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.