Week 13 Computer Picks

(NOTE: WE'RE TAKING THE BROWNS-PATS OFF THE IMAGINARY BOARD HERE AT ROTOACTION.COM BECAUSE KELLY HOLCOMB IS OUT WITH BROKEN RIBS.)

So, far the computer is 10-4 when its line (based on the RotoAction Stat Power Index) is more than three points different than the Vegas line. Last week, the computer won with the Packers, Texans, Chargers and Panthers while losing with the Broncos and Giants. It's all documented on my staff picks at Rotowire.com, but we'll document it here from now on, too. Of course, I don't recommend actually betting based on these picks. This is just an exercise. Now on to the Week 13 Computer Picks (actual line in parenthesis)

Detroit (-6) by two over Arizona. (Well, no one says Denny has to keep the rookie QB in, right? Right?!?)

Tampa Bay (-1.5) by 3 over Atlanta

Miami (+3) pick 'em against Buffalo (not outside the margin)

Carolina (+1.5) by 3 over New Orleans (the second computer pick)

Baltimore (-7) by 7 over Cincy

Jets (NL) by 8 over Houston (I have a feeling this will be another pick when that line is set)

Minnesota (-7) by 4 over Chicago (close, but no cigar, thank God)

New England vs. Cleveland is off the board due to Holcomb's injury

St. Louis (-10.5) by 5.5 over San Fransisco (another computer pick as the SPI hates the Rams, for good reason)

Indy (-10.5) by 8.5 over Tennessee

San Diego (-3) by 3.5 over Denver

Kansas City (NL; Green's questionable) by 4 over Oakland

Philly (-6) by 4.5 over Green Bay

Redskins (-2) by 1.5 over Giants

Steelers (-3) by 6 over Jacksonville (close again but not enough)

Seattle (-7) by 7.5 over Dallas

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Peyton's Place? No. 1

Peyton Manning is having a Barry Bonds-type of season. By that I mean, his record-breaking performance is in no way a product of the current environment (in this case, one that's acknowledged as super friendly to passing teams). How do we know that? Well, we just compare Manning to his 2004 peers.Peyton's Colts are leading the NFL in yards per passing attempt by a considerable margin (9.0 to 8.4 for the Vikings and 8.2 for the Eagles). But that's not evidence enough. Where the case is decided is by looking at the all-important points per passing attempt (PPA). The Colts right now average a ridiculous, almost obscene .81 points every time Manning ATTEMPTS a pass. Good lord.

How does that compare to the other leaders? The Vikings are at .51 and the Eagles at .46.

Let's look at how that difference compares to other teams that have thrown TDs at record paces in other eras.

In 1999, Kurt Warner's Rams (42 TD passes) had 8.6 YPA, followed by the Vikings (8.2) and three other teams at 7.7. Their .55 PPA was league-best, followed by the Panthers (.44) and Vikings (.42).

The '86 Dolphins (46 TDs) are the one weird team in that they finished just fourth in YPA. Their league-leading PPA was .50, followed by the Vikings at .42 and Seahawks at .37.

The '84 'Phins (49 TDs) were, of course, first in YPA at 9.0 followed by the Niners (8.2) and (the then) St. Louis Cardinals (8.2). The Dolphins PPA clocked in at .60, followed by the Niners (.45) and Seahawks (.45).

The Colts are 60 percent better than their closest rivals in PPA. (Or is it PPPA, I can't decide!) The Rams were 25 pecent better than their closest rival. The '86 Dolphins less than 20 percent better and the '84 Dolphins (a distant second to the 2004 Colts) 33 percent better than the rest of their league.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

A Word on the Iggles

I've gotten complaints from touchy Philly Fantatics over the Index's view of the Eagles (I don't have to post the link AGAIN, do I?), which currently clock in at No. 9 behind the Seahawks, for cryin' out loud. I hate Seattle. So don't blame me. Plus I own Donovan in my expert league, so I can show some love. But the Eagles are being slammed for being bad in two categories, move net (runs plus completions minus runs plus completions allowed) and penalties. The computer doesn't like sloppy teams that can't beat the clock with the running game in the second half when they have the lead. It doesn't like the Eagles inability to sustain drives generally. The computer loves the Eagles pass offense and pass defense. It doesn't even mind their run defense so much. But the Eagles are not currently viewed as a complete team: one that can not only get its foot on your throat but keep it there.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Computer Power Picks

The new, updated Key Stat Power Index is up.
Link
I'm going back and forth on taking out penalties. But I'm going to leave things alone for the time being. I really like the way the teams are lining up now. The index clearly identifies the areas that are most directly correlated to winning. What follows are my trusty computer's predictions for this week's games based on these key stats. Of course, more details will be forthcoming in our weekly NFL Forecast,
Link
which will analyze all games and the Thanksgiving Day Games by Wednesday morning. So, stay tuned.Remember, thesea re the computer picks. Not necessarily mine. The computer doesn't factor in things like injuries, momentum, rookie QBs, etc.

