65 |
40 |
|
70 |
25 |
55 |
45 |
80 |
35 |
50 |
Re
TD |
6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
65 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
7 |
3 |
7 |
3 |
|
4 |
2 |
6 |
5 |
7 |
2 |
4 |
|
According to my YPC projections
from last week, the Jets will have the easiest schedule vs.
the run of any AFC East team. However, that number is a bit skewed
from the fact that New York will not face its own run defense,
which I have projected as the best in the division. Either way,
the Jets picked a fairly good year to decide to run the ball 37
times a game because the Patriots appear to be the only team stout
enough to withstand that kind of onslaught on the ground. Much
like HC Rex Ryan's old team - Baltimore - the best fantasy RB
each week could be a revolving door as long as everyone stays
healthy, although an injury to Thomas
Jones or Shonn
Greene will blow the door open for the other bruiser to have
a potentially better year than the one Jones turned in last season.
The Jets' final four games appear to be especially juicy matchups
for the RBs, as only Indy in Week 16 could be a team that really
clamp down on the run (and that would be assuming S Bob
Sanders is healthy and the big rookie defensive linemen the
Colts brought in are playing well).
As for the passing game, it wouldn't be overly surprising to
me if Keller gives Jerricho
Cotchery a run for his money to lead the team in receiving.
Because most of the Jets' toughest competition this season vs.
the pass will be from zone-based teams that will focus on keeping
Cotchery out of the game, New York may find itself in zone-busting
mode a lot with the swift-footed Dustin
Keller. The key, as it usually is in the passing game, will
be if the QB can take advantage of the attention the running game
will attract. Sanchez will have to be money on third down - because
the Jets will have a lot of them - and make teams pay for not
doubling Cotchery or Keller. The big unknown is who the #2 WR
will be on this team, but it's highly unlikely that player – Chansi
Stuckey or David
Clowney - makes a significant impact in this run-heavy offense.
If the run works as well as it should, there will likely be no
more than 15-18 completions to go around, with 75% of those catches
going to Cotchery or Keller.
AFC NORTH
Baltimore Ravens |
|
Totals |
KC |
SD |
CLE |
NE |
CIN |
MIN |
Bye |
DEN |
CIN |
CLE |
IND |
PIT |
GB |
DET |
CHI |
PIT |
(Run) |
|
4.9 |
4.1 |
4.3 |
3.9 |
4 |
3.8 |
|
5 |
4 |
4.3 |
4.1 |
3.4 |
4 |
4.7 |
3.8 |
3.4 |
(Pass) |
|
7.5 |
6.6 |
7.2 |
6.2 |
6.3 |
6.6 |
|
6.8 |
6.3 |
7.2 |
6.1 |
5.6 |
6.8 |
7.9 |
6.8 |
5.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Flacco |
2555 |
195 |
185 |
185 |
160 |
135 |
225 |
|
140 |
190 |
160 |
130 |
145 |
205 |
190 |
155 |
155 |
TD |
15 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
INT |
11 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
Ru
Yards |
125 |
5 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
|
5 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
10 |
25 |
10 |
0 |
Ru
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L McClain |
860 |
80 |
40 |
60 |
50 |
70 |
35 |
|
50 |
40 |
100 |
25 |
35 |
75 |
90 |
50 |
60 |
Ru
TD |
9 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
150 |
15 |
20 |
10 |
0 |
15 |
15 |
|
0 |
20 |
10 |
0 |
15 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
20 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
|
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R Rice |
730 |
70 |
50 |
100 |
55 |
40 |
40 |
|
75 |
30 |
40 |
40 |
20 |
45 |
60 |
25 |
40 |
Ru
TD |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
310 |
20 |
25 |
25 |
15 |
30 |
20 |
|
35 |
20 |
15 |
15 |
0 |
15 |
20 |
40 |
15 |
Re
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
42 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
|
3 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W McGahee |
505 |
25 |
35 |
45 |
15 |
50 |
10 |
|
55 |
25 |
30 |
25 |
40 |
10 |
35 |
85 |
20 |
Ru
TD |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
100 |
10 |
0 |
15 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
