Explaining the Playoff Ranks
Here are some factors to keep in mind when looking at my playoff upgrades and downgrades.
1. I’m defining the playoffs from Weeks 14-16. Yes, plenty of leagues use Week 13 or Week 17, but I have to go with the most popular format.
2. Most schedules even out; they don’t make that huge a difference. You usually have one good matchup, one average one, and one poor one or some variation of that. What I looked for is consistency in the schedule, or a pair of particularly easy or difficult matchups.
3. Make sure to differentiate between run defense and pass defense. The Saints are a fabulous matchup for quarterbacks, but play the run fairly well. The Colts are one of the toughest teams to pass on, but are an average run defense. The Vikings are the best at stopping the run, but can’t stop the pass. The Raiders are the opposite … and so forth.
4. Don’t go crazy trading for guys just because they have great playoff schedules, especially receivers. FootballOutsiders showed that QB and RB value changes significantly based on the opponent, but receivers don’t fluctuate nearly as much. These upgrades are useful information, but it doesn’t mean I’d trade Willie Parker for Earnest Graham.
5. To rate defenses, I use many sources. It winds up being some combination of fantasy points allowed-per-position, intuition, traditional yardage rankings, FootballOutsiders.com’s defensive rankings, and the rocks bouncing around my brain.
Comments
great job gregg, these playoff ranks were just what I was looking for.
Posted by: dan | November 8, 2007 02:04 PM
Isn't there a huge chance that the Pats will be resting Brady and Moss in week 16? Whats the impact of if they wrap up the division and AFC #1 seed in the next 3 or 4 weeks? I think its foolish to assume they will be giving their A game effort all the way through the fantasy playoffs.
Posted by: Jacyln | November 8, 2007 02:10 PM
I disagree. The Patriots have sat guys in Week 17, but I dont think they ever would a week early. I also think they want to stay undefeated.
Last year, in fact, with nothing to play for and no bye week, they played almost the whole Week 17 game to stay sharp. And beat a streaking Titans team.
Posted by: Gregg | November 8, 2007 02:31 PM
Gregg -
I was just wondering if anyone has used your name in the comments section. I always assume it's you, but with a lot of commenters using player names lately...you can never be too sure.
Posted by: dan | November 8, 2007 04:15 PM
It's me as far as I know.
Posted by: Gregg | November 8, 2007 05:03 PM
Do you think the Colts are likely to sit their starters in that juicy week 16 matchup if they don't have anything to play for?
Posted by: Tim | November 8, 2007 10:31 PM
Gregg -
Regarding your week 10 RB ranks, how do you account for the injury (re-injury) risk of Steven Jackson in your rankings? In other words, where would he rank if he had not had all the injury issues this year? And do you take into account that he may not be able to play a full game this week against the Saints? I wondering because I'm trying to decide between Jackson, K. Jones and B. Jacobs (need 2 out of 3).
Posted by: Zach | November 9, 2007 09:47 AM