Crank Scores - Part
III 7/25/06
The “Gut Feeling” is often synonymous with a sense
of desperation resulting from a lack of preparation. The Gut Check
is a huge proponent of studying the numbers, but there’s
a point where one can place too much emphasis on the wrong information.
This can result in the undervaluing or overlooking a player’s
potential. Therefore, The Weekly Gut Check is devoted to examining
the frame of reference behind certain number-driven guidelines
that fantasy football owners use to make decisions.
Although The Weekly Gut Check doesn’t claim to be psychic,
he does believe that he can dispel certain numbers biases and
help you make the best choices for your team. We’ll keep
a running tally of The Weekly Gut Check’s insights. This
way you can gauge his views as something to seriously consider,
or at least seriously consider running the opposite way as fast
as you can!
Crank Scores will be the focus of a four-part series. Part
I provided Crank Scores for standard scoring, 12-team leagues
based on 2005 stats. Part
II focused on Crank Scores from 2005 stats for 12-team leagues
that score 1 point per reception. Part III incorporates a combination
of two draft strategies to create projections. Part IV will be a
more personalized projection incorporating Crank scores For a detailed
explanation of the Crank Score see Volume
40 and Matt Waldman’s Draft Strategy article in the 2006
edition of Fantasy Pro Forecast now on sale at newsstands near you.
So you’ve been reading about Crank Scores, but wonder
how you can apply this theory as a draft strategy for the coming
season. The Gut Check believes one viable approach is to combine
the concepts of Consistency Theory with The Average Value Theory
(or AVT). If aren’t familiar with AVT, here’s a brief
summary of it’s purposes from its originator, Wade Iuele:
The Average Value Theory “takes your player rankings (Top-30
QBs, Top-40 RBs, Top-50 WRs for example) and turns that into a
complete VBD draft board. It already has all the fantasy points,
it has already made all the comparisons, it just needs the names.
There are several versions of AVT, but here is how the (simplest)
one works:
Using historical data, AVT calculates what each player-slot will
score on average. By player slot I mean WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4, etc.
Each one of those player slots is given a fantasy point value,
customized to fit your scoring system. These values are obtained
by taking historical season-end statistics, calculating the fantasy
point totals through your scoring system, removing the names,
replacing those names with player slot ranks, doing this for several
consecutive years, and taking the average. Very simple, very clean,
and standardized while still being customized.”
The Gut Check’s approach to combining these two theories
is simple: substitute Crank Scores for fantasy points then fit
the players with the scores. This should be a great way to project
players for head to head leagues. In essence, you get the historical
values at each position that will help you generate more realistic
performance projections (AVT) combined with calculations designed
to predict success in head-to-head leagues (Crank).
First, yours truly had to determine how many years we should
use to average the Crank Score. The table below is a color-coded
representation of average QB Crank Scores for the starters (and
in some cases, top reserves) in a 12-team league with a lineup
of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, and 1 TE for 4 years, 3 years, and 2 years.
