Fantasy Football: Is a two QB league evil? - Part one

Fantasy Football: Is a two QB league evil? - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (8-19-13)



TODD:
There is something inherently evil about fantasy football leagues in which owners are allowed to start two quarterbacks. This sounds ludicrous to people who do not play fantasy sports. In fact, this may sound rather stupid to others as well. But the evil exists in the logic behind the action. You see, in leagues that allow players to start two quarterbacks, it is a death sentence to not do so. Quarterbacks score so many more points each week than other positions. Even starting a "bad" QB is preferred to starting a solid running back or wide receiver. The numbers back this up.

Last season, Ben Roethlisberger was the 19th highest scoring quarterback (depending on league scoring settings of course). In other words, in a normal league, he started for pretty much nobody. Big Ben was also the 24th highest scoring PLAYER, meaning there were only five non-quarterbacks in the entire NFL who scored more fantasy points than him. They were the five best running backs from a season ago. Roethlisberger, as a bench quarterback and oftentimes a free agent, scored more points than every wide receiver in football; more than Calvin Johnson. He was better than all tight ends and all but the top five guys at RB. He was better than Ray Rice and C.J. Spiller, etc.

So we start with a league that 'allows' two quarterbacks to be started. This is a careful, yet important distinction between leagues that 'require' teams to start two quarterbacks. The decision comes in the form of a flex position and that position generates the evil. Because what it does is create an uneven playing field between owners and an unhealthy value on the QB position. Suddenly, Andy Dalton or Josh Freeman are more valuable than Marques Colston or David Wilson. In normal leagues, the Daltons and Freemans would not even be rostered, let alone started. They are outside the top 12-15 quarterbacks. Thus, they serve no purpose other than bye week filler. Except in these evil leagues where they become vital.

The comparison between Dalton and Colston isn't even apt. Colston is a second tier wide receiver. He is going to be a starter in most every league, as a wide receiver. The teams that are able to start three receivers better than him and thus have the Saints big man as a flex filler are few and far between. The same goes for players like Wilson, borderline number two running backs who may have to battle for carries in real life.

These guys become less important than the bottom feeder QBs but are still starters. The dreaded flex position becomes a battle between Dalton, scoring 12-15 points per week, and a flex RB or WR like, say, Brandon LaFell. This man will score 7 points if you're lucky. Weeks where he does not get in the endzone, owners will be fortunate to scrounge together 55 yards from these fellows. And now you see the problem.

Here's the bottom line: if you play in a league where a second quarterback is allowed to be started, and you do not have a second quarterback to start, you're essentially down 10 points before your matchup even begins. Good luck.

We both play in a fantasy football league that employs this. Full disclosure: I am commissioner and created this evil environment. I can't say that I'm proud of myself. It haunts me. It is my fault people have to consider drafting Sam Bradford over the likes of Hakeem Nicks. I live with this weighing over my conscience.

I guess my question to you is, am I a bad person?


DAN:
I'm not sure your question has anything to do with the fantasy football league you created. Zing!

You're commissioner of this so called "evil" league, so if it bothers you so much to this day, why did you ever build the league this way? Personally, as someone who has played in such a league for several years now, I'm a little shocked you dare to call it evil and I know exactly why you created your league in this way.

Having a flex position in fantasy football is awesome. You can start anyone you like, but more importantly, it exposes the inexperienced or disinterested player. You wanted to create a competitive league of players who are informed and actually like football. This flex position shows you, as commissioner, who falls short of those expectations. It only took one week of my first season playing with a flex roster spot to realize I'd be an idiot not to play two quarterbacks. Unless you somehow end up with three of the top five running backs in the league, then you're going quarterback all the way for the flex.

I'm going one step further. Its pretty moronic not to have three quarterbacks on your roster. You need a bonafide backup at all times to fill the QB and flex position. But evil? Hell no. I actually enjoy how the flex position gives someone like Mark Sanchez value. Mark freaking Sanchez had fantasy value in his first two years as a pro! He had none last season, but before then he did. With a ten team league we're talking the top 20 quarterbacks being on roster. That's 20 of the 32 quarterbacks in the league collecting points every week. If we add in the three per team wrinkle, that's 30 of 32 quarterbacks being employed by the members of our league. I love this! When in all of sports would you ever find yourself rooting for Ryan Tannehill, sorry Dolphins fans (no I'm not)? You wouldn't unless you had to add him to your team for the points.

I'm actually more fed up with the Wide Receiver position in fantasy football. When I started playing fantasy, the WR position was a money spot. You could rake it in, clean up, with the right guy on your team. Now its like there are three top guys and then 30 who all put up ten points a week. What's the point? Its annoying and disappointing and its the quarterbacks' fault. They are all spreading the ball around so damn much that no one is dominant week in and week out any more.

I think ultimately, fantasy football has always been offensive heavy. But with the watering down of the WR position, the ineptitude of the kicker slot and the top heavy need for quarterbacks, can we get the defense more involved? Why hasn't this been sufficiently worked out so that its fun? Linebackers and Safetys/Cover Corners accumulate statistics week after week. I'm not suggesting we count tackles, but would that be so bad? We count yards after all.


