MVP Fantasy Football

Derek making babies cry...

So this is the last "preseason show" of the year! We thank you for listening to us drone on about what will be for the last six weeks or so. We're ready for the season to start and hopefully, after this one last prep show, you will be too. This year's weekly preview shows will work a tad differently than they have in the past. Basically, we trust you guys to know who to start 99% of the time. You don't need to hear us talk about how Indy can't stop the run so consider so-and-so against them. This year, we're gonna go to the spread-offense and give you an overview of the week and obviously answer any particular questions you listeners may have.

Anyhoo, here's our Value Changer show. Derek and I go over the guys that have bounded up or fallen back in value this preseason. Good luck at your drafts! Drink a lot! Subscribe to us on iTunes!

Ummm...yes, I have some questions...

So a few days ago, commissioner Roger Goodell had a press conference in which he answered random questions about the labor issues the NFL is facing. If you have been hiding under a rock, you might have missed the owners recently pushing this idea of an "enhanced" season. Enhanced just means two preseason games would be scrapped in favor of two regular season games. I had a lot of questions about this, so I tweeted @Brian McCarthy, who is, as his twitter name would suggest, a public relations guy for the NFL. Needless to say, my questions went unanswered, but that doesn't mean I can't expound upon them here.

And this is a rare post from me which is probably more about non-fantasy football issues. But I will say the 18-game season has major potential implications for fantasy football. And those issues will be touched upon in some of these questions, but they aren't necessarily the focus of the questions.

Were reporters forced/urged to use the phrase "enhanced season" as opposed to "18 game season?" - Listen to that video...one of the reporters starts a question and seems to begin "Did you have the right to unilaterally to impose the uhhh, 18- the enhanced season..." The reporter seems to catch himself when he uses the word 'eighteen' and then goes with 'enhanced' instead. This could be a complete coincidence I guess, but the NFL is clearly pushing the phrasing of 'enhanced season' instead of...say..."extended season" or even "18 game season." The word 'enhanced' is obviously loaded with positive connotations. 'Extended' and '18 game' are basically neutral. But reporters SHOULD be neutral here, right? They should be using '18 game' and not 'enhanced.' And that's enough punctuation for one paragraph. But really, this is some political word play and it's potentially very sad that the reporters just bought it hook, line, and sinker. I hope that's just a coincidence.

With all due respect to the fans, shouldn't player health and the vitality of the game be issue 1A and 1B? - This is in response to the commissioner paying lip-service to the fans. Of COURSE it's about what the almighty fans want. Of course, 20% of the country thinks Obama is a muslim and nearly 20% believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. (Coincidence?) Basically, pardon me while I don't assume the fans know what's best for either the players or the overall game of football. I realize this whole notion is more something Goodell HAS to say rather than really believes, but I figured I should put it out there.

Is the 18 game schedule more of a ploy by the owners to get the player's union to take one of their gripes off the table? - This is my hope. I hope the owners don't REALLY want to water down the regular season further (hey, if the NFL is pushing 'enhanced' season, I'm gonna push 'watered down season') and instead want the players to relent on other monetary issues. The owners really didn't have many bargaining chips aside from being wealthy and smart enough to not need the full income of the 2011 season to pay the bills like many of the players do. Which...actually is a huge chip. But anyway, this is a manufactured chip. I hope they plan on cashing it in. Wait...would 'cashing it in' in this analogy mean trading it for one of the player's chips? Now I'm just confused.

How much more money will the NFL fetch from TV contracts for two extra regular season games? - Come on...you guys know this answer to the second decimal point. I want a number...

Any thought given to increasing the number of playoff teams and adding a week to the playoffs as opposed to the regular season? - Wouldn't one playoff week equal two regular season weeks? So a handful of teams might play an extra game. I can handle that. EVERY team playing an extra two games? I can't get behind that.