We’ll use a standard scoring league system in a 12-team
league of .1 point per yard rushing/receiving, .05 point per yard
passing, 6 points per rushing/receiving touchdown, and 4 points
per passing touchdown. FF Today offers you a chance to generate
your own Crank Scores customized to your league rules with The
Crank Score Calculator. Here’s the raw data for this
scoring system:
Average
Crank Scores |
Rank |
4-YR |
3-YR |
2-YR |
Rank |
4-YR |
3-YR |
2-YR |
Rank |
4-YR |
3-YR |
2-YR |
Rank |
4-YR |
3-YR |
2-YR |
QB1 |
78.42 |
73.7 |
73.24 |
RB1 |
102.43 |
97.91 |
97.33 |
WR1 |
71.34 |
72.1 |
71.12 |
TE1 |
26.34 |
28.53 |
29.47 |
QB2 |
64.86 |
64.4 |
68.2 |
RB2 |
74.75 |
78.07 |
73.3 |
WR2 |
63.49 |
62.23 |
59.78 |
TE2 |
20.31 |
21.97 |
22.4 |
QB3 |
56.36 |
54.21 |
55.77 |
RB3 |
66.31 |
70.34 |
69.09 |
WR3 |
53.7 |
53.06 |
55.92 |
TE3 |
17.35 |
18.47 |
17.2 |
QB4 |
51.77 |
49.37 |
49.94 |
RB4 |
62.49 |
65.32 |
62.74 |
WR4 |
48.58 |
48.74 |
54.23 |
TE4 |
15.61 |
16.63 |
15.35 |
QB5 |
46.01 |
41.97 |
45.45 |
RB5 |
58.19 |
61.07 |
57.5 |
WR5 |
46.97 |
48.02 |
53.7 |
TE5 |
12.22 |
12.68 |
13.26 |
QB6 |
41.61 |
36.63 |
40.3 |
RB6 |
53.71 |
55.21 |
54.69 |
WR6 |
43.61 |
44.66 |
49.2 |
TE6 |
11.32 |
11.62 |
12.05 |
QB7 |
36.89 |
34.9 |
38.67 |
RB7 |
51.38 |
53.16 |
53.98 |
WR7 |
42.12 |
43.09 |
47.87 |
TE7 |
10.35 |
11.08 |
11.73 |
QB8 |
35.35 |
33.41 |
36.87 |
RB8 |
50.27 |
51.82 |
51.99 |
WR8 |
38.32 |
38.13 |
41.05 |
TE8 |
8.71 |
8.89 |
8.73 |
QB9 |
34.02 |
31.73 |
34.46 |
RB9 |
46.72 |
48.48 |
47.89 |
WR9 |
37.54 |
37.23 |
39.92 |
TE9 |
7.74 |
7.7 |
7.78 |
QB10 |
31.96 |
29.03 |
30.75 |
RB10 |
41.07 |
42.2 |
43.1 |
WR10 |
34.99 |
34.7 |
36.64 |
TE10 |
7.42 |
7.46 |
7.56 |
QB11 |
30.94 |
27.8 |
29.42 |
RB11 |
36.72 |
37.49 |
38.24 |
WR11 |
33.19 |
33.39 |
35.04 |
TE11 |
6.62 |
6.45 |
6.42 |
QB12 |
29.99 |
27.32 |
28.72 |
RB12 |
33.8 |
34.45 |
34.77 |
WR12 |
31.18 |
30.9 |
31.45 |
TE12 |
6.19 |
6.13 |
5.92 |
QB13 |
26.76 |
24.97 |
25.56 |
RB13 |
29.82 |
30.36 |
33.19 |
WR13 |
30.03 |
29.68 |
30.75 |
TE13 |
5.62 |
5.72 |
5.71 |
QB14 |
25.25 |
23.36 |
23.94 |
RB14 |
29.22 |
29.72 |
32.24 |
WR14 |
27.9 |
26.97 |
27 |
TE14 |
5.34 |
5.41 |
5.49 |
QB15 |
24.34 |
22.54 |
22.76 |
RB15 |
27.48 |
28.63 |
31.71 |
WR15 |
26.95 |
26.2 |
26.39 |
TE15 |
4.59 |
4.44 |
4.49 |
QB16 |
22.98 |
20.98 |
21.68 |
RB16 |
26.84 |
27.94 |
31.11 |
WR16 |
26.73 |
25.97 |
26.25 |
TE16 |
4.21 |
4.2 |
4.17 |
QB17 |
21.92 |
20.3 |
20.99 |
RB17 |
24.69 |
25.1 |
26.96 |
WR17 |
25.94 |
25.23 |
25.17 |
TE17 |
3.99 |
3.94 |
3.89 |
QB18 |
19.55 |
17.62 |
18.09 |
RB18 |
23.56 |
24.01 |
26.03 |
WR18 |
24.44 |
24.48 |
24.43 |
TE18 |
3.74 |
3.65 |
3.6 |
QB19 |
18.62 |
16.79 |
17.46 |
RB19 |
21.64 |
21.75 |
23.86 |
WR19 |
23.63 |
23.76 |
23.9 |
TE19 |
3.66 |
3.57 |
3.5 |
QB20 |
17.96 |
16.27 |
16.94 |
RB20 |
21.21 |
21.29 |
23.35 |
WR20 |
22.24 |
22.54 |
23.28 |
TE20 |
3.43 |
3.29 |
3.1 |
QB21 |
17.59 |
15.96 |
16.54 |
RB21 |
19.86 |
20.36 |
22.55 |
WR21 |
21.74 |
21.92 |
22.46 |
TE21 |
3.29 |