TODD:
You got me. Guilty. I did this on purpose to set the noobies back. If someone doesn't start two quarterbacks, it essentially becomes a white flag to the rest of us that they aren't going to be winning this league anytime soon.

And by the way, I kind of like Ryan Tannehill this season. I am happy to hear I won't be competing with you when his name comes up for bid as a third quarterback.

As for wide receivers, you are exactly right but I don't know why this upsets you.

[Part two - Evolution & Naming your fantasy team]

Image credit: here

NFL Kickoff: A QB decathlon, rookies & the NY Giants - Part four

NFL Kickoff: A QB decathlon, rookies and the NY Giants - Part four
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (8-16-13)

[Part one - Off season questions Real & Hilarious]
[Part two - Tebow vs Hernandez]
[Part three - The fantasy kicker & Barry Sanders]



DAN:
The jury is out on whether the New York Jets have a legit number one running back on their roster, but at the very least they have two number twos and a number three. McKnight is the obvious number three since he can barely stay healthy at this point. I only have to look across the division to the Patriots to find a team that has thrived with number two and three backs over the last five seasons. Obviously their ability to succeed has everything to do with the offensive line and Tom Brady, but an elite running back is not a requirement for success. You need a consistent back who gets the three yards on second or third down. I'm all in on Marty Mornhinweg's offense and the emergence of Geno Smith to Steven Hill.

Enough about my optimism for an enjoyable season of football coming out of New York in the AFC. You asked two fun questions and I'm stacking them like PB&J.

You asked:
(4) If Russell Wilson, Andrew Luck, Colin Kaepernick and Robert Griffin III played 2 on 2 in a decathlon-type event, what would the teams be, which side would win, who would America be rooting for, and would they all be immediately inducted into the respective Halls of Fame for each sport they participated in?

(4b) How much does it suck for all current and future first year starting quarterbacks?

I know you're going with even numbers, but I gotta throw Cam Newton in their as well (2nd year last season I know, but an excellent first year). He's lightening fast and ideal for any decathlon-type event. Let's reserve him for an injury replacement, or the guy who plays on both teams in order to balance things out.

The Teams:
Andrew Luck & Russell Wilson: Luck is sneaky fast and quite possibly a genius with a rocket arm. Wilson is nothing short of blazing fast with an unrivaled stop and go. His height could hold him back teamed with anyone else. But with Luck and Wilson, intelligence and speed compliment perfectly.

Colin Kaepernick and Robert Griffin III: Both Colin and RG3 are blazing fast. I'd give Colin the edge in speed, but RG3 the edge in the stop and go. They beat team Luck and Wilson easily in a shorter relay, but neither man wins in a straight up sprint or long jump vs. Wilson. This team has obvious strengths, but few to no weaknesses either. Power and speed baby.

Cam Newton: He's a beast and wicked fast. If there's a sprint event, I say Cam subs in for Luck. But if its the javelin throw or discus toss, we get Cam in there for RG3. He's the wildcard.

Who's America rooting for? I think Luck and Wilson make for easier rooting interests. I love rooting for Wilson, just as much as I do for RG3. But Luck is so much more fun to root for than Colin. Its all in the smile. Luck's is warm and inviting while Colin's says "Hey you, you stink and I'm the winner." As for the victors, if its a straight up competition then Colin and RG3 win close. With Cam Newton as the wildcard, however, team Luck and Wilson get the trophy.

To the current and future first year starting quarterbacks, I know why you asked, but you've got it all wrong. Yes, these four men (or five with Cam Newton) had stellar season's in their first year starting. They raised the bar and set it quite high. But they all had either an excellent team around them, a stellar coach, or both. Luck's team was young, but it was no slouch. I think Cam might be the only one who thrived without either one.

So this year's rookies and first year starters know everyone is pulling for them. No more holding a guy's hand or making him ride the bench for an entire season so he can "learn" from the current number one guy. That philosophy only works if your current starting quarterback is half way decent and has something to teach the newbie.

The whole crux of your question is why I'm so optimistic about the Jets' future. No one should be learning much of anything from Mark Sanchez at this point, unless its what not to do in order to alienate a nation and make a fool of yourself. So where does that leave Geno Smith this season? I think he's is prime position to succeed. If he shines then he'll get praised and lauded like the field general he is. Prolonged success is not a guarantee after one good season any longer, so we celebrate what we have when we have it. But if he stumbles, well he is just a rookie. If he doesn't start until week three or four, well he's a rookie and you don't want to rush him. The caveats still exist, but the opportunity for bigger things have never been bigger. Geno, Geno!


TODD:
Your team pairing was interesting. I agree that Colin Kaepernick seems like he might possibly be a dick. Griffin would be slightly upset that he was put on Kaepernick's team...up until the competition started. I think Colin might be the strongest of the four and just as fast as any of the others. He and RGIII would run away with this thing, literally and figuratively.