How will the NFL protect player overuse? What incentive do teams have to protect their player's health? Guaranteed contracts? - NFL teams currently have no reason to care about their players. Sure, they don't want their guys missing time during the year, but if a player suffers a bad knee injury and is no longer effective, he is cut. End. Of. Story. In baseball and basketball, players get paid the full amount of their contract almost regardless of their effectiveness. Now, this is not a blanket argument FOR or AGAINST guaranteed contracts. There are pluses and minuses to both. I think Jamal Mashburn was still being paid 15 million dollars a season by the Hornets. The NFL, however, has to play a role in player safety. One issue that no one talks about in the NFL is overuse of players. If a pitcher keeps throwing 120 pitches a game and then ends up needing Tommy John surgery, MLB teams and managers get MAULED by the press. If an NFL running back is given 416 carries in a season and loses a step, he is harangued as being lazy and a bum. This doesn't compute. It's the same damn situation. Overuse will end careers. The NFL has to help players. This stands to get even worse with two extra games, so how does the NFL respond?

NFL RB's last, on average 2.5 seasons or so in the league. Was that brought up during these talks? - These last two questions should be on fantasy people's radars. The league's overall talent pool at running back is already dwindling compared to where it was 15 or even 30 years ago. The burnout rate is too high for the most skilled players as is. Does the NFL care about this?

Will there be follow-up studies at the impact of the 18 game season? What will the studies be focused on? - I think the owners feel that if/when this does occur, it will just happen and the fans won't really think much about it and we'll look at 16 game seasons in 30 years as we look at 14 or 12 game seasons now. The NFL should be proactive and revisit this issue every year. Injury rates and career lengths are obvious. Advanced statistics can track overall quality of games better. That should all be used when analyzing the change. Of course, if this move is more about adding some money to TV contracts, I doubt the owner's would want any future study to occur.

The avg NFL starter plays about 120 minutes in the preseason. Why not just scrap the preseason entirely? Wouldn't that be equal? - Seriously, why play any preseason games? At this rate, starters will probably end up playing more minutes per game in the preseason and two games-extra in the regular season. Just scrap the preseason. If it isn't worth having four games, it isn't worth having two games. It would be like having a rule change that only effected the post season and not the regular season. That would just be silly. Wait....nevermind on that last point.

And look, I get the argument that this is just millionaires fighting with billionaires and let's just have football next year. But our media has to ask better questions. None of these questions were asked in that press conference. I'm not sure any of them would have been allowed anyway. But with the owners wanting bigger TV contracts and the players wanting bigger paychecks and the generic fan just wanting more games and...I suppose...more beer commercials...who exactly is watching out for the game itself?

The top rookie pick?

Alright, this is actually our longest show since 2006! And if there's one thing that's better than listening to us for an hour, it's listening to us for an hour and thirteen minutes. Yes! But this isn't just an average show. The first half is all about sleepers and busts for the 2010 season and the second half is an extremely illuminating interview with draft expert Shane Hallam. Shane gives us the low down on the rookie class...the running backs, the wide outs...even the best rookie IDP prospects! We touch on everything and it's pretty much a must-listen for dynasty leaguers.

The show can be hear here. Subscribe on iTunes!

Help us Michael Crab­tree. You’re our only hope…

So we recorded this show a few days ago, but we're finally getting around to posting it. We go over the wide receiver position and I basically rattle off the litany of people and events I don't like. Needless to say, it's a bang up show. The audio might also be off a little bit because we recorded in a different studio than we're used to. But we brought our a-game anyway. We're studs...every week starters.

Grab the show here. As always, please subscribe to us on iTunes if you haven't already.

We have an interview with Shane Hallam coming up shortly on the 2010 rookie class. Dynasty leaguers, this interview will be for you!

Many moons ago, Football Outsiders pointed out backs that carried the ball 370 times or more in a season have a very high instance of regression (of course) and injury in next-years. This is, of course, pretty useful information for fantasy football purposes. If you drafted Michael Turner, Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, etc. the year after their 370+ seasons, you probably didn't win a title that season.