3.2 |
2.99 |
QB22 |
16.81 |
15.22 |
16.2 |
RB22 |
17.95 |
18.24 |
21.67 |
WR22 |
21.38 |
21.63 |
22.07 |
TE22 |
3.03 |
2.88 |
2.6 |
QB23 |
16.21 |
14.47 |
15.67 |
RB23 |
16.66 |
16.74 |
19.67 |
WR23 |
20.84 |
21.04 |
21.59 |
TE23 |
2.69 |
2.44 |
2.2 |
QB24 |
15.29 |
13.63 |
14.61 |
RB24 |
15.87 |
15.82 |
18.6 |
WR24 |
20.01 |
19.98 |
20.53 |
TE24 |
2.57 |
2.32 |
2.08 |
QB25 |
15.07 |
13.47 |
14.42 |
RB25 |
14.72 |
14.37 |
17.02 |
WR25 |
18.91 |
18.79 |
19.91 |
TE25 |
2.2 |
1.98 |
1.66 |
QB26 |
14.64 |
13.12 |
13.97 |
RB26 |
13.83 |
14.15 |
16.93 |
WR26 |
18.08 |
17.74 |
18.41 |
|
|
|
|
QB27 |
11.76 |
10.22 |
9.64 |
RB27 |
13.23 |
13.65 |
16.24 |
WR27 |
17.44 |
17 |
17.78 |
|
|
|
|
QB28 |
10.68 |
8.99 |
7.95 |
RB28 |
11.33 |
11.56 |
13.43 |
WR28 |
16.81 |
16.35 |
16.92 |
|
|
|
|
QB29 |
9.34 |
7.22 |
5.85 |
RB29 |
9.1 |
9.66 |
11.52 |
WR29 |
16.3 |
15.81 |
16.23 |
|
|
|
|
QB30 |
8.15 |
6.72 |
5.34 |
RB30 |
8.12 |
8.99 |
10.51 |
WR30 |
15.82 |
15.18 |
15.35 |
|
|
|
|
QB31 |
7.22 |
6.19 |
4.78 |
RB31 |
7.47 |
8.36 |
9.63 |
WR31 |
15.25 |
14.67 |
14.75 |
|
|
|
|
QB32 |
6.67 |
5.49 |
3.78 |
RB32 |
7.2 |
8.02 |
9.3 |
WR32 |
14.88 |
14.29 |
14.39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RB33 |
6.79 |
7.52 |
8.73 |
WR33 |
14.56 |
13.95 |
13.88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RB34 |
6.01 |
7.1 |
8.09 |
WR34 |
14.1 |
13.42 |
13.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RB35 |
5.65 |
6.7 |
7.73 |
WR35 |
13.32 |
12.4 |
12.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RB36 |
4.71 |
5.59 |
6.24 |
WR36 |
12.92 |
12.01 |
12.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
It appears that in recent years quarterback play has become less
consistent at the top end of performance. There have been spikes
in the average—for instance Manning and Culpepper’s
2004 seasons—but the number of QBs posting a Crank Score
of at least 50 has dropped recently. Based off this data it might
make sense for you to consider a more cautious strategy with quarterbacks,
which means not waiting too long to draft your starter. These
numbers for at least a 4-year period show that the 8th-ranked
quarterback is essentially half as consistently productive at
the desire level of play as the top signal caller. It doesn’t
mean this quarterback is half has productive, it just means he’s
half has reliable to have a quality game. If you pick the right
quarterback early—one of the top 3-4 signal callers—the
data shows you’re probably half as likely to worry about
making the wrong decision to start him over another QB on your
roster.
This is one of the interesting things about Crank Scores. Not
only are you looking at whom to draft, but how your decisions
may impact whom you start on a weekly basis. It’s good to
have depth, but the teams that wind up on the bubble of a playoff
berth often have squads that have too many players that lack a
high enough level of consistency to separate themselves from their
peers as a reliable starter week to week.