|
15 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
13 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Clayton |
785 |
65 |
40 |
80 |
35 |
50 |
55 |
|
15 |
80 |
50 |
35 |
40 |
75 |
100 |
45 |
20 |
Re
TD |
5 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
58 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
|
1 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
8 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D Williams |
645 |
50 |
75 |
20 |
65 |
20 |
70 |
|
55 |
15 |
70 |
0 |
20 |
90 |
40 |
20 |
35 |
Re
TD |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
32 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
4 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LJ
Smith |
345 |
25 |
15 |
0 |
25 |
20 |
40 |
|
20 |
35 |
15 |
35 |
25 |
15 |
15 |
10 |
50 |
Re
TD |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
38 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
|
2 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T Heap |
220 |
10 |
10 |
35 |
10 |
0 |
25 |
|
0 |
10 |
0 |
35 |
30 |
0 |
15 |
25 |
15 |
Re
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
19 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
It's just as well that Baltimore will use three RBs to carry
the ground game this season because, quite frankly, I'm not sure
I want any of them starting for me after Week 11. In Weeks 12-16,
only Detroit offers any kind of respite from opponents I expect
to be among the league leaders in rush defense. Two games against
the Steelers (including fantasy championship week) in that time
is frightening enough, but add in what should be a much-improved
Packers defense in Week 13 at Lambeau Field and the Bears in Week
15 and I've seen enough. Up until that point, Baltimore has a
fairly advantageous slate in which Le’Ron McClain and Ray Rice
should be able to alternate fantasy RB2-type of games. Just let
it be known that the schedule says that it would be smart to deal
Baltimore players at some point shortly after Week 10 vs. Cleveland.
Unlike 2008 draft classmate Matt Ryan, I don't see Joe
Flacco trending upward this season. The offense wasn't exactly
fantasy-friendly to begin with and that was before Derrick
Mason decided to retire. Even if Mason does return, the only
player impacted from a fantasy perspective will be Mark
Clayton and I don't see either player coming close to matching
Mason's 80-1,037-5 line from last season. Combine that with the
dreadful late-season schedule which suggests points and yards
will be hard to come by - just as it will be the Ravens' RBs -
and I find it hard to highly recommend any Baltimore offensive
player with any confidence in 2009.
Cincinnati Bengals |
|
Totals |
DEN |
GB |
PIT |
CLE |
BAL |
HOU |
CHI |
Bye |
BAL |
PIT |
OAK |
CLE |
DET |
MIN |
SD |
KC |
(Run) |
|
5 |
4 |
3.4 |
4.3 |
3.8 |
4.3 |
3.8 |
|
3.8 |
3.4 |
4.9 |
4.3 |
4.7 |
3.8 |
4.1 |
4.9 |
(Pass) |
|
6.8 |
6.8 |
5.6 |
7.2 |
6.2 |
7.2 |
6.8 |
|
6.2 |
5.6 |
6.9 |
7.2 |
7.9 |
6.6 |
6.6 |
7.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C Palmer |
3880 |
275 |
290 |
245 |
245 |
220 |
285 |
250 |
|
245 |
185 |
270 |
300 |
335 |
185 |
290 |
260 |
TD |
26 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
2 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
INT |
13 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C Benson |
1090 |
115 |
70 |
55 |
90 |
35 |
80 |
90 |
|
50 |
30 |
120 |
70 |
75 |
40 |
55 |
115 |
Ru
TD |
7 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
140 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
0 |
|
15 |
0 |
15 |
10 |
20 |
0 |
25 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
15 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B Scott |
560 |
30 |
25 |
25 |
45 |
25 |
35 |
20 |
|
35 |
40 |
50 |
30 |
60 |
25 |
55 |
60 |
Ru
TD |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
175 |
0 |
25 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
25 |
10 |
|
10 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
35 |
20 |
10 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
19 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B Leonard |