Colts by 6 over the Lions at Detroit.

Cowboys by 6.5 over the Bears at Dallas.

Bengals by 3.5 over the Browns at Cincy.

Vikings by 7 over the Jaguars at Minny.

Eagles by 3 over the Giants at NY.

Chargers by 3.5 over the Chiefs at KC.

Panthers by 1 over the Bucs at Carolina.

Texans by 3 over the Titans at Houston (PSI says these two are completely equal teams, irrespective of home field).

Steelers by 11 over the Redskins at Pittsburgh.

Falcons by 10.5 over the Saints at Atlanta.

Patriots by 4.5 over the Ravens at New England.

Seahawks by 9 over the Bills at Seattle.

Niners by 2 over the Dolphins in SF.

Jets by 5 over the Cardinals in Arizona.

Broncos by 16.5 over the Raiders in Denver.

Packers by 9.5 over the Rams in Green Bay.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Power Rankings: Week 10

They're posted now on my website in complete form. Just click here.
Link

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Wizard of Ahs

I think that's what SI called the great TE and current Ravens' GM Ozzie Newsome once. I had a chance to talk to him in the press box on Sunday about stats the Ravens use to more objectively measure their on-field performance.But I could tell by Ozzie's sideways glance at me that the Ravens are more interested in hitting people in the mouth than any numbers that could be crunched by geeks like me. And there's always something to be said for hitting someone in the mouth in football.

Seriously, Ozzie thought total yards were more important than any yards-per-attempt equation in both running and passing. I get the sense that the Ravens are a team that some of the stat-savvy teams accuse of playing to the NFL rankings, which have long been based strictly on total yardage.

He couldn't understand why an interception could be more impactful on winning or losing than a fumble. For a while there, it was like we reversed roles. His, "Who cares about the whys of statistics when we're keeping score," was replaced by my, "Who cares why interceptions are more impactful, they just are." I tried to explain that fumbles can sometimes be a sign of strength in that the team that runs the most is usually winning and thus more likely to fumble. But I could tell I was losing him like he lost so many linebackers between the hashmarks. So, I quickly switched the topic to the "move" stat, which is runs plus completions. That he liked a lot. I didn't have the heart to tell him that the Ravens entered Sunday ranked a pedestiran 16th in that category.

He also agreed with Parcells (who wasn't named because, if he was, people would always agree with him) that sack yardage is more important than total sacks. Then I asked him to choose between three three-yard sacks and one 10-yard sack. His silence suggested that he preferred the former. Or maybe he was just looking for a security guard.

Then Ozzie came alive in suggesting that I focus on red zone stats. He thinks all these plays are much more consequential in the red zone and that should be assessed individually. Off the top of my head, I asked if he thought that points per red zone possessions on offense minus that same cateory on defense would suffice. He liked that. Now I have to see if that data is available through conventional means.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Manic Monday

Hey, that's why they call it gambling, people. I'm going to defer to what the great Bud Goode says about predicting games on his website:
LinkThere is just too much variation around average performance from game to game for stats to be used as a predictive tool.

Why do it then? Because it's fun. It's an excercise. I think we can show where the lines are off. Of course, the line being off doesn't factor much into who wins and loses. But it at least shows you where some small degree of value is relative to the inherent vageries of the Vegas line. So we'll continue to our slightly mad search for gold like Bogart in "Treasure of the Sierra Madre." And, yes, we are aware that anything we find is likely to be of the Fool's variety.

I do believe our stats can provide insight into why teams are playing well. We're going to replace our Parcellsian TD pass net with Goode's points per passing attempt net in our RotoAction Power Index. Now there may be a more simple way to create a power ranking. In fact, Goode does it simply by using point differential after backing out all defensive and special teams TDs for and against. In other words, points scored by the offense divided by points allowed by the defense.