Of course, trying to warn fantasy owners that the guy who just ran for 1,700 yards and 17 touchdowns should be avoided at all costs the next year isn't the most popular position to take. This thread pretty much proves that point. And then there are high-larious articles like this: The Curse of 370 is a Myth floating around. But there is growing support for the point and this ESPN article by Tristan H Cockcroft (beautiful name) is a nice change of pace from the normal "ignore or ignorantly attack" stance (Matt Berry, looking right at you, buddy) mainstream media usually takes.

So just looking at the guys who run for 370+ carries isn't exactly enough. Yes, a majority suffer major declines. Many suffer injuries. But the truly damning evidence is comparing the year after 370+ seasons to the year after 320-369 seasons.  And that's where the "curse" really shows up.

Fewer Yards

370+ - 26/28 (93%)
320-369 - 67/100 (67%)

Lower YPC

370+ - 19/28 (68%)
320-369 - 51/100  (51%)

Fewer Games Played

370+ - 19/28 (67%)
320-269 - 35/100 (35%)

Finished out of the Top 10 Fantasy RB's

370+ - 16/28 (57%)
320-369 - 45/100 (45%) (With the caveat that not all 100 320+ seasons were top 10 seasons)

Okay, there's nothing surprising about the first set of numbers. Of course most players are going to run for less yardage after those crazy carry seasons. Yards per carry is little better indication of a player significantly slowing. The 320-370 group predictably is right at about 50%...some guys are trending up, some are trending down. The 370+ group are more harshly trending down. And age really isn't a factor for them. It's just due to the effect of the high carry season on the body. The third set is also interesting. Obviously, injuries can be flukes. But when one group is missing more games at a 65% rate and the other is at 35%...well, something is up there. That's statistically relevant. Finally, the last set there is really the nail in the coffin, isn't it? If you want a top 10 running back, you are better off drafting a guy that got between 320-369 carries than one that got 370+. End. Of. Story. And the 57% of 370+ backs that didn't finish in the top 10 all FELL from the top 10, whereas some of the 320-369 guys weren't top 10 in the first place.

Now, there's no 370+ back this season and I hope that coaches/ownership realizes running backs into the ground is bad for football and, frankly, irresponsible. But this Sports Illustrated article by Tim Layden doesn't give me much hope.

Chris Johnson carried the ball 358 times last year and caught 50 passes,  a staggering 408 touches. That number is not likely to drop this year.  "The object here is to win games," says Titans coach Jeff Fisher.  "Everybody is so evenly matched in this league, we're all desperate. Now  I think CJ is pretty unique. He gets his feet up off the turf on  contact, just gets ping-ponged around and then bounces right back up. He  doesn't take the really big hit [with his feet planted]. We're going to  put the ball in his hands as often as we can. There may be a time at  some point in his career where we say, let's back him down. But right  now it's full speed ahead. Let's have some fun. The defense gets worn  down too."

I wish Jeff Fisher would realize he ended Eddie George's career prematurely. Had George been run like, say, Ricky Watters (never approached 370 carries), maybe he would have gotten closer to Watter's nine top-ten fantasy running back seasons than the measly three that he had. Or how about Thurman Thomas, who had six top-ten seasons with an average of 295 carries a year in his prime. His high was 355. How does Thomas "4.0" Jones keep hanging on? Clearly, Jones isn't a great talent, but he's always hovering at around 300 carries and he's coming off a 331 carry season, which happened to be his 10th in the league.

Carry totals over the season matter. They have both next-year and long-term effects on backs. So if your guy is sitting at the top of the fantasy lists after his 8th game and he has almost 200 carries, root against his getting carries. Mail the coach. Plead. Find the player on twitter and tell him to fake an injury for a few weeks. It's not worth throwing away a career for a few extra games. Terrell Davis threw away his Hall of Fame bid so Mike Shannahan could run up the score against Oakland in 1998. Was it worth it? Of course not.

So after a little delay due to technical issues, bad timing, and Derek, we're back on the podcast train. This week we will have two shows, the first of which is a look at the running back position for 2010. We go over our top 30 backs and make fun of Gregg Easterbrook. Obviously, that's all the makings of a classic podcast.

The individual show can be found here and you can subscribe on iTunes. (Opens iTunes)