If you drafted the 10th-best QB during the past 3-4 years, which
was likely a selection after the fifth round in most drafts, you
were getting a player that wasn’t much better than a non-starter
in a 12-team league. If you don’t have a good idea of which
lower valued QBs have a strong likelihood of exceeding their worth,
you may want to grab a signal caller before the first 6-7 QBs
leave the board. This will increase your chances of landing a
quarterback that will consistently perform to the expectations
you should have for a starter.
Now if you want a starter that is consistently going to outpace
at least half your league week to week, it appears you should
gun for a QB with a Crank Score higher than 50 points. This means
you’ll need to take one of the best 3-5 QBs on your draft
board to have a reasonable shot at achieving this objective.
This information should tell you that you shouldn’t determine
which round you take a quarterback as much as you count how many
quarterbacks are (or will be) off the board before your next pick.
If you count the quarterbacks off the board, this should give
you a better chance to acquire a signal caller that will help
you succeed week to week rather than wait for a certain round,
and miss out.
The top running backs remain highly consistent. In fact, there
is a trend of consistently higher performances in recent years
despite the media’s obsession with the impending doom of
running back by committees and NFL rules changes to aid the passing
game. For the past two years, there have been four additional
backs with consistency scores typically within the range of the
10th-12th rated RBs. This could have to do with fewer injuries
or simply better performances with the running game.
In comparison to quarterbacks, there is nearly twice as many
#1 quality RBs with Crank Scores of at least 40. The ratio of
starter quality RBs to QBs is one factor in support of the stud
running back theory (picking two RBs early—generally within
the first two rounds). Ultimately what a fantasy owner hopes is
to land two backs that rank within the top five by the end of
the year.
Since the top 20 backs go off the board so fast, it’s wise
to invest in rookies and backups throughout the selection process
to have injury insurance. Sam Gado, Larry Johnson, and Cadillac
Williams were all non-starter draft picks in 2005 (if drafted
at all). As mentioned in previous columns, production is very
much linked to opportunity. Taking as many reasonable chances
on talented backups and rookies should provide you future trade
bait, if not an actual starter.
Lately there have been 7-8 receivers that perform at a level
of consistency comparable with the #1 quality starting RBs. For
the past 3-4 years, you might be in as good of shape drafting
a receiver with your top pick from spots 9-12 instead of a runner.
Again, it depends on your league’s draft tendencies but
simply by the numbers, a top tier receiver could do you more good
than the runner you’ll likely have a shot at drafting on
the way back to you with your second round pick. It’s important
to realize that drafting a receiver any earlier is fraught with
risk.
One of the most interesting facts about comparing QB, RB, and
WR Crank Scores is how the level of score begins to even out across
all three positions within in the range of the 14th-17th rated
player at each position. This phenomenon dictates fantasy football
common sense: the more valuable players within these ranges tend
to be backs and receivers because they still tend to be starter
material. This is why it’s wise to be patient with landing
that backup QB or starting TE—that is unless you have drafted
against the common trend and have to plan accordingly.
The spread for tight end Crank Scores has been very consistent.
There are generally two stud tight ends, one significantly better
than the other, another five decent starters, and then the rest
of the field. This is another reason why most fantasy leagues
experience a noticeable run of tight ends going off the board
at some point in the draft. It’s probably best to be the
one to start the run if you are closer to either end of a serpentine
draft. This will allow you to snag a desired player at another
position due to the fact other teams may be reacting to the positional
run.
Now that he has seen the average Crank Score values for these
ranges of time, The Gut Check will use the two-year average to
do an AVT-like projection using Crank Scores. Just from eyeballing
the charts, it appears the two-year average has more in common
with the four-year average. The three-year average was somewhat
of an anomaly so the most recent past seems to more consistent
with the first half of this decade overall.
Here were several factors the Gut Check considered as he assigned
players to these values:
- Has the player consistently posted a Crank Score close to
the projected AVT Crank Score?
- If the player is a rookie, what was the prior starter’s
Crank Score for the preceding year?
- Was the player injured last year and what is the status for
his recovery?
- Has the player switched teams or have key support staff arrived
or departed from his squad?
The Crank Score-AVT rankings below show the player, the assigned
Crank Value, and his corresponding Average Draft position at the
time of publication (just as training camps are about to open).
