Time For Some Make-Believe Football

^{- Posted by Derek -}

Unlike some other folks writing on this site, I'm not a big fan of the imaginary sports thing.  I completely understand the appeal -- trust me, I'm not one to look down upon others' obsession with sports and stats -- but it just doesn't do anything for me.  Kind of like sports cars and fancy scotches.  At an intellectual level, I get it, but there's no internal resonance.

Of course, every few years I get talked into giving it another shot, which then brings up my biggest actual problem with the whole deal -- it screws up my rooting interests.  Sure, you can avoid taking any players from the Giants, Redskins or Cowboys, but that's just unilateral disarmament on the level of refusing to accept any face cards the dealer might send your way. 

Same thing with benching guys when they play the Eagles.  It's admittedly a principled solution, but there are still 14 other games you're hoping Marion Barber scores three touchdowns.

And what if there's a guy on your team who has a PSU grad as his back-up?  I root for all those guys to get shots, but that won't happen if the starter plays lights out. 

Honestly, sometimes I think the biggest problem is that I know too much about these players, which makes it hard to reduce them to statistical abstractions.

Of course, none of this disqualifies me from liking fantasy sports for one brief moment each year:  August, right before the season starts.  I love all the discussions about how high each Eagles player should get drafted, because it's a good framework for arguing about predictions for the upcoming season.  It's one thing to say, "Oh, 11-5 if they get healthy."  It's another to argue that DeSean Jackson is poised for 80 receptions, 1,200 yards and six touchdowns. 

That part's fun.

So let's talk about the 2009 Eagles.  But understand that I'm coming at this from a non-fantasy perspective.  You'll have to translate my thoughts -- such as you see value in them -- into what it means in your league in terms of production.  Also, I don't pretend to be an expert on the rest of league's fantasy prospects, so context is on you too.

Donovan McNabb -- Clearly, the issue everyone's raising with McNabb is Mike Vick.  The key question is what does his presence mean for McNabb's stats, especially in the red zone.

I come at this from a few angles:

1. The better McNabb plays, the more Vick plays.  I know everyone's desperately trying to shoehorn this arrangement into the typical quarterback controversy template, but I'm just not seeing it.  The Eagles' absolute best shot at a Super Bowl win is behind a healthy, confident Donovan McNabb.  Andy Reid knows this, and therefore also knows that the last thing he wants to do is undermine McNabb with the fanbase or in the locker room. 
2. In the red zone, think of Vick as a running back, not a QB.  As discussed before, Vick isn't a great red zone passing quarterback.  They're not going to bring him in to drop back, survey the field, and pick apart a defense.  He'll come in for a play, run the ball, then go back out.  Now, of course, if he's successful doing that, we'll see more of him, but the Eagles have so much room for improvement in the red zone that his contribution could simply be additive.
3. At midfield, if McNabb's playing well, Vick is a gimmick.  He's a great gimmick, but still, you're talking about a level just a bit beyond a DeSean Jackson reverse.  And they're just not going to pull McNabb if he's playing out of his mind.

Speaking of which, there's every reason to believe this is a year when McNabb will play out of his mind.  The skill position talent is better than it's ever been.  If the line proves it can beat the blitz -- which is clearly the obvious defensive counter-move to all this talent -- then the sky's the limit.

The FO guys predict 3,761 yards / 21 TDs / 8 INTs for McNabb this year.  I'd up that to 4,000 / 30 / 8, with a disproportionate number of those TDs coming from outside the red zone. 

Brian Westbrook -- The guy who makes the Eagles' offense go is clearly a boom-or-bust pick this year.  I'm not buying the (semi-)prevailing wisdom that McCoy's going to eat too much into his overall production.  As Les Bowen pointed out today, "When Westbrook is able to suit up, Reid's tendency has been to forget he has any other running backs."  And to the extent that the Eagles will be able to better spread the field in the red zone -- and maybe even run the ball a bit more down there -- you have to like his chances at keeping his TD numbers up.

With that said, if you draft Westy, you have no choice but to take McCoy, too, because even the best-case scenario probably has Westbrook out for a couple games.  It's a hard week to win when you're benching your starting running back -- especially because you may not know until just about game time if he'll be available. 

The FO guys have him pegged to continue last year's decline, with 904 yards / 6 TDs / 1 fumble rushing and 66 rec / 562 yards / 4 TDs receiving.  As a fan, I'm not too bothered by that workload, so long as he's healthy at the right time.  (Although I think he gets to 1,000 yards just on pride.)  But Westbrook seems like the type of pick you're going to love the first five weeks and then kind of regret when the injuries start piling up and Vick steals a couple of his rushing TDs. 

And yes, I think Vick impacts Westbrook's stats more than McNabb's.

DeSean Jackson -- Basically I'm taking Roddy White's third year and giving it to DeSean Jackson in his second.  If you want to see how that stacks up against the league, see here.

To say I'm excited about DeSean's ceiling this year would be so woefully inadequate a description of my true emotions that it would cheapen my feelings beyond repair.

Note -- other players about whom I've been excited:  Chris Gocong, Tony Hunt. 

But not this excited.

Defense -- I think the Eagles are going to be a better real defense than fantasy defense this year.  You're losing a couple turnovers a game with Dawk's departure, I don't love the overall sack picture, they're clearly going to give up a couple boneheaded miscommunication plays in the secondary, and I think the offense is going to be scoring lots of points.  That should make the defense's job easier, but instead it seems like a lot of times a defense playing with a lead gets into veteran pitcher mode.  Throw strikes, stay out of the big inning, but don't worry if a few guys cross the plate, you're winning anyway.*

That said, I certainly wouldn't run away from them.  I think they'll look much, much better once they 1) get Trent Cole back, and 2) turn up the heat on the schemes, so I'm not warning you off or anything.  I just like the FO projection of about 10th, rather than the ESPN one of about 6th.

Player's I'd stay away from:

Any wide receiver not named DeSean Jackson -- Curtis doesn't look right to me and the other guys are all interchangeable pieces who bring value to the field, but not the spreadsheets.  I reserve the right to re-visit Reggie Brown if he gets traded somewhere else. 

Jeremy Maclin in particular -- There will be people across the country who talk themselves into Maclin based on the fact that "only Kevin Curtis is ahead of him."  If you have huge rosters, maybe you're taking him as a late, late round keeper, but otherwise, he's not contributing much this year.  Look elsewhere for sleepers.

Brent Celek -- I like Celek.  He's a credible player at the tight end position.  I just don't see that many plays where he's going to be even the second option.  If he were more of a red zone threat, I might reconsider his utility in fantasyland.  On the other hand, it's not like there's any risk whatsoever that someone else on the roster might take snaps away from him. 

Mike Vick -- Guys like Vick and Pat White are going to be an interesting challenge to the overall fantasy football landscape.  On the one hand, they're quarterbacks, and you can't let teams just stick an extra QB in there if the guy's going to throw 15 times a game.

On the other hand, they're not really quarterbacks.  And fantasy fans really hate when a guy like Vick puts up great numbers in his actual role, but isn't playable because of his assigned position.  A guy like Vick could run the ball 10 times a game for 80 yards and two touchdowns, but you can't use him because he's not a running back.  Even if he sort of plays like one.

My guess is the long-term answer here is going to be a move to a two-quarterback standard roster.  That way you're making a decision, do I want a Wildcat guy in that spot or instead a mediocre QB? 

This all assumes the Wildcat is more than a gimmick and it's here to stay, of course.

^{* Note that I have zero statistical support for this assertion.}