Crank Score Projections
8/6/07
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 are officially three years old (If you are new to Crank
Scores begin here
as a primer) and it has created the desire among other fantasy football
sites to explore player consistency in greater detail. One of the
common criticisms of The Gut Check’s projections method is
the ability to reasonably estimate player performance with a theory
used to measure past production. This is really no different than
other statistical projection methods because one year’s worth
of stats don’t guarantee similar performance for the next.
Yours truly has to agree with the basic validity of this argument:
the Crank Score has lacked a clear basis for projecting from one
season to the next. Much of this criticism comes from certain
proponents of a Value Based Draft System or other draft theory.
What yours truly has discovered is that none of the popular statistical
theories touted elsewhere have any solid basis for projecting
performance from one year to the next. The research that has led
the Gut Check to this conclusion will be provided throughout the
month of August. He will use this information to not only discuss
the hit or miss “craft” of projecting performance—because
it is far from science at this stage of history in fantasy football—but
to also use the results to create a profile of players who performed
well in 2006 and have a strong shot of attaining excellent weekly
productivity at a highly consistent level in 2007—the essence
of what the Crank Scores measure.
Keep in mind the Gut Check was once an avid VBD/AVT/stat projection
strategist as a fantasy owner. Although the Crank Score is still
evolving, he has certainly benefited from his use of his formula
as a fantasy owner. He has used the formula as the basis for his
cheat sheets in four leagues between 2005-2006. In those four
leagues he has one playoff appearance (in his local league) and
three championships in showcase/expert leagues—including
back-to-back championships in the Fantasy Auctioneer Experts Invitational.
The Gut Check believes the Crank Score is excellent for creating
cheat sheets or refining the results of a traditional, statistically
based set of projections.
This week he’s simply going to post his initial August
Crank Projections based on his projection methods from 2005-2006.
He’ll also touch upon some historical stats, which will
impact how he’ll refine his projections in subsequent weeks.
First, a short breakdown of the method used to create these initial
projections:
1. He looked at 10 years of Crank
Scores for each starting position in a 12-team league (Top 32 QBs,
Top 36 RBs, Top 36 WRs, and Top 24 TEs). The scoring factored into
this Crank Score is the traditional set up:
- .1-point per yard rushing/receiving
- .05-point per yard passing
- 4 points per passing touchdown
- 6 points per rushing/receiving touchdown.
2. He listed the Crank Scores in descending
value and compared various years with the 2006 results. He found
that the 2-year average of 2005-2006 matched very closely with his
projected Crank from last year. This high level of accuracy came
from using the 2-year average of Crank Scores from 2004-2005, which
was used for the projected values last year. This is very similar
to the way one projects fantasy points for the Average Value Theory.
In fact, here’s the Projected Cranks Scores vs. Actual Crank
Scores for 2006 and the differential (table below). The Differentials
in bold indicated a more significant difference between the projected
and actual performance. For instance, the 10-plus, point differential
for the #2 RB and #3 RB meant these were players the Gut Check undervalued.
In theory, the #2 and #3 RBs should have held higher value than
the best at every other position. Since yours truly is a proponent
of the stud RB theory in most drafts, this wouldn’t have made
much of a difference for him, but for some willing to experiment
it might. Regardless, there are 8 players out of 129 (6% overall)
that the 2-year average Crank Score overvalued/undervalued significantly
enough to notice and one could argue the there were no glaring issues.
The closest to one might be the near, 20-point overvaluing of the
#1 WR.