155 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
20 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
|
10 |
15 |
0 |
25 |
10 |
15 |
15 |
0 |
Ru
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
155 |
20 |
15 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
10 |
20 |
|
0 |
0 |
20 |
15 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
Re
TD |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
17 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C Ochocinco |
1055 |
70 |
85 |
45 |
105 |
60 |
70 |
50 |
|
85 |
40 |
35 |
125 |
70 |
55 |
50 |
110 |
Re
TD |
8 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
74 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
7 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
|
6 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Coles |
1040 |
75 |
100 |
60 |
50 |
85 |
40 |
60 |
|
65 |
55 |
80 |
55 |
110 |
60 |
75 |
70 |
Re
TD |
6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
88 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
7 |
3 |
5 |
|
5 |
8 |
6 |
5 |
10 |
3 |
8 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C Henry |
810 |
55 |
40 |
70 |
25 |
35 |
100 |
75 |
|
35 |
55 |
75 |
35 |
65 |
20 |
80 |
45 |
Re
TD |
8 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
45 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
|
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
6 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Caldwell |
250 |
20 |
25 |
30 |
10 |
0 |
20 |
25 |
|
25 |
0 |
20 |
20 |
25 |
15 |
15 |
0 |
Re
TD |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
24 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
|
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C Coffman |
255 |
20 |
0 |
15 |
35 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
|
10 |
35 |
10 |
40 |
0 |
15 |
35 |
20 |
Re
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
25 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
|
With every key offensive player happy, healthy and focused for
the first time in years, Cincinnati should challenge even the
best of defenses in 2009. Even better, for the first time in what
seems like ages, the Bengals' schedule plays out about as well
as it could have, outside of the obvious four combined meetings
with the Ravens and Steelers. Their Week 8 bye breaks up three
games that rival the toughest three-game stretch any team will
play this season (home games vs. Chicago and Baltimore in Weeks
7&9 before a Week 10 road affair in Pittsburgh.) While that mid-season
stretch is brutal, the good news is that the early and late part
of the schedule plays out pretty nicely. Denver, by all accounts,
will struggle mightily on defense this season and should allow
Cincinnati to gain some much-needed early confidence in what the
Bengals hope will be the most balanced offense they have presented
in years. Green Bay will still be transitioning to Dom Capers'
zone-blitz schemes in Week 2, the same kind Cincy will see in
Week 3 at home vs. Pittsburgh.
After the second Steeler meeting in Week 10, the Bengals should
be set up for a great final six-week flurry, especially in the
passing game. Only the Chargers in Week 15 have the personnel
necessary to capably match up with the Bengals' top three WRs,
but given their struggles against the TE in 2008, perhaps that
will be one game in which the addition of rookie TE Chase
Coffman will prove helpful. Carson
Palmer & Co. should be a joy to own all season long, but especially
in the final third of the campaign. A six-pack of games against
the Ravens (twice), Steelers (twice), Vikings and Bears figure
to diffuse any shot of a Bengal running back making a charge toward
a league rushing crown or top-ten finish among fantasy backs,
but a renewed emphasis on the running game should make Cedric
Benson a pretty serviceable fantasy RB2. If last season was
any indication, he'll contribute more than people expect in the
passing game and a Week 16 home matchup vs. the Chiefs sure looks
promising against a defense that shouldn't be much better against
the run than it was last season.