The Gut Check will continue to revise these projections into his
personal Crank Projections for the 2006 season, but let’s
consider this somewhat of a rough draft. Would yours truly use
these projections for a draft? At this point, sure—while
there will still be a lot of changes (especially at the RB position),
the Gut Check feels pretty good about these rankings as a pre-training
camp draft list.
Crank
Score-AVT Rankings |
QB |
Player |
Crank |
ADP |
RB |
Player |
Crank |
ADP |
WR |
Player |
Crank |
ADP |
TE |
Player |
Crank |
ADP |
1 |
P. Manning |
73.24 |
2.03 |
1 |
L. Johnson |
97.33 |
1.01 |
1 |
L. Fitzgerald |
71.12 |
2.08 |
1 |
A. Gates |
29.47 |
3.04 |
2 |
D. McNabb |
68.2 |
6.01 |
2 |
S. Alexander |
73.3 |
1.02 |
2 |
T. Holt |
59.78 |
2.06 |
2 |
T. Gonzalez |
22.4 |
5.03 |
3 |
M. Bulger |
55.77 |
6.05 |
3 |
T. Barber |
69.09 |
1.05 |
3 |
M. Harrison |
55.92 |
2.11 |
3 |
J. Shockey |
17.2 |
4.11 |
4 |
T. Brady |
49.94 |
5.02 |
4 |
L. Tomlinson |
62.74 |
1.02 |
4 |
T. Owens |
54.23 |
2.02 |
4 |
T. Heap |
15.35 |
5.1 |
5 |
C. Palmer |
45.45 |
4.08 |
5 |
C. Portis |
57.5 |
1.04 |
5 |
C. Johnson |
53.7 |
2.06 |
5 |
J. Witten |
13.26 |
7.03 |
6 |
K. Warner |
40.3 |
7.11 |
6 |
L. Jordan |
54.69 |
1.07 |
6 |
R. Moss |
49.2 |
2.11 |
6 |
A. Crumpler |
12.05 |
6.07 |
7 |
A. Brooks |
38.67 |
9.05 |
7 |
E. James |
53.98 |
1.07 |
7 |
A. Boldin |
47.87 |
3.02 |
7 |
C. Cooley |
11.73 |
7.11 |
8 |
E. Manning |
36.87 |
6.02 |
8 |
C. Williams |
51.99 |
1.11 |
8 |
S. Smith |
41.05 |
2.01 |
8 |
R. McMichael |
8.73 |
8.04 |
9 |
J. Delhomme |
34.46 |
7.03 |
9 |
B. Westbrook |
47.89 |
2.01 |
9 |
C. Chambers |
39.92 |
3.06 |
9 |
B. Watson |
7.78 |
10.08 |
10 |
D. Bledsoe |
30.75 |
7.09 |
10 |
R. Brown |
43.1 |
1.09 |
10 |
S. Moss |
36.64 |
4.04 |
10 |
K. Winslow |
7.56 |
9.09 |
11 |
D. Culpepper |
29.42 |
7.02 |
11 |
R. Johnson |
38.24 |
1.1 |
11 |
J. Horn |
35.04 |
5.06 |
11 |
V. Davis |
6.42 |
10.09 |
12 |
M. Hasselbeck |
28.72 |
5.08 |
12 |
S. Jackson |
34.77 |
1.07 |
12 |
D. Mason |
31.45 |
5.09 |
12 |
H. Miller |
5.92 |
10.04 |
13 |
T. Green |
25.56 |
8.08 |
13 |
J. Lewis |
33.19 |
3.04 |
13 |
D. Jackson |
30.75 |
3.12 |
13 |
L.J. Smith |
5.71 |
9.01 |
14 |
D. Brees |
23.94 |
10.03 |
14 |
D. Foster |
32.24 |
4.03 |
14 |
J. Galloway |
27 |
6.01 |
14 |
B. Troupe |
5.49 |
13.06 |
15 |
B. Favre |
22.76 |
10.04 |
15 |
C. Benson |
31.71 |
5.05 |
15 |
T.J Housh |
26.39 |
5.07 |
15 |
Dal. Clark |
4.49 |
12.07 |
16 |
S. McNair |
21.68 |
11.04 |
16 |
J. Addai |
31.11 |
5.01 |
16 |
H. Ward |
26.25 |
3.09 |
16 |
Des. Clark |
4.17 |
|
17 |
M. Vick |
20.99 |
8.12 |
17 |
R. Bush |
26.96 |
3.09 |
17 |
D. Driver |
25.17 |
4.07 |
17 |
A. Smith |
3.89 |
14.07 |
18 |
B. Leftwich |
18.09 |
11.03 |
18 |
C. Dillon |
26.03 |
4.03 |
18 |
R. Wayne |
24.43 |
3.07 |
18 |
C. Anderson |
3.6 |
|
19 |
C. Simms |
17.46 |
12.05 |
19 |
W. Dunn |
23.86 |
3.11 |
19 |