2006
- Projected vs. Actual Crank Scores |
Rk |
Projected
QB |
Actual
QB |
Diff |
Projected
RB |
Actual
RB |
Diff |
Projected
WR |
Actual
WR |
Diff |
Projected
TE |
Actual
TE |
Diff |
1 |
73.24 |
75.45 |
2.21 |
97.33 |
102.94 |
5.61 |
71.12 |
52.29 |
-18.84 |
29.47 |
22.30 |
-7.17 |
2 |
68.20 |
70.63 |
2.43 |
73.30 |
83.64 |
10.34 |
59.78 |
52.06 |
-7.72 |
22.40 |
13.87 |
-8.53 |
3 |
55.77 |
55.34 |
-0.42 |
69.09 |
79.56 |
10.47 |
55.92 |
48.89 |
-7.03 |
17.20 |
12.74 |
-4.45 |
4 |
49.94 |
44.67 |
-5.27 |
62.74 |
59.53 |
-3.20 |
54.23 |
46.04 |
-8.20 |
15.35 |
12.05 |
-3.30 |
5 |
45.45 |
42.45 |
-3.00 |
57.50 |
47.81 |
-9.69 |
53.70 |
44.00 |
-9.71 |
13.26 |
11.54 |
-1.72 |
6 |
40.30 |
38.20 |
-2.10 |
54.69 |
47.04 |
-7.65 |
49.20 |
42.64 |
-6.56 |
12.05 |
10.34 |
-1.72 |
7 |
38.67 |
37.17 |
-1.51 |
53.98 |
40.77 |
-13.22 |
47.87 |
41.64 |
-6.23 |
11.73 |
9.61 |
-2.12 |
8 |
36.87 |
35.93 |
-0.94 |
51.99 |
37.36 |
-14.63 |
41.05 |
34.85 |
-6.20 |
8.73 |
8.97 |
0.24 |
9 |
34.46 |
30.09 |
-4.37 |
47.89 |
35.46 |
-12.42 |
39.92 |
34.61 |
-5.31 |
7.78 |
6.82 |
-0.96 |
10 |
30.75 |
29.81 |
-0.94 |
43.10 |
35.32 |
-7.78 |
36.64 |
34.28 |
-2.36 |
7.56 |
5.90 |
-1.66 |
11 |
29.42 |
25.62 |
-3.80 |
38.24 |
34.01 |
-4.22 |
35.04 |
34.00 |
-1.04 |
6.42 |
4.48 |
-1.93 |
12 |
28.72 |
23.61 |
-5.11 |
34.77 |
32.00 |
-2.77 |
31.45 |
33.15 |
1.70 |
5.92 |
4.24 |
-1.69 |
13 |
25.56 |
22.68 |
-2.88 |
33.19 |
28.12 |
-5.07 |
30.75 |
30.71 |
-0.04 |
5.71 |
4.13 |
-1.58 |
14 |
23.94 |
22.19 |
-1.75 |
32.24 |
27.83 |
-4.42 |
27.00 |
29.33 |
2.34 |
5.49 |
3.89 |
-1.59 |
15 |
22.76 |
21.07 |
-1.69 |
31.71 |
26.16 |
-5.55 |
26.39 |
27.62 |
1.23 |
4.49 |
3.60 |
-0.89 |
16 |
21.68 |
20.34 |
-1.35 |
31.11 |
25.56 |
-5.55 |
26.25 |
26.25 |
0.00 |
4.17 |
2.82 |
-1.35 |
17 |
20.99 |
15.61 |
-2.47 |
26.96 |
23.33 |
-3.62 |
25.17 |
24.38 |
-0.79 |
3.89 |
2.66 |
-1.23 |
18 |
18.09 |
15.41 |
-2.05 |
26.03 |
22.53 |
-3.50 |
24.43 |
23.71 |
-0.72 |
3.60 |
2.59 |
-1.01 |
19 |
17.46 |
13.73 |
-2.80 |
23.86 |
20.71 |
-3.15 |
23.90 |
22.29 |
-1.61 |
3.50 |
1.35 |
-2.14 |
20 |
16.94 |
13.31 |
-2.90 |
23.35 |
20.60 |
-2.75 |
23.28 |
22.10 |
-1.18 |
3.10 |
1.07 |
-2.03 |
21 |
16.54 |
12.52 |
-3.15 |
22.55 |
17.63 |
-4.92 |
22.46 |
20.69 |
-1.78 |
2.99 |
0.83 |
-2.16 |
22 |
16.2 |
11.39 |
-3.21 |
21.67 |
16.06 |
-5.62 |
22.07 |
20.13 |
-1.94 |
2.60 |
0.63 |
-1.97 |
23 |
15.67 |
10.11 |
-4.31 |
19.67 |
14.84 |
-4.84 |
21.59 |
19.77 |
-1.82 |
2.20 |
0.53 |
-1.67 |
24 |
14.61 |
9.28 |
-4.69 |
