The Kevin Curtis Dilemma

I could have titled this particular dilemma with several different names because I have faced it many times over the years with mixed results. But since Kevin Curtis is the most recent and glaring example. And since this is the first time I have recognized it as a dilemma, it shall be, in perpetuity, named after him.

Here's the scenario: A quality NFL third receiver, who runs excellent routes, has excellent hands, is speedy, and has proven he has the ability to be a very good, if not great, second receiver when he has filled in for the injured first or second receiver on his team, is traded or signs a free agency deal with a team whose offensive system should suit the player better than the system he is leaving.

The situation I am describing is Kevin Curtis going from the Rams to the West Coast system of Andy Reid's Eagles where he will not only move into the second receiver role but wil probably be considered the go-to guy. I could see his probable productivity clearly but I could also see a period of adjustment to a new system as well as the adjustment to a new QB who is dealing with his own adjustment to coming back from a style devastating knee injury.

I was able to pick Curtis pretty late in every draft so I had a couple of proven receivers on every team. I felt pretty comfortable benching him in all my leagues in week one. But in week two, due to a couple of weak performances, the idea of starting Curtis began to creep into my head.

Greg Cosell, an NFL analyst who I respect a great deal, talked about the Eagles/Redskins matchup during his weekly appearance on the Sirius Radio Fantasy Football Show. He talked about how Green Bay had been successful against the Eagle receivers because they had used "press/man coverage". Simply put, the corners hit the receivers and then have the speed and quickness to recover quick enough to stick to their assignment like glue. He felt like Washington wouldn't do this because their corners were not as practiced at it and it wasn't a technique they could just pick up in one week.

I went ahead and started Curtis.

The Redskins went ahead and played press/man coverage.

I lost all the leagues in which I started Curtis.

Even with the coverage he had gotten open. The real problem was McNabb's inaccuracy due to the limits his stiff knee placed on him. He was misfiring all game.

Because they needed something to talk about, many in the press nad on radio spent the week between games two and three discussing whether McNabb was no longer the elite QB he once was. McNabb became even more prevalent when He made comments in an interview on HBO's REAL SPORTS which some perceived as controversial.

I realized I had gotten ahead of myself and put Curtis back on the bench until the situation in Philadelphia straightened itself out. For a split second I even considered dropping him for free agents on the waiver wire.

I thought better of that when I remembered how I had traded Priest Holmes after the first few games he played in Kansas City. In this case Holmes had gone from being a backup to Jamal Lewis in Baltimore to being the starter for Dick Vermeil in the offense that had made Marshall Faulk a star. Because I had started Holmes from week one, I had become frustrated with his lack of productivity and thought I was a genius. He hit his stride the week I traded him and the rest was history. Had I kept him I would have had both Shaun Alexander and Priest Holmes. Since this was in a keeper league I would have probably won three straight championships.

My very first year of fantasy football, I went 16-1. Although I have won leagues in subsequent years, I have vever repeated that feat. The wish to do so and to be hailed as a genius--to be the guy who picks the perfect sleeper or knows the exact game to play an unheralded benchwarmer has hurt me in fantasy football way more than it has helped me.

In the league where I had Andre and Chad Johnson, I also have Chris Chambers, Brandon Marshall, and Kevin Curtis. When Andre hit the fantasy IR in week 2, I had to choose between these three talented benchwarmers. Chambers was the most consistent. By my calculations I needed to get the receptions and yards Chambers had gotten in each of the first two weeks to have a reasonable chance of winning. He got exactly his average and I won by twenty points.

Both Marshall and Curtis outscored Chambers. Curtis in particular got three TD's and 221 yards. Had I played him I would have won by almost 70 points. I had considered starting him but who's to say that Detroit, the Eagles week 3 opponent, wouldn't suddenly become press/man mavens?--which they didn't. And even if they didn't, who's to say that McNabb would suddenly become accurate?--which he did. Although I will remember what was probably Curtis's career performance, I won't lose any sleep over it. As much as I wish I could, I can't see the future.

The goal is to win the league--other enticements, such as top scores in the entire fantasy system is just luck and you could lose everything chasing it.

In another game last week, my opponent had Curtis. Had he played him he would have beat me. It's a judgement call. It's the first four weeks of the season. Nobody should be panicking yet. Nobody won any of my leagues in week 3. With or without a win both my opponent and I know we have a very talented option on our bench who is hitting his stride and hopefully will be available to us throughout the season. Last Sunday was probably the greatest game of Keven Curtis's career and it would have been nice to be able to say I had played him--but that's just bragging and salve for long term memory. It has little to do with winning fantasy football.

By the way, I did start Curtis in another league. But that's only because he was the best available option. And yes, he did mean the difference between a win and a loss.

Preparation for Week 3

I was having trouble deciding between starting Larry Fitzgerald against Baltimore or Bernard Berrian against Dallas. Baltimore is supposed to have one of the best D's in the league and Dallas has a pretty suspect secondary.



In fantasy drafts Fitzgerald was considered to be a top 10 receiver while Berrian, though he is Chicago's primary guy, was considered a high #3 in fantasy. I almost pulled the trigger and then I remembered Sept. 10, 2000.