R. Williams |
23.9 |
3.12 |
19 |
M. Lewis |
3.5 |
15.01 |
20 |
M. Brunell |
16.94 |
13.02 |
20 |
W. Parker |
23.35 |
3.01 |
20 |
T. Glenn |
23.28 |
9.09 |
20 |
Z. Hilton |
3.1 |
14.1 |
21 |
Roethlisberger |
16.54 |
10.04 |
21 |
F. Taylor |
22.55 |
5.11 |
21 |
P. Burress |
22.46 |
4.05 |
21 |
L. Pope |
2.99 |
15.06 |
22 |
J. Plummer |
16.2 |
9.02 |
22 |
K. Jones |
21.67 |
2.1 |
22 |
M. Jones |
22.07 |
8.12 |
22 |
J. Putzier |
2.6 |
|
23 |
J. Kitna |
15.67 |
11.12 |
23 |
R. Droughns |
19.67 |
3.07 |
23 |
K. Robinson |
21.59 |
8.08 |
23 |
J. Wiggins |
2.2 |
14.03 |
24 |
B. Volek |
14.61 |
13.08 |
24 |
A. Green |
18.6 |
5.12 |
24 |
A. Bryant |
20.53 |
10.1 |
24 |
D. Graham |
2.08 |
|
25 |
D. Carr |
14.42 |
11.12 |
25 |
W. McGahee |
17.02 |
2.05 |
25 |
L. Evans |
19.91 |
6.08 |
25 |
E. Johnson |
1.66 |
|
26 |
R. Grossman |
13.97 |
14.06 |
26 |
F. Gore |
16.93 |
6.11 |
26 |
A. Johnson |
18.41 |
4.1 |
|
|
|
|
27 |
P. Rivers |
9.64 |
12.1 |
27 |
J. Jones |
16.24 |
2.09 |
27 |
D. Stallworth |
17.78 |
9.04 |
|
|
|
|
28 |
K. Holcomb |
7.95 |
|
28 |
C. Taylor |
13.43 |
3.07 |
28 |
D. Branch |
16.92 |
5.08 |
|
|
|
|
29 |
C. Frye |
5.85 |
15.07 |
29 |
L. White |
11.52 |
8.06 |
29 |
E. Kennison |
16.23 |
8.08 |
|
|
|
|
30 |
B. Johnson |
5.34 |
14.04 |
30 |
C. Martin |
10.51 |
6.09 |
30 |
R. Smith |
15.35 |
7.04 |
|
|
|
|
31 |
A. Smith |
4.78 |
|
31 |
D. Williams |
9.63 |
7.07 |
31 |
N. Burleson |
14.75 |
7.11 |
|
|
|
|
32 |
C. Pennington |
3.78 |
|
32 |
T. Jones |
9.3 |
5.08 |
32 |
M. Muhammad |
14.39 |
8.06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
V. Morency |
8.73 |
|
33 |
K. McCardell |
13.88 |
11.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
M. Barber |
8.09 |
8.07 |
34 |
J. Walker |
13.7 |
4.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
T. Bell |
7.73 |
4.04 |
35 |
K. Johnson |
12.48 |
11.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
D. McAllister |
6.24 |
5.06 |
36 |
B. Lloyd |
12.08 |
12.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
This is the kind of cheat sheet the Gut Check will often use—especially
if he isn’t able to bring a laptop with him to a draft (in
that case he’d use the Compiler/Draft Buddy with some Crank
info as an addition resource). Since the Crank Score encompasses
fantasy point per game average and consistency strength, yours
truly gets a well-package view of projected productivity. The
ADP scores were from serious mock drafts from AntSports.com during
the month of July for 12-team leagues with no flex player and
a tight end requirement. The ADP provides a relative value that
your peers likely have for that player. The Crank Score and ADP
provide a balanced analysis for you to decide which players you
believe are overvalued or undervalued. Plus you can get a general
idea of when you can wait a round or two and when you should reach
a bit to grab that desired player.