18.60 |
14.00 |
-4.60 |
20.53 |
18.93 |
-1.61 |
2.08 |
0.44 |
-1.64 |
25 |
14.42 |
3.75 |
-5.90 |
17.02 |
13.47 |
-3.55 |
19.91 |
18.54 |
-1.37 |
1.66 |
0.42 |
-1.24 |
26 |
13.97 |
3.36 |
-4.60 |
16.93 |
12.91 |
-4.02 |
18.41 |
17.59 |
-0.81 |
|
|
|
27 |
9.64 |
0.00 |
-5.85 |
16.24 |
12.58 |
-3.66 |
17.78 |
17.23 |
-0.55 |
|
|
|
28 |
7.95 |
-1.67 |
-7.01 |
13.43 |
12.29 |
-1.13 |
16.92 |
17.17 |
0.25 |
|
|
|
29 |
5.85 |
-4.73 |
-9.51 |
11.52 |
11.79 |
0.27 |
16.23 |
16.37 |
0.14 |
|
|
|
30 |
5.34 |
|
|
10.51 |
11.18 |
0.67 |
15.35 |
16.35 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
31 |
4.78 |
|
|
9.63 |
10.47 |
0.84 |
14.75 |
14.46 |
-0.29 |
|
|
|
32 |
3.78 |
|
|
9.30 |
8.59 |
-0.71 |
14.39 |
13.79 |
-0.60 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
8.73 |
7.01 |
-1.71 |
13.88 |
13.79 |
-0.10 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
8.09 |
5.68 |
-2.41 |
13.70 |
12.98 |
-0.72 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
7.73 |
4.90 |
-2.83 |
12.48 |
10.39 |
-2.09 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
6.24 |
1.12 |
-5.12 |
12.08 |
9.49 |
-2.59 |
|
|
|
|
3. Since the 2-Year Average Crank
Score held up fairly well last year, the Gut Check decided to go
with a 2-Year Average for 2005-2006 when applying his projected
consistency for the 2007 season.
4. Now the tricky part—placing
the players in the appropriate performance ranking. This is where
any projection method is a craft: one part art, one part science.
First, the Gut Check simply ranked the players according to their
previous season’s Crank Performance. You can do this for your
league scoring system with the Crank
Score Calculator. Next, he made adjustments based on various
factors:
The Gut Check will be incorporating new research into his projections
on a weekly basis. This includes historical profiles of consistency
from season to season—not just game to game—for the
position. The aim is to discern certain things that will help
you take or avoid certain risks. One such example of research
that yielded an extremely helpful concept is the range of season-to-season
consistency that one should use to yield optimal results. It became
abundantly clear to the Gut Check—as you’ll see below
in these charts that show the percentage of time a player at each
position repeated an Elite (top-2) or Starter worthy (top-12)
performance in consecutive seasons from 1978-2006—that the
best way to begin season-to-season consistency is in 2-year increments.