But I don't know where that leaves you with points set by the other units. In other words, what about an INT that gets returned to the plus-20 yard line followed by a field goal after losing three yards on three plays? Vice versa for the defense. Maybe those things cancel each other out, maybe they don't. I like the broader statistical foundation of my index. But I strongly suspect that Goode will say that YPA differential and PPA differential should be weighted. I'll try to interview him in coming weeks and will report back to you here in that event.

We'll have our updated Power Index up shortly. I'm working with my website designer to devise a format by which you can see the rankings in each of the index categories as opposed to simply the sum total of how each team ranks in every category.

Remember to check our Breakfast Table on Wednesday or Thursday for an extensive overview of Week 10.
Link

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Week 10 Picks

We analyze and pick all of our games in our weekly forecast.
Link But three games have lines that the Power Index says are way out of whack. Let's focus on these three games: Cincinnati at Washington, Seattle at St. Louis and the Giants at Arizona.

Vegas says Cincinnati and the Redskins are evenly matched but the game is in Washington so the 'Skins lay the three. The Power Index says that Washington is a borderline playoff team (tied for 10th in the rankings) and the Bengals better than just six teams. When a team with an 80 score plays at home against a team with a 133 score, our methodology says they should be a nine-point favorite. Washington is better than average in five of the six power index categories (26th in net YPA) and very good in two of them (TD pass net and penalties per game). So, we're taking Washington minus the three for three units (the most we allot ourselves).

Seattle should not be a pick 'em against the Rams, no matter what the home/road splits suggest for each team. The Rams are not good in any category. They almost give away all of what they earn in YPA. Their TD passes are a wash. And they are downright bad in INT net, sacks net, penalties, and move net (completions plus runs minus completions plus runs allowed). The Seahawks are good across the board and the least penalized team in the league. They will win the sacks battle and the will very likely control the ball for the majority of the game. We say they're 8.5 points better than the Rams right now and 5.5 even in St. Louis. You want to give St. Louis an extra point or two for the dome? Fine. We're still going to go two units on the Seahawks.

The Giants and the Cards are virtually even in our index. The Giants are one measley point ahead at 112-113 (lower is better in the index). But that's WITH Strahan. The Giants losing Strahan is to their defense what the loss of Randy Moss has been to the Vikings offense. We don't have proof of that, yet. But this game should be Arizona minus three (at Arizona) even with big Mike; he's out so we feel even better about this pick. If Strahan was healthy, we'd go one unit. But, considering the circumstances, we're going two.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Sideways Movie Breakfast

(ROTOACTION POWER INDEX BELOW)

From: "scott pianowski"
Date: November 10, 2004 7:42:11 PM EST
To: "Salfino"
Subject: a post about sideways, fwiw (from an IMBD message board)

Payne had the final cut of the film - something he was insistent on keeping - so he's obviously got reasons to keep scenes in place. I've always respected his decisions on that sort of stuff - watch the extra material in the About Schmidt DVD and he'll explain *exactly* why scenes were deleted. This provides a lot of insight as to how he goes about his craft.

I think the wallet scene could *possibly* symbolize Miles being willing to take more chances and risks with his life. Remember the scene where Madsen is holding his hand and going off on a long wine soliloquy, almost offering herself to him on the spot? Miles's lack of confidence there undermines him, and he doesn't take the offering, he's not ready, not sure, not able to act (he later lambastes himself in the bathroom for being such a loser). Maybe by the end of the movie, he's been able to find some of that nerve he was lacking earlier. As much as he grows to resent Jack over time, he has picked up some of his zest for living, and it's pumped some much-needed energy into a middle-aged man who was drowning in his own self-doubt and self-pity.

I love that the movie had an open-ended conclusion, and I also like the fact that Jack was never exposed to his fiancee or forced to pay a great price for his dalliances. That's *real life* so much of the time - the handsome, socially-skilled man gets the spoils, while his less-attractive, more-neurotic sidekick gets the crummy end of things, even as much of it is his own fault. I found the final branching of the movie very true to what I would expect to happen in real life. Heck, not long ago, I had a male friendship that very much had overtones of a Jack-Miles pairing. I won't tell you which role I filled, to protect the both of us.

I thought the movie was outstanding, the best Payne film I've seen yet. I said to my fiancee on the way in, "This will need to be fantastic or I'll be disappointed." In the end, I wasn't disappointed.