The Gut Check clearly has some players that he feels are over
valued and undervalued. So let’s give a brief profile of
some of these projections that might jump out at the average observer:
Quarterbacks
Donovan McNabb #2 overall, ADP 6.02:
McNabb has proven to get it done with or with out Terrell Owens.
He’s in the best shape of his life and sports enough of
a supporting cast to regain a spot as one of the elite fantasy
quarterbacks. Re-think that supporting cast comment for a second.
Brian Westbrook is one of the best all-purpose backs in football
and he’ll continue to receive a lot of looks in the passing
game because second-year back Ryan Moats is an excellent runner
that will provide the Eagles a surprisingly effective 1-2 punch.
Go ahead and listen to the television cognoscenti tell you the
Eagles won’t be able to run, because about a month into
the season they’ll be talking about the run game as a surprising
success. Plus Moats and Westbrook on the field at the same time
will create dangerous advantages for Philly because once Moats
burns the defense enough times, Westbrook will see more room as
a receiver. L.J. Smith is an underrated tight end and solid red
zone option and Reggie Brown can do a little bit of everything.
While they lack the elite receiver, McNabb put up top 3-5 QB-like
fantasy numbers without one. While four other quarterbacks are
going off the board before McNabb, the Gut Check thinks he’s
a bargain compared to Matt Hasselbeck.
Kurt Warner #6 overall, ADP 7.11:
Did anyone watch Warner at the end of the year? Considering he’s
the starter for a historically moribund franchise, and he looked
like a punching bag for the Giants in ’04, it’s hard
to blame the casual observer for letting Warner fall off the radar.
Still, Warner garners strong value with two, pro bowl quality
receivers and now an elite runner. Warner had the 6th highest
Crank Score in 2005, but missed 6 games. But the presence of James
should provide extra protection for the Cards QB. Fitzgerald and
Boldin should only get better as 3rd and 4th-year veterans, so
expecting 14-16 games out of Warner isn’t a reach.
Matt Hasselbeck #12 overall, ADP 5.08:
Why is the Gut Check not as impressed with Hasselbeck in comparison
to the rest of the fantasy world? The Seahawks QB was ranked 13th
in 2005, 14th in 2004, and 13th in 2003. Is Nate Burleson going
to catapult Hassebleck into the elite fantasy quarterbacks? The
Gut Check doesn’t think so. The absence of Steve Hutchinson
isn’t going to make it easier for the Seahawks offense,
either. This isn’t to say Seattle will disappoint—they
should have an excellent year—but Shaun Alexander remains
the centerpiece and Hasselbeck is the second banana. Why does
everyone else rate him so highly? Yours truly guesses it has to
do with the Super Bowl appearance. So at this point, consider
Hasselbeck a good quarterback, but an over hyped fantasy signal
caller.
Running Backs
Jamal Lewis #13 Overall, ADP 3.04:
If you’ve been reading the Gut Check’s work for at
least a year, you’ll know he predicted a down year for the
Ravens back. This year he is reversing his field on Lewis’
prospects, and believes he’ll be an outstanding second back
for you fantasy squad. Lewis’ value has dropped due to the
fact he never recovered from his ankle injury last year—how
anyone thought Lewis would get the best of care while rehabbing
at a federal prison is behind understanding—and the acquisition
of Broncos back Mike Anderson this year. As for Anderson’s
presence, the Gut Check believes Lewis will be the main man if
healthy. Anderson is simply an upgrade to Chester Taylor—a
back that can carry the load if called upon. Sure, he’ll
get his share of carries, but if you think a healthy, focused
Jamal Lewis is going to cede significant looks to Anderson, then
you must be in the camp that age has taken a toll on the former
2000-yard rusher. The Gut Check doesn’t have this inclination,
especially with the presence of Steve McNair. This Ravens team
could very well perform like the Titans of the late 1990’s—and
the best-case scenario could mean Lewis returns to elite back
status in 2006.