Total QB |
2-year |
3-year |
4-year |
5-year |
6-year |
7-year |
Elite (2) |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
#1 (12) |
48 |
32 |
20 |
13 |
11 |
10 |
Elite % |
29% |
7% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
Starters % |
57% |
38% |
24% |
15% |
13% |
12% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total RB |
2-year |
3-year |
4-year |
5-year |
6-year |
7-year |
Elite (2) |
7 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
#1 (12) |
39 |
21 |
14 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
#2 (24) |
96 |
61 |
41 |
32 |
19 |
12 |
Elite % |
50% |
14% |
7% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
#1% |
46% |
25% |
17% |
7% |
1% |
1% |
#2% |
57% |
36% |
24% |
19% |
11% |
7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total WR |
2-year |
3-year |
4-year |
5-year |
6-year |
7-year |
Elite (2) |
5 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
#1 (12) |
35 |
22 |
16 |
10 |
6 |
2 |
#2 (24) |
85 |
50 |
36 |
26 |
15 |
10 |
#3 (36) |
146 |
99 |
69 |
50 |
33 |
20 |
Elite % |
36% |
21% |
7% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
#1% |
42% |
26% |
19% |
12% |
7% |
2% |
#2% |
51% |
30% |
21% |
15% |
9% |
6% |
#3% |
58% |
39% |
27% |
20% |
13% |
8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total TE |
2-year |
3-year |
4-year |
5-year |
6-year |
7-year |
Elite (2) |
7 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
Starters (12) |
43 |
27 |
15 |
10 |
5 |
3 |
Elite % |
50% |
36% |
21% |
14% |
7% |
0% |
#1% |
51% |
32% |
18% |
12% |
6% |
4% |
|
Looking for Peyton Manning to be the #1 QB in 2007 after he was
tops in 2006? Statistically, it’s not likely. If you examine
Manning’s performance he has only repeated his Elite ranking
(as the #2 QB in 2003-2004) once and has been the #3 QB in all
but his first and last season. This is incredible consistency
from season to season when one views these stats listed to the
left of this paragraph. What the Gut Check will hope to discover
is a quantitative reason for these stats that will contribute
to a profile with some decent level of predictability.
For now, what you can glean from this information is that predicting
a 2-year run for a QB or RB to be a #1-quality, fantasy starter
is a slightly better than even proposition. At least with RBs,
one generally has a 50-50 shot of picking one of the RBs to repeat
as a top-2 performer for a second straight season. If your curious
as to which QB had 7 straight years of starter-worthy play, just
look to Green Bay…
Since more and more leagues use 3 receivers in a starting lineup,
the consistency from season to season is actually highest for
this position when approaching it from the angle that a WR has
a 58% of remaining in the top 36 if he made it the previous year.
But if you’re looking for a that stud WR from 2006 to repeat
as an elite performer, you can see from the stats that he and
his signal caller are inherently tied to their performance.
Although the rate isn’t astounding, tight ends have the
best rate of the positions. The Gut Check believes this has to
do with the fact that top tight ends are generally used in a more
specialized way as a receiver within their offensive schemes than
the rest of the pack at their position.
Overall we should look at these numbers and see these statistical
likelihood’s:
- A little more than 5 of the top 12 QBs from the previous
season probably won’t make the top 12 in 2007.
- Between 6 and 7 RBs that made last year’s top 12
won’t repeat that feat this season.
- Only 5 of 2006 top-12 fantasy receivers will likely reappear
in the 2007 top-12 at years end.
- Half the tight ends in the top 12 in 2006 aren’t
likely to be there again in 2007.
The prevailing theme is the NFL—and fantasy football—is
an entity with high turnover and it is worthwhile to see that
expecting consecutive top-12 performances becomes an increasingly
odds-on, disappointment with each subsequent season. But this
doesn’t mean a player will fall off the face of quality
fantasy performance. Otherwise the best players of each era wouldn’t
have several good-great seasons. They just don’t always
string them together season after season—some do, but others
are less consistent due to injuries or other changes. Next week,
we’ll look at numbers that will help us establish a basic
positional profile of starting-quality fantasy players according
to seasons played and subsequent performances after reaching the
fantasy elite for a year.
Yours truly will discuss how he incorporated all this into his
top twelve at each position. Because this is new research, these
projections have a boom/bust, high-risk quality to them. If you
are fonder of the safe approach, then the Gut Check advises you
to go elsewhere. But if you don’t mind taking risks, then
these projections will suit you. Since the ADP is also listed
beside each player, you can at least see his relative value to
other lists you’ll face come draft day.
Quarterbacks
If it holds true that seven of the top 12 quarterbacks in 2006
won’t make the list in 2007, who are they? Michael
Vick is the easiest answer. If the NFL echoes the sentiment
of many of its players, they hope Vick is out for the season because
players facing Falcons not only don’t want to face Vick, but they
are actually more concerned with the probability of on-site protests
at the games. Yours truly doesn’t believe Philip
Rivers and San Diego is going to surprise anyone this season.