Cleveland Browns |
|
Totals |
MIN |
DEN |
BAL |
CIN |
BUF |
PIT |
GB |
CHI |
Bye |
BAL |
DET |
CIN |
SD |
PIT |
KC |
OAK |
(Run) |
|
3.8 |
5 |
3.8 |
4 |
4.5 |
3.4 |
4 |
3.8 |
|
3.8 |
4.7 |
4 |
4.1 |
3.4 |
4.9 |
4.9 |
(Pass) |
|
6.6 |
6.8 |
6.2 |
6.3 |
7.4 |
5.6 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
|
6.2 |
7.9 |
6.3 |
6.6 |
5.6 |
7.5 |
6.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B Quinn |
2450 |
170 |
215 |
160 |
205 |
235 |
100 |
|
|
|
220 |
225 |
200 |
200 |
140 |
225 |
155 |
TD |
15 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
INT |
13 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D Anderson |
435 |
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
175 |
210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TD |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INT |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Lewis |
785 |
65 |
55 |
40 |
55 |
80 |
35 |
55 |
25 |
|
65 |
45 |
50 |
30 |
50 |
60 |
75 |
Ru
TD |
6 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Re
Yards |
145 |
15 |
10 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
15 |
|
15 |
0 |
10 |
20 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
19 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
2 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Harrison |
630 |
40 |
75 |
25 |
35 |
45 |
20 |
40 |
50 |
|
25 |
70 |
40 |
45 |
20 |
55 |
45 |
Ru
TD |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
300 |
25 |
30 |
15 |
0 |
35 |
20 |
20 |
25 |
|
15 |
25 |
0 |
35 |
15 |
20 |
20 |
Re
TD |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
38 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
3 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B Edwards |
900 |
60 |
45 |
60 |
80 |
75 |
30 |
55 |
100 |
|
60 |
85 |
50 |
40 |
55 |
80 |
25 |
Re
TD |
5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
63 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
1 |
5 |
8 |
|
4 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B Robiskie |
760 |
35 |
65 |
20 |
70 |
50 |
35 |
65 |
55 |
|
20 |
65 |
60 |
50 |
60 |
50 |
60 |
Re
TD |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
58 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
|
2 |
6 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Massaquoi |
430 |
15 |
30 |
40 |
20 |
65 |
20 |
15 |
0 |
|
70 |
20 |
55 |
25 |
0 |
20 |
35 |
Re
TD |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
28 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
3 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Rucker |
350 |
20 |
35 |
25 |
15 |
0 |
30 |
20 |
15 |
|
40 |
30 |
25 |
30 |
10 |
40 |
15 |
Re
TD |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
34 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
4 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
|
It's a shame when good fantasy playoff matchups are wasted on
bad teams. The Browns face the Chiefs and Raiders in Weeks 15-16,
but this offense is enough of a mess right now that it may not
be able to give fantasy owners enough production to take advantage.
First off, this season is probably Jamal
Lewis' swan song in terms of being any kind of fantasy asset;
the main question will be if his career workload will finally
catch up to him in Week 1 or Week 10. Then there is the case of
Jerome Harrison,
who may sap just about any kind of remaining value Lewis has left.
The only breaks Lewis and Harrison may catch early in the season
are that Minnesota may be without the "Williams Wall" in Week
1 and that Cincinnati may not meet my expectations as an above-average
defense this fall. If the Bengals do meet that expectation, however,
all six division games will be difficult for the Browns to get
anything going on the ground. Throw in the Bears, Packers and
Chargers and, all of the sudden, 60% of Cleveland's "running schedule"
is against stout run defenses.
The news for the passing game isn't much better. I don't believe
Cleveland has a matchup all season long which, on the surface,
is one its passing game can feast on. Games against Denver and
Detroit look appealing at first, but each game is on the road
and both the Broncos (Champ Bailey) and the Lions (new HC Jim
Schwartz has better personnel and won't stand for the number of
blown coverages that Rod Marinelli did) have compelling reasons
as to why the Browns could struggle in those games as well. Braylon
Edwards is bound to have a productive game or two, but since this
offense will be a grind-it-out offense to begin with, that may
be his ceiling. Brian
Robiskie should be as productive as any rookie receiver this
season because he is already the most reliable receiver the team
has, so even though his YPC won't be all that high, he’ll be a
decent play in PPR leagues. Perhaps if Martin
Rucker proves he is a carbon-copy of Kellen
Winslow, this passing game will flourish more than I am letting
on in this article. But I'm not holding my breath on that happening.