During that season, the Ravens D was considered one of the greatest defenses of all time. My opponent that week had Jimmy Smith in his lineup going against Baltimore. He had a quality backup WR on his bench although I don't remember who it was since I didn't write down what players were on my opponent's benches back then. I only wrote down the starters. Sufficeth to say that it was someone on par with Berrian who was facing a less difficult defense. I was relieved on Sunday morning when I saw that he had chosen to start Smith against Baltimore our matchup was close and I was sure the Jaguar receiver would be shut down.

He scored three touchdowns and had 291 receiving yards. His backup got his average and had he played him, I would have won.

I learned a valuable lesson from my opponent: Use matchups as a consideration between like level players such as Berrian and Vincent Jackson or Larry Fitzgerald and Roy Williams. But when faced with the choice between a #1 receiver and a #3, go with the #1 regardless of the matchup. NFL rules favor the receiver so it's likely that a top receiver will do reasonably well even against a difficult opponent.

None of this is guaranteed but I have spent the early part of many seasons chasing my tail when I would have done at least as well if not better if I hadn't second guessed myself and put in the inferior player, when those that I chose as starters outscored my opponents from the bench.

(Larry Fitzgerald ended up making 5 receptions for 85 yards against Baltimore. Berrian made six for 73. In standard scoring leagues Fitzgerald scored one point more. In points per catch league they tied.)

Week 2 Lessons Learned

1. Don't let a tough matchup make you risk a winning combination--I started Rex Grossman because I had a feeling he would "go off"in week 2. He didn't. I risked by benching the reliable but unspectacular Matt Hasselbeck in hopes that Grossman would respond to the criticism by doing something spectacular even though I had very little evidence he would do so besides a three star ranking on Yahoo matchups. Sporting News gave him only one star. My rationale was that if I lost, it probably wouldn't be due to one choice out of fourteen players. I lost by one tenth of a point. Had I stuck with the lineup I had used the week before--including Hasselbeck--I would have won by seven points.

I remember making the same mistake for the first time in 1999 when I started Trent Dilfer in week one because several experts guaranteed that this would be the year that Dilfer would finally pull it all together and have a breakout season. My girlfriend at the time (wife now) told me to start the extremely reliable but unspectacular Troy Aikman.

Dilfer was Dilfer. Aikman threw a career high 5 TD's against a highly rated Redskin D.

What bothers me most about the Grossman choice is that I didn't use all of my personal knowledge to make my decision. Because my wife is a Gator, I have seen almost every game Florida has played on national T.V. since 1996 including, I believe, the very first time Rex walked on the field. He came on throwing darts and taking chances and ended up either leading the team to a comeback or coming very close. The problem is he was the very same QB then that he is now. He has never shown any interest in doing anything besides his own frenetic version of what he believes Brett Favre does. It was reported that in his final year at Florida that he would change plays in the huddle from what new coach, Ron Zook, called to the old plays from former coach, Steve Spurrier's playbook. I watched him in a press conference last year state that he played the way he played and he had no intention of changing that. He just needed to be more accurate. Since then, after every bad performance, he has restated the same sentiment over and over. Defensive coodinators have eaten him alive.

It is very possible Rex Grossman may someday be come a viable fantasy QB. Dilfer became a reliable backup by recognizing his weaknesses and then relying on the strengths of the players around him. But it is a big mistake for the fantasy player to attempt to anticipate it.

2. Early in the season, go with the guys you drafted to be starters--I drafted Braylon Edwards to be my second receiver. This is in a dynasty league where you draft every round opposite of where you finished the season prior. I finished third and drafted eighth every round. I also had the option of keeping players that had been on my team the year before if they cleared our seven round draft. One of the players I was most excited about keeping was Brandon Marshall, who I believe will be a borderline #1 receiver by the middle of next season and a solid #2 within a few more weeks. I started Marshall at home. He got a respectable 70 yards. Braylon Edwads go 140 + yds. and 2 touchdowns.

The moral is that if you draft a player to be a starter, start him for at least the first four games. Trends begin to surface after the first quarter of the season. Before that time you're just taking wild second guesses. I'm almost certain that Marshall will end up being a better fantasy receiver than Edwards. But he isn't yet.

Week 1 Lessons Learned

1. While it is good to be aware of stats from the previous year in regard to matchups for week one, if for no other reason than to get in the habit, it is better to go with the best players at each position in the first game.

--Most teams have striven to make improvements where they were weak in the offseason so a bad pass defense from the year before probably doesn't mean a bad pass defense this year. Plus coordinators move around so much that an entire defense of the same personnel may go through a sea-change. Take the Cardinals defense this year that has gone from a weak 4-3 to an aggressive 3-4 with many of the same players.

2. Teams where I "Let the draft come to me." Did far better in week one than teams where I "reached" for RB's in the second and third rounds.

--I credit the quoted term above to Adam Caplan of footballinjuries.com. After I heard him say it on his weekly Sirius radio show I adopted the philosophy and my mockdrafts and real drafts became far more successful. Example: I picked second in one draft. When my turn came in the second round, I saw Chad Johnson was available surrounded by four equivalent number 2 backs. I took Johnson in the third, Jones-Drew in the third and ended up with Larry Fitzgerald in the fourth, and Andre Johnson in the fifth. I still ended up with serviceable backs and tight ends in subsequent rounds (Julius Jones, Jerious Norwood, Kevin Jones, Vernon Davis, and Owen Daniels). When I started playing fantasy football ten years ago it was disadvantage to start receivers over running backs in the flex positions. Because of more and more shared backfields this doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Through two weeks, this is by far my best team.