Vincent Jackson gets a lot of hype, but it will take a very strong
performance from a second receiver in addition to Gates and Jackson
to make this offense a statistical juggernaut. With Jackson an
iffy fantasy WR3, much less a #1, there’s not much established
on the pass-catching depth chart in San Diego. The third QB to
go has to be Eli
Manning. Wide receiver is also a concern because Amani Toomer
is less than a year back from an ACL tear, Sinorice Moss has seen
little of an NFL field and Steve Smith is a rookie. Take away
Tiki Barber and add two RBs that lack #21’s multidimensional skills,
and the offense becomes very predictable. If Eli Manning looks
like he’s regressing, look for Tom Coughlin to see the door in
2008.
Number four? Brett
Favre. The door has to close sometime and the Gut Check believes
that time is now. The Packers running game looks like a mess,
Donald Driver’s shoulder is a bit iffy at this stage of the preseason
and the rest of the receivers are either young and unproven or
established and mediocre at best. Number five is Vince
Young. The Gut Check thinks very highly of Young, but not
so much of his receivers and Henry-less stable of runners—and
yes, The Curse of He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned. If Young can
overcome all of this and be a top tier starter, he’ll be the new
superstar in this league. Yours truly will discuss other quarterbacks
within the month.
Running Backs
Adhering to the odds, which six backs will be gone from the 2006
top-12? Tiki
Barber is retired, so that’s easy. Larry
Johnson reached that 370-fcarry threshold from Tony
San Nicolas RB Workload study. The hold out, diminishing stability
at the offensive line, and a quarterback competition between a
young prospect and a journeyman doesn’t help. The Gut Check loves
watching Larry Johnson play, but none of this looks promising.
Steven Jackson?
Everyone loves Jackson this year. He’s a terrific player, but
he also reached that dreaded, 370-fcarry threshold, plays on turf,
and he’s a contact runner. Is the Gut Check predicting injury?
He hopes he’s wrong and hates to do it, but yes.
Deuce McAllister
is coming off a very solid year despite the addition of Reggie
Bush and an ACL injury. Although he should be a year stronger
in the legs, the Gut Check believes Bush will be a year better
in production. Look for that to come at the expense of McAllister
in 2007. Marion
Barber is a terrific player who was a Parcells favorite. Look
for similar stats, but better performances from other runners
in the league. This is a case where Barber’s numbers may not change,
but the rest of the league’s output will. The last choice is Willie
Parker because swollen knees in preseason and a greater reliance
on the passing game will make Fast Willie a solid #2 RB, but not
the stud he became in 2006. As with quarterbacks, the Gut Check
will talk about rebounding/ascending backs throughout August.
Wide Receivers
Which six or seven receivers at the top of the 2006 fantasy football
world will not make the top-12 in 2007? Plaxico
Burress. He’s going to see more bracketed coverage than usual
this year. If one of the young receivers can command some respect
from opposing defenses Burress will get on track, but don’t expect
it consistently. Donald
Driver is not physically “old” for a pro receiver with his
type of career, but kind of like dog years compare to human years,
Packer years as Favre’s top guy vs. other receivers has a similar
quality. The Green Bay QB wears out his top receivers. Greg Jennings
and surprising rookie James Jones will eat into Driver’s production
just enough to knock him from the top tier of receivers this year.
Javon Walker
without Rod Smith or a viable #2 receiver with proven skills won’t
see the top 12 this year. Good player, but combine the lack of
an established secondary outside threat (yes Domenik Hixon and
Brandon Marshall are viable sleepers) will make things more difficult
for Walker in the same way it will for Burress in New York. The
Gut Check thinks highly of Lee
Evans, but not so much of Losman and Dick Jauron. Look for
this excellent receiver to fall just outside the top tier as this
team continues to experience growing pains.
T.J. Houshmandzadeh
has performed very well for fantasy owners for two seasons. He
has reportedly gotten faster, too. What this means is Chad Johnson
gets more time in the slot, more single coverage, and more receptions
at the expense of his teammate. Don’t discount the loss of Chris
Henry. He’s unbelievably talented and commanded a ton of respect
from defenses. This stretched the field for Houshmandzadeh to
work underneath or sneak past coverage on deep corners. It isn’t
happening this year. Look for this talented, hard-working receiver
to be a very good #2 receiver but not the next coming of Reggie
Wayne.