Some critiques: I felt the wine metaphors were a little long and slightly forced in some spots, and I think the film could have done a better job of tracing Maya's interest in Miles (I can only assume he was charming in earlier visits that happen before the movie starts, because he didn't present someone that was easy to fall for during their screen time together). Other than that, I thought this was as close to a perfect movie as I've seen recently. It's not for everyone - it's deliberate to be sure. But I found it very subtle, very real, and in spurts, very funny, as all Payne films seem to be.


From: Salfino
Date: November 10, 2004 8:35:06 PM EST
To: "scott pianowski"
Subject: Re: a post about sideways, fwiw (from an IMBD message board)

I think symbolic interpretations are mostly BS. The meaning of a piece should be clearly in the text. These types of readings always say more about the critic than the piece. Miles was longing for a mature loving relationship with someone he could relate to personally. Contrast that with his friend and that fat waitress and her husband for God's sake. To me, the literal meaning is this is a guy who's compromised himself in many ways (his job and morally in stealing the money from his mom), but he's maintained some purity with his art (a purity he's desperately trying to hold on to) and his passions for wine and for meaningful relationships. Look at his friend, who's not just lacking in morals but is a total sellout with his voiceovers and real estate ambitions.

I think that's the point that's in the text: some people sell out and other people don't. But if you don't sell out, it's a very tough ride. This makes middle age analogous with that post-adolescent period. In your teens, you make the choices on who you're going to be and those choices can end up making your life very difficult. (There's a great short-story about this called "A&P" by John Updike; and I don't like Updike's longer works much at all.)

Then do you let those rough patches in life wear down those ideals or do you weather that adversity and hold on to yourself. To me, Sideways is a sort of coming of age movie for middle-aged people. By that I mean, late 30s, early 40s.

When you think about it, About Schmidt was a coming of age movie for old people (making the most out of that final act). Election, a straight post-adolescent coming of ager.

From: "scott pianowski"
Date: November 10, 2004 10:03:20 PM EST
To: "Salfino"
Subject: Re: a post about sideways, fwiw (from an IMBD message board)
 
I thougt the scene with Miles and Maya (doesn't that sound stupid together? anyway) right before he calls himself out in the bathroom was a little trite. Just a little, anyway.
 
Switching gears, the phone call to the ex-wife was so realistic. It's being compared to the infamous Swingers call, but the Favreau dial quicky spirals into something that's not altogether realistic (though it starts off that way). But what Miles says on that phone, how he frames things, how he's hurting, how he's waxed and it's having it's way with him, that's so freaking real and well done.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

RotoAction Power Index -- Week 9

Here's the RotoAction Power Index through Week 9. I don't like how the Jets moved up to No. 1 after the bad loss in Buffalo. But, upon closer examination, it's a fluke. They had a better YPA than Buffalo in that game and threw more TD passes. But they got dinged in penalties, sack differential and hurt badly in move net. However, they didn't move enough to change how they rank in these categories. Yet. They are also tied in a bunch of categories, so they can lose points in a hurry.

The other problem, of course, is Washington being viewed as New England's equal. That's obviously not the case. Washington is not a bad team if you factor out their anemic passing game. The defense is very solid overall. Plus, they don't commit many penalties. The Patriots would rank much higher if we didn't include penalties per game. I put that stat in there without talking to coaches or seeing good research on its correlation to winning. I'll research that more fully in coming weeks, hopefully with input from some NFL coaches. Come to think of it, getting rid of penalties would cure the Jet/Steeler problem, too.

I like the rest of the rankings. Later in the week, we'll convert these into point spreads to see which games Vegas is wrong on by more than three points. Last week, we felt three teams were getting badly underestimated in the point spread: Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, and San Diego. But we also felt Dallas was getting short-changed by two points (they should have been favored) and the Boys were blown out in Cincy. So, this is obviously an inexact science. Remember, this is only for entertainment purposes. Please, no wagering.

Also, for more information on the stats used to compile the power ranking, see the post below.