Pittsburgh Steelers |
|
Totals |
TEN |
CHI |
CIN |
SD |
DET |
CLE |
MIN |
Bye |
DEN |
CIN |
KC |
BAL |
OAK |
CLE |
GB |
BAL |
(Run) |
|
4.1 |
3.8 |
4 |
4.1 |
4.7 |
4.3 |
3.8 |
|
5 |
4 |
4.9 |
3.8 |
4.9 |
4.3 |
4 |
3.8 |
(Pass) |
|
6.5 |
6.8 |
6.3 |
6.6 |
7.9 |
7.2 |
6.6 |
|
6.8 |
6.3 |
7.5 |
6.2 |
6.9 |
7.2 |
6.8 |
6.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B Roethlisberger |
2955 |
210 |
210 |
245 |
165 |
210 |
230 |
200 |
|
145 |
210 |
170 |
120 |
250 |
215 |
215 |
160 |
TD |
19 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
INT |
11 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Ru
Yards |
120 |
10 |
0 |
15 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
|
15 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
20 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
Ru
TD |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W Parker |
1085 |
80 |
65 |
75 |
90 |
60 |
100 |
50 |
|
120 |
90 |
100 |
35 |
60 |
60 |
45 |
55 |
Ru
TD |
7 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
110 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
15 |
|
0 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
25 |
0 |
Re
TD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
15 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
|
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R Mendenhall |
740 |
30 |
45 |
45 |
25 |
50 |
55 |
45 |
|
60 |
50 |
35 |
60 |
80 |
60 |
70 |
30 |
Ru
TD |
6 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Re
Yards |
200 |
15 |
25 |
15 |
30 |
0 |
25 |
10 |
|
10 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
25 |
10 |
10 |
Re
TD |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
22 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H Ward |
870 |
70 |
50 |
80 |
50 |
45 |
80 |
65 |
|
40 |
65 |
30 |
65 |
25 |
80 |
55 |
70 |
Re
TD |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Rec |
75 |
7 |
4 |
8 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
|
4 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S Holmes |
1010 |
65 |
75 |
75 |
85 |
100 |
70 |
45 |
|
45 |
65 |
65 |
25 |
105 |
55 |
90 |
45 |
Re
TD |
6 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Rec |
61 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
|
3 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
4 |
8 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Sweed |
415 |
40 |
25 |
30 |
0 |
20 |
35 |
20 |
|
40 |
35 |
50 |
0 |
65 |
25 |
20 |
10 |
Re
TD |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
26 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H Miller |
350 |
20 |
35 |
35 |
0 |
25 |
20 |
45 |
|
10 |
35 |
0 |
15 |
40 |
30 |
15 |
25 |
Re
TD |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rec |
34 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
|
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
Let 2008 be a reminder to each of us: a team needs only one dominant
unit to make a Super Bowl run. There was nothing particularly
special about the Steelers' running game for most of last season
and the passing game wasn't much better than average in terms
of total yards or efficiency. Heck, Ben
Roethlisberger finished a mere 24th in QB rating in 2008!
But when one team turns in the best total defense effort (3,795
yards) since the 1991 Philadelphia Eagles (3,549), the rest of
the team doesn't need to play at an All-Pro level. With that said,
Pittsburgh's offense greatly benefits from the fact it doesn't
have to face its own defense twice a year and, as such, has a
slate that it could be moderately productive against in 2009.
Considering that four of the five starters on the offensive line
were in their first seasons at the positions in 2008, the Steelers'
ground game should get a fair boost in productivity this season.
Also, trading in four NFC East games for four AFC West opponents
also figures to help in that regard as well. As a result, the
main question for fantasy owners with Pittsburgh's ground game
shouldn't be whether or not it will be productive, but who will
be the one producing? Willie
Parker believes he has the speed and acceleration back that
made him such a great back a few seasons ago while Rashard
Mendenhall will be primed to prove he is ready to be the next
great Steeler RB. Barring injury, I think Parker gets the better
end of a 60-40 split and gives his owners one more 1,000-yard
season before Mendenhall evens things out in 2010 and claims the
job for himself in 2011.
As for the passing game, Roethlisberger's fantasy effectiveness
will be determined as much by the running game as it will be by
his ability to absorb another 40-plus sacks. At some point, Big
Ben's size will not be enough to save the day after the defense
reaches him 5-6 times and knocks him down 10-15 more times. Much
like the running game, the passing game only has a handful of
below-average matchups. Unfortunately, as long as the Steelers
defense continues to hold opponents to around 14-15 points per
game, the urgency to turn Hines
Ward and Santonio
Holmes into the 2009 version of Stallworth and Swann won't
be all that high. In short, Ward and Holmes will once again be
solid WR2 options, but should not be counted on for WR1 production.
|