The last guy is Steve
Smith. To reject Smith from a list that includes T.O., Harrison,
Holt, Chad Johnson, and Roy Williams is like turning down a date
with Jessica Alba because you can only fit Halle Berry, Beyonce
Knowles, Jennifer Lopez, Gisele, Jessica Biel, and Salma Hayek
into your schedule. In fact, forget it. Smith stays, although
yours truly thinks the lack of a solid #2 receiver and new coordinator
could mean an adjustment year is in store.
Tight Ends
Time to cut the 2006 TE list in half. Desmond
Clark and L.J.
Smith? Gone. Clark will split or lose most of his time to
rookie Ben Olsen and Smith is still recovering from hernia surgery.
Look for the emergence of receivers Reggie Brown and Kevin Curtis
to cut into Smith’s production. Jason
Witten has the talent, but he is underutilized in the redzone
due to the presence of T.O. and Barber III. Kellen
Winslow seems like a safe option to stay because of his stats,
but his knee is a chronic issue and the Gut Check believes the
passing game will be out of sync this year. Alge
Crumpler is a terrific player, but he won’t be the safety
valve off the classic Vick scrambles we’ve come to expect. Classic
Harrington scrambling isn’t a phrase that works. Look for a down
year from the perennially good fantasy starter. Then look for
either Ben
Watson or Randy
McMichael to lose out due to the plethora of weapons available
to their QBs in the redzone. Both have enough talent to be great
players, and yours truly wouldn’t mind having either on his team
at the rounds they will be available.
With this turnover established, here’s the initial 2007
Crank Score Projections list the positions side-by-side, with
a color-coded score to allow a user to compare player value across
positions.
2007
Crank Score Projections |
QB |
Player |
ADP |
Crank |
RB |
Player |
ADP |
Crank |
WR |
Player |
ADP |
Crank |
TE |
Player |
ADP |
Crank |
1 |
P. Manning |
2.01 |
69.30 |
1 |
L. Tomlinson |
1.01 |
96.23 |
1 |
C. Johnson |
2.06 |
64.03 |
1 |
A. Gates |
3.10 |
25.89 |
2 |
C. Palmer |
3.04 |
62.59 |
2 |
F. Gore |
1.03 |
75.78 |
2 |
R. Williams |
3.05 |
56.99 |
2 |
V. Davis |
7.08 |
16.84 |
3 |
J. Kitna |
5.12 |
54.82 |
3 |
B. Westbrook |
1.06 |
73.18 |
3 |
R. Wayne |
2.12 |
53.11 |
3 |
J. Shockey |
6.09 |
14.42 |
4 |
T. Brady |
4.02 |
47.04 |
4 |
J. Addai |
1.05 |
61.96 |
4 |
S. Smith (Car) |
2.04 |
50.31 |
4 |
T. Heap |
6.07 |
13.00 |
5 |
D. Brees |
4.06 |
44.37 |
5 |
R. Brown |
2.05 |
51.74 |
5 |
T. Holt |
2.08 |
49.22 |
5 |
T. Gonzalez |
5.05 |
12.38 |
6 |
M. Bulger |
4.10 |
40.24 |
6 |
R. Bush |
1.09 |
48.58 |
6 |
M. Harrison |
2.10 |
45.48 |
6 |
B. Watson |
10.02 |
11.23 |
7 |
B. Roethlisberger |
9.04 |
37.81 |
7 |
L. Maroney |
1.10 |
45.27 |
7 |
L. Fitzgerald |
3.03 |
43.92 |
7 |
C. Cooley |
7.12 |
10.69 |
8 |
T. Romo |
6.02 |
36.39 |
8 |
C. Portis |
2.07 |
42.76 |
8 |
R. Brown |
5.07 |
39.22 |
8 |
B. Olsen |
-- |
7.85 |
9 |
M. Leinart |
7.11 |
35.78 |
9 |
M. Jones Drew |
2.07 |
39.90 |
9 |
T. Owens |
2.11 |
38.04 |
9 |
H. Miller |
10.12 |
5.95 |
10 |
C. Pennington |
12.01 |
31.76 |
10 |