1 Jets (32)
2 Pittsburgh (33)
3 Indianapolis (39)
4 San Diego (41)
5 Seattle (48)
6 Denver (53)
7 Philadelphia (64)
8 Green Bay (69)
9 Minnesota (79)
10 New England (80)
10 Washington (80)
12 Baltimore (82)
13 Tampa Bay (84)
14 Houston (89)
15 Kansas City (95)
16 Buffalo (101)
17 Atlanta (102)
18 Detroit (106)
19 Giants (112)
20 Arizona (113)
21 Dallas (114)
22 Tennessee (117)
23 Cleveland (118)
24 Carolina (123)
25 St. Louis (126)
26 Cincinnati (133)
27 Miami (134)
28 Jacksonville (135)
29 New Orleans (139)
30 Chicago (143)
31 San Francisco (144)
32 Oakland (175)

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

RotoAction Power Index

Here's the RotoAction Power Index of games played through November 1. The number is parentheses is the total of where each team ranked in six categories that are given equal weight. These categories are Yard Per Attempt Net Differential, Net Move Plays (see post below), Net Sacks, Net Interceptions, Net TD Passes, Fewest Penalties Per Game. These categories were selected based on extensive research. We will continue to seek input from NFL coaches throughout the rest of the season, tweaking where necessary.

1 Pittsburgh (39)
2 Jets (41)
3 Philadelphia (47)
4 Indianapolis (48)
5 San Diego (57)
6 Denver (58)
7 Seattle (59)
8 Green Bay (72)
9 Houston (75)
9 Minnesota (75)
11 Tampa Bay (75)
12 Kansas City (81)
12 Washington (81)
14 New England (85)
15 Baltimore (87)
16 Giants (93)
17 Buffalo (95)
18 Dallas (103)
19 Cleveland (104)
19 Atlanta (104)
21 Detroit (109)
22 St. Louis (115)
22 Arizona (115)
24 New Orleans (116)
25 Tennessee (125)
26 Carolina (131)
27 Miami (136)
28 Jacksonville (140)
29 Chicago (147)
30 San Francisco (148)
31 Cincinnati (149)
32 Oakland (176)

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Move The Ball Stats

According to SI's great Paul Zimmerman (a Rotoaction favorite),
Link
Dick Vermeil says "move the ball" total plays are the key to winning in the NFL. We still think it's YPA (yards per passing attempt) differential. Here are the Move The Ball Rankings through Week 8. We'll alternate these occassionally with YPA Rankings to test the respective theories. Move The Ball totals are simply all running plays plus completions.

Here are how the teams rank in these "move" plays per game.

1. Chiefs, 55.7
2. Steelers, 52.9
3. Broncos, 52.6
4. Eagles, 52.6
5. Packers 52.4
6. Jets, 51.6
7. Vikings, 50.7
8. Texans, 50.3
9. Giants, 49.7
10. Seahawks, 49.3
11. Titans, 49.1
12. Colts, 48.9
13. Chargers, 48.5
14. Niners, 47.1
15. Rams, 47.1
16. Cardinals, 46.9
17. Redskins, 46.9
18. Cowboys, 46.4
19. Browns, 46
20. Ravens, 45.7
21. Patriots, 45.7
22. Eagles, 45.6
23. Jaguars, 45.5
24. Saints, 45.2
25. Panthers, 45.1
26. Bengals, 44.9
27. Bills, 44.1
28. Falcons, 43.9
29. Dolphins, 42.8
30. Bears, 42.7
31. Raiders, 41.8
32. Lions, 40

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Pinball Passing

First of all, my apologies to Psycho, which I left off the list of Top Horror Films in the prior posting on this blog. (I don't want to end up like Janet Leigh in the shower tomorrow morning.) I actually took a course on Hitchcock in college and there's just no excuse for that, as Psycho was revolutionary and is one of the very few key markers on the horror film timeline. And YPA is back in business as a predicting tool, with 8-5 heading into Monday Night (YPA said to take Miami and the points tonight).

What the hell is going on with the passing game? After Sunday, it sure feels like things have changed. Is that true? Well, there have been 35 300+ yard passing games this year compared to 29 through Week 8 last year. That's a 20 percent increase. Let's dig deeper. This year, six teams (Vikings, Colts, Rams, Eagles, Packers, Texans) are averaging over 270 yards passing per game. Last year, zero teams did that. In '02, three teams were over 270 YPG. We're on pace this year for 724 TD passes vs. 654 last year, an increase of about 11%. This year, 16 teams are averaging over 7.0 yards per attempt (YPA). Last year,nine averaged over 7.0 and in '02 the number was 11. But the real change is with over 7.5 YPA. That had been the Gold Standard of passing proficiency. Only four teams cracked 7.5 last year and just two in 2002. But this year, 12 teams are at 7.5 YPA or better. (NOTE THIS PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN UPDATED IN LIGHT OF MONDAY NIGHT'S GAME.)