The real point of this silly line of questioning though was to get to that second part: how it feels to be a first-year starting quarterback in today's NFL. It used to be that rookies could sit for weeks, or even years, before getting thrown behind center. Or, if they did start from week one, they were given weeks (or even years!) to learn the job and get their bumps and bruises. Common perception was it took a while for a rookie QB so we shouldn't judge his success for a while. Now, things are completely different, and I think this works against Geno Smith, not for him.

In years past, someone like Blaine Gabbert would still have upside. Sure, he's struggled but he's not supposed to succeed out of the gate. Now, the Jags and everyone else in the world has all but given up on him as an NFL-caliber player. Quarterbacks come out of high school more polished nowadays. That translates to being further ahead as freshmen and sophomores in college, and so forth. Now, these guys enter the pros with years of experience running an offense, changing things at the line of scrimmage, and being leaders. It now seems obvious Blaine Gabbert cannot run a franchise just because of how his peers are doing at similar points in their careers.

If Geno Smith is able to start in week one, he has to succeed rather quickly or else people will doubt his ceiling, some wackos will clamber for Mark Sanchez to be put in and it will be a struggle to just remain confident, let alone play well. On the other hand, if Geno sits week one, as crazy as this may have sounded even just three years ago, people will wonder if he doesn't have what it takes and whether the Jets actually believe in him.

It is a strange world out their now for rookie quarterbacks. The buffer zone has disappeared.

As for my last query, into the New York Giants linebacking corp, I am sure you are giddy to throw a backhanded analogy in my face to rival my Barry Sanders line of questioning. But, as in proper rap battle technique, I am going to bring it up first, to take the weapon out of your hand.

Yes, the Giants seemed to have eschewed the linebacker position in favor of bodies who will wear numbers in the 50's on their backs. So, if David Harris came out of retirement for the Jets, he would be able to start for the Giants probably....

Oh, David Harris is not retired? He was just so inconspicuous and made so few plays last season for the Jets that it seemed like he was, even though he is one of the highest paid linebackers in the NFL? Okay, my bad.


DAN:
Hold up, what just happened? Stop! The Giants have a serious problem on their hands when it comes to defense and I can tell you're scared to death what will happen. You decided to throw egg in my face rather than actually talk Giants football. I'll take this opportunity to puff out my chest and say the Jets' defense is damn good and will totally rival the Giants unit this season. Your team is in trouble.

If the Giants were in the AFC East (in place of the Jets) they'd be fine. We know they can beat the Patriots and Tom "Oh my knee!" Brady, standing tall in a shootout and making enough plays to pull out the games. The rest of the division is average at best, and I'm talking stinky socks average. But in the NFC East, with the likes of RG3, Tony Romo and Michael Vick to contend with, the Giants lack of speed and talent at linebacker is going to kill them. Stopping the run is all well and good if the opposing quarterback stays in the pocket, but those three guys live on the edge, outside the tackles.

My prediction, a rocky 9-7 season for the Giants, maybe 10-6. I don't love anyone in their division, so they'll win games, but just prepare yourself for some indigestion and long Sunday afternoons.

[If you missed Part one - Off season questions Real & Hilarious]

[If you missed Part two - Tebow vs Hernandez]

[If you missed Part three - The fantasy kicker & Barry Sanders]

What ha... happened? - April edition Part One

What ha... happened? - April edition Part One
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (4-8-13)



We scour the internet for crazy sports photo and someone must try to explain it. Seesaw Sports asks what ha... happened? Monday: opening statements. Friday: rebuttal.

Real photos. Real results. But what in the heck happened?

DAN:

I present to you the following:

Photo: Eli Manning showing the world he means business.

Title: "Happy? Sad? It's just Eli."

Description: Eli Manning is most famous for his faces, but this one takes the cake. Is that a cookie on your plate or are you just happy to see me?

I'm not sure I need to say anything, as the unbelievably hilarious look on your very own NY Giant's starting quarterback's face says it all. Never duplicated, always inexplicable, its Eli Manning.

So, what ha... happened?

TODD:

It's funny you selected this photo. I actually know the exact date and time this was taken. Most people will assume it was taken during a Giants - Steelers game; this is, oddly enough, false. The photo was taken March 3, 2013 at 11:07 PM EST. This was when Eli Manning first heard about Joe Flacco's new contract.

ESPN posted an article detailing Flacco's new deal on March 3, around 10:30 PM. Eli, who had stepped away from his computer momentarily, ventured back to his screen to see the new headline. Upon clicking the article and reading through he thought "Hmmm, let's see, let's see, Flacco... new deal from Ravens... six years... 120 wait, HOW MUCH?"

Eli fell to the floor and the eyes got wide.

Little known fact: Eli spent the next 30 - 40 minutes skimming the pro football reference website, scanning Flacco's stats and career to make sure he was, in fact, basically an average QB and had, in fact, won just a single Super Bowl.

Then, around 12:02 AM EST, Manning placed a call to his agent.

[Part Two - The Original Manning Face]