R. Johnson |
1.10 |
33.91 |
10 |
D. Jackson |
6.11 |
35.68 |
10 |
D. Graham |
14.09 |
5.45 |
11 |
D. McNabb |
5.07 |
27.88 |
11 |
E. James |
2.09 |
37.02 |
11 |
C. Chambers |
6.10 |
35.26 |
11 |
E. Johnson |
13.03 |
4.64 |
12 |
J. Garcia |
12.10 |
27.71 |
12 |
C. Williams |
3.12 |
35.05 |
12 |
R. Moss |
4.06 |
32.63 |
12 |
O. Daniels |
12.11 |
4.17 |
13 |
V. Young |
7.06 |
25.15 |
13 |
S. Jackson |
1.02 |
32.43 |
13 |
L. Evans |
4.05 |
31.07 |
13 |
A. Crumpler |
8.07 |
3.96 |
14 |
R. Grossman |
13.02 |
23.25 |
14 |
W. Parker |
1.08 |
26.37 |
14 |
A. Boldin |
3.09 |
26.74 |
14 |
J. Witten |
9.03 |
3.67 |
15 |
B. Favre |
9.11 |
23.15 |
15 |
L. Johnson |
1.03 |
28.73 |
15 |
D. Stallworth |
8.03 |
25.70 |
15 |
R. McMichael |
11.02 |
2.78 |
16 |
S. McNair |
13.04 |
22.45 |
16 |
S. Alexander |
1.06 |
28.58 |
16 |
T. J. Housh |
3.10 |
24.93 |
16 |
K. Winslow |
7.10 |
2.32 |
17 |
J. Cutler |
8.04 |
22.04 |
17 |
T. Henry |
1.11 |
26.29 |
17 |
S. Holmes |
9.08 |
23.58 |
17 |
Dal. Clark |
12.05 |
2.14 |
18 |
M. Hasselbeck |
7.03 |
20.69 |
18 |
T. Jones |
2.11 |
20.70 |
18 |
J. Walker |
3.11 |
22.56 |
18 |
B. Scaife |
-- |
1.84 |
19 |
P. Rivers |
7.11 |
20.16 |
19 |
D. Williams |
4.08 |
20.61 |
19 |
M. Colston |
4.04 |
21.73 |
19 |
L. Pope |
-- |
1.18 |
20 |
J. Delhomme |
10.03 |
19.78 |
20 |
C. Benson |
2.12 |
19.14 |
20 |
A. Johnson |
3.10 |
21.41 |
20 |
M. Lewis |
--. |
0.99 |
21 |
E. Manning |
9.01 |
19.33 |
21 |
W. McGahee |
2.01 |
16.91 |
21 |
D. Driver |
4.06 |
19.94 |
21 |
J. Stevens |
-- |
0.79 |
22 |
B. Leftwich |
-- |
19.10 |
22 |
B. Jacobs |
3.04 |
16.44 |
22 |
P. Burress |
4.11 |
19.41 |
22 |
M. Pollard |
-- |
0.66 |
23 |
J.P. Losman |
12.04 |
18.43 |
23 |
C. Taylor |
7.03 |
13.40 |
23 |
Mark Clayton |
7.03 |
19.01 |
23 |
Z. Miller |
-- |
0.52 |
24 |
A. Smith |
10.09 |
18.00 |
24 |
M. Barber |
5.08 |
14.52 |
24 |
L. Coles |
5.08 |
18.30 |
24 |
C. Baker |
-- |
0.36 |
25 |
T. Green |
14.04 |
17.85 |
25 |
J. Norwood |
5.07 |
15.92 |
25 |
B. Berrian |
9.01 |
17.65 |
25 |
D. Martin |
-- |
0.32 |
26 |
J. Harrington |
-- |
17.38 |
26 |
M. Lynch |
3.11 |
13.79 |
26 |
H. Ward |
5.06 |
16.36 |
|
|
|
|
27 |
J. Campbell |
-- |
14.37 |
27 |
D. McCallister |
4.04 |
13.09 |
27 |
Cal. Johnson |
5.12 |
15.69 |
|
|
|
|
28 |
D. Culpepper |
-- |
13.47 |
28 |
L. Jordan |
6.04 |
16.38 |
28 |
J. Galloway |
7.06 |
15.19 |
|
|
|
|
29 |
M. Schaub |
12.01 |
11.39 |
29 |
J. Lewis |
5.03 |
11.39 |
29 |
M. Jones |
11.09 |
14.76 |
|
|
|
|
30 |
T. Jackson |
-- |
11.03 |
30 |
A. Green |
4.10 |
10.02 |
30 |
V. Jackson |
7.07 |
14.65 |
|
|
|
|
31 |
B. Croyle |
-- |
10.63 |
31 |
L. Betts |
7.10 |
9.60 |
31 |
D. Henderson |
10.05 |
13.46 |
|
|
|
|
32 |
C. Frye |
-- |
9.19 |
32 |
L. White |
9.04 |
8.24 |
32 |
J. Horn |
11.04 |
13.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
Kevin Jones |
8.02 |
6.14 |
33 |
E. Kennison |
13.09 |
12.93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
A. Peterson |
4.12 |
4.13 |
34 |
J. Porter |
9.12 |
12.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
F. Taylor |
7.05 |
6.32 |
35 |
B. Jones |