Bottom line, 7.0 YPA had been a great predictor for a top 10 finish in TD passes. Not anymore. And 7.5+ YPA was a great predictor for a top five finish in YPA. Not anymore. Now, is this just a sample-size fluke? Maybe. But we have rule changes (well, techinically a more strict enforcement of existing rules). Perhaps this is the dawn of an offensive/passing revolution similar to what baseball went through with homers and scoring in baseball during the 1990s. In other words, maybe we've changed the game until someone decides to change it back.

Here's a preview of my By The Numbers column (which appears in a newspaper near you; check your local listings).

I've notice that I always have way more guys that I want to recommend selling than those I'm considering a buy on. That probably says something about my personality. Anyway, and away we go....

Michael Vick finally was able to deal with a pass rush last week. Going into the week, he'd been sacked a league-high 24 times despite the Falcons throwing the league's fewest passes. Yesterday, he was dropped one time. If the Falcons can prove that this wasn't a one-game fluke and that they've plugged the damn and that Vick is capable of avoiding these drive-killing negative plays, then he's worth a buy. For now, let's hold him.

What to do with Drew Brees? Remember, the Raiders are the worst pass defense in the NFL by far and they were banged up on top of it. The Chargers are averaging 7.6 yards per attempt, which is usually top five but only gets them to No. 10 this year, which is still solid. But Brees isn't throwing 30 TD passes this year. He's not even likely to throw 25. The last time a Marty Schottenheimer team had more than 20 TD passes? 1990. And Schottenheimer coached teams have only finished in the top 10 in TD passes two times in 20 years.

Fine, I'll give you buy. Jabar Gaffney. Are you happy? The scouts love him and the Texans are going to three WRs as part of their base offense. He would have scored a rushing TD last week if he didn't drop the ball in the midst of an early celebration. And, no, I'm not just saying this because he's Derrick Gaffney's kid. The Texans still lead the NFL in YPA. (Yeah, I know, the Colts go to No. 1 when you factor in sacks, as Peyton's only been dropped four times, which is simply absurd.)

I'll come close to a buy with Eddie George. (We're taking baby steps with Eddie because this recommendation is all about opportunity rather than ability.) Parcells wants to run it now, promised more action for George and then backed that up by giving him 31 carries. Yeah, he has no big play ability. But he's durable and is the unquestioned goal-line back. I think he's a third RB now in most leagues and even a boarderline starter.

Back to selling. Brandon Stokley should be traded this week. I watched the Colts-Chiefs and the Colts had few answers for the Chiefs blitzing until they went to the two-TEs, which was supposed to be their base offense heading into the season. Well, why would teams take away three WRs if Manning was so dangerous throwing out of the two-TE formation? Because the Colts lost the game and defenses have to try to take something away from Manning, don't they? I think there's a good chance that Stokley is on the field a lot less in coming weeks. Why take that chance if you don't have to?

Okay, this is getting long and I have to pick up the pace so I have time to eat lunch, write my column and head off to Giants Stadium for that lovely press box food followed by the Monday Nighter.

Plaxico? I swear I was going to say to buy him before I found out he did all his damage against Ty Law's replacement. Only three catches, too? Sure Roethlisberger seems like the real deal and he gets the ball downfield more effectively than Tommy Maddox. But do the Steelers really want to throw it? I still don't think so.

I'm heavily invested in Chris Brown. But I say sell him. That turf toe isn't going to get better and he was limping around like Grandpa Moses after every carry on Sunday. Sure, he rumbled for 147 yards and was gritty. But the explosion wasn't there. How could it be?

Jamal Lewis' success depends largely on Jonathan Ogden's health. And he's iffy for the next few weeks with a hamstring after missing time earlier in the year, too. Fantasy players ignore these ancillary injuries, but in cases like this they're very, very impactful. I can't say to sell him because of his upcoming schedule: Browns, Jets, Cowboys, Patriots, Bengals, Colts, Giants. Only the Browns have been good against the run, but he rumbled for 500 yards against them last year. Still, don't expect the bounty that this upcoming schedule suggests unless Ogden returns.

Willis McGahee. Well, I'll put a strong sell on him. Yeah, I know, he's not a co-starter. He's a starter. That's no surprise, considering how heavily invested Buffalo is in him. But he averaged about three yards per carry at home against the Cardinals and the Bills managed just 11 first downs, so those 38 points were a major fluke. Hmmm. The Bills schedule isn't that bad: Jets, Rams, Bengals.... Sorry. Visions of Bledsoe dancing in my head now. Sell! Is that strong enough for you?

Click here to read the rest of this entry.