Willie Parker #20 Overall, ADP 3.01:
The Gut Check has quite a few adjustments to make to the 12th-24th
rated backs on this list, but he believes the Steeler’s
starter is the beneficiary of the same hype Matt Hasselbeck has
received as a Super Bowl participant. The Gut Check believes Jerome
Bettis will be tougher to replace than many fantasy owners anticipate.
Just think about The Sporting News’ rumor that Pittsburgh
inquired about the availability of Falcon runner T.J. Duckett.
If the Steelers thought they had a featured back in Parker, a
possible trade wouldn’t be something they’d entertain.
Parker was rated 22nd among backs in 2005 Crank Score and the
Gut Check believes Staley and Haynes will take on larger roles
in the Pittsburgh running game in 2006 if Duckett or another power
back doesn’t get shipped to the Iron City. Parker will have
some nice games, but don’t consider him a lock as a #2 RB
for your squad.
Cedric Benson #15 Overall, ADP 5.05:
As training camp progresses, we’ll see whether Benson retains
the starting spot. If he does, expect his value to steadily rise.
But if you draft early in the preseason, the second year back
out of Texas is potentially nice value as your #3 RB if he’s
available at the projected ADP. Thomas Jones was the 11th-rated
back according to his 2005 Crank Score and The Gut Check doesn’t
see the Bears defense getting any tamer for opponents. This should
present good opportunities for the lead back in Chicago. Speaking
of Chicago backs, keep an eye on Adrian Peterson—Lovie Smith
has always been high on this player and so has yours truly. If
disaster strikes the Second City’s backfield, Peterson could
have a Gado-esque 2006.
Note: Domanick Davis was purposely excluded from the rankings.
Until the Texans back demonstrates he’ll be healthy enough
to run, The Gut Check isn’t going near him in early summer
drafts.
Wide Receivers
Joey Galloway #14 overall, ADP 6.01:
Galloway is the victim of the age old, old age concern that the
wheels are bound to fall off sooner than later. But the Gut Check
isn’t buying it for 2006. In fact, yours truly still thinks
he might have Galloway ranked too low at #14 overall. It’s
the presence of a rejuvenated David Boston and fully rehabilitated
Michael Clayton that is quelling his optimism at the moment. Only
Fitzgerald and Owens had more elite games than Galloway last year.
The Gut Check is going to keep an eye on preseason developments
as One Buc Place.
Terry Glenn #20 overall, ADP 9.09:
Maybe Owens has traditionally been a ball hog, but T.O. has never
had a receiver the caliber of Terry Glenn on the opposite side.
Dallas now has two excellent deep threats and a top tight end.
The presence of Owens should give opposing defenses fits in pass
coverage because Glenn has the advantage one on one against most
corners when it comes to deep routes. At the tail end of round
nine, Glenn is a potential steal.
Joe Horn #11 overall, ADP 5.06:
Sticking with the fine wine ages with time theme, Joe
Horn makes The Gut Check’s list as an undervalued player.
Drew Brees is continuing to mature into a very savvy quarterback
and he and Horn should become a great combo. To get a perennial
top-flight, fantasy receiver as a #2 or #3 starter on a roster
is yet again a great deal.
Tight Ends
Heath Miller #12 Overall, ADP 10.04:
This is a player the Gut Check will likely bump up a few notches
in his projections. Miller and Roethlisberger should continue
to establish a great connection. Look for Pittsburgh offensive
coordinator Ken Whisenhunt to come up with even more packages
to exploit the second year tight end’s skills. While other
owners talk up Kellen Winslow, Vernon Davis, and Ben Watson, Miller
could very well be just as enticing a value.
Desmond Clark #16 Overall, ADP Not
Drafted: Clark is a good receiver that wasn’t in
great shape last year. He has been impressive in mini camp after
arriving in much better condition. The Bear’s starter had
some moments in Denver and it wouldn’t be a surprise to
the Gut Check if he actually performs like a fantasy starter this
year. A good late round pick.
Next week, the Gut Check will tweak his projections for the final
installment of the Crank Score series.
|