11.02 |
10.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
C. Brown |
9.06 |
5.92 |
36 |
J. Cotchery |
8.02 |
9.47 |
|
|
|
|
|
This is my 100th
Gut Check column at FFToday and it being
a bit of a milestone, I’d like to thank some people who
(whether they know it or not) for helping me get here. First and
foremost, a thanks needs to go to FFToday’s publisher, Mike
Krueger, who gave me the opportunity to contribute to the site,
pay my entry fees to compete on behalf of the site, and his overall
generosity of his time, his couch, and his ambulance service to
St. Luke’s ER last February. I especially appreciate Mike
for going through the absolute grind of uploading the countless
tables and charts I have in most columns.
Justin Dean had the original idea of measuring consistency
among players in a way that I eventually turned into the Crank
Score—thanks for the idea that has given me a wealth of
material. Jon Sherman, thanks for getting me on your radio shows
in 6-7 years ago when you were one of the first to interview fantasy
football writers. It was great being the ringer of your callers.
It provided me useful training to be on the other side of the
mic.
My first fantasy football league the AABFFL, who used to
meet at Spanky’s on Monday Nights to tally the weekly results
from the newspaper box scores. It has been 12 years and I still
care about winning this league more than any I’ve entered
in recent years. Thanks guys for keeping me humble, it is still
the toughest league around.
My ex of 8 years who probably isn’t reading this,
but I thank you for your encouragement, humor, and a crazy-wonderful
year in Jamaica. If it weren’t for that trip, I wouldn’t
have realized how much I loved writing and football—I nearly
set off a brawl with a bunch of soccer hooligans at a local pub
when I wouldn’t change the channel from a Raiders game.
And you gave me the opportunity to change careers. You were right
about Ladainian Tomlinson as far back as 1999, you know (but you
know I let you have Shaun Alexander). Although we’ve moved
on, I’ll never forget.
And Mike MacGregor, thanks for several things: hooking me
up with this opportunity, turning good ideas into better ideas,
buying a poor writer a bad-ass PC, and teaming up with me to total
10 cars, 5 mobile homes, and a tractor trailer at FF Today Headquarters.
How the police never found out is a mystery to me.
And “Floyd,” if you happen to be reading this—I
told you I wouldn’t write about you, but I just wanted to
say hello and tell you that you’re the envy of hundreds
of thousands of guys who read columns like mine. Somehow, I doubt
that matters to you one bit—and that’s just one of
the many reasons why I like you.
Most of all, thanks to all of you who read my stuff. I
appreciate the criticism, suggestions, questions, and ideas.
You’ve proven that knowledgeable fantasy football owners
are as interested in details and research as much as quick answers.
I learn from you every year and it’s been great do this
for the last 4 seasons. I hope for many more to come.
Best,
Matt
|