Rookie Impact Series: Quarterbacks
  by Matt Waldman, Exclusive for Footballguys.com

Play Fool Fe Catch Wise

Why am I quoting a reggae song title? What does it have to do with rookie quarterbacks? And why should you even care about rookie quarterbacks if you aren't in a dynasty league?

Redraft leaguers link the words rookie and starting quarterback and the first word that comes to mind is YUCK. Only half of the Top 10 rookie performances in league history were starter worthy. Last year, Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco were the 16th and 20th ranked fantasy quarterbacks, respectively and they supplanted two of the former rookies on this list. A less-savvy fantasy owner's response might be there's nothing to see here, move along...

But don't turn your nose up too soon; during the pivotal bye-week stretch of Weeks 6 through Week 12, Ryan was a better producer than veterans David Garrard, Jeff Garcia, Eli Manning, Jake Delhomme, Marc Bulger, Brett Favre, and Ben Roethlisberger. Take Garrard and Garcia off that list and Flacco out-produced the remaining five in the same stretch. Not bad for two guys on most waiver wires a month into the season.

Respectively, Ryan and Flacco were only a point and two points per game away from being Top 12 quarterbacks during that stretch. Ryan was actually more consistent during that stretch than Jay Cutler, Shaun Hill, and Chad Pennington, producing one more starter-quality performance than these three during the same six-week period. Because most rookie quarterbacks are waiver wire fodder in redraft leagues, a fantasy owner who is more risk tolerant can use this likelihood to his benefit in competitive leagues when there are at least two potential opening day rookie starters.

If you know you have a chance to land a quality starter off the waiver wire, you may decide to draft one quarterback and use that spot originally slated for that reserve for an extra runner or receiver. Let those owners think they've outsmarted you when they pick a third or even fourth quarterback and talk trash about seeing you for a midseason trade. The term Play Fool Fe Catch Wise is patois for "play the fool to catch the wise". By allowing others to think you're ignorant about good fantasy football strategy, you can take this risk on that extra player you really wanted and know you can pick up a rookie early who will have a good chance to be a solid bye-week option.

In competitive leagues, one player can mean the difference between enough wins and losses for you to contend, and every advantage you can find counts. Quarterback is a good place to take a draft-day risk, because difference in points between low-end fantasy starters and high-end reserves is generally narrower at quarterback than other positions. While some owners were picking their No. 2 quarterback in Round 9 through Round 14, others got far more productive players like Steve Slaton, Le'Ron McClain, Antonio Bryant, Lance Moore, Eddie Royal, and DeSean Jackson. Odds were in their favor that they were also able to drop an underperforming player for Ryan or Flacco, if they didn't already trade for a better option.

Determining Rookie Quarterback Impact

Although I think only three to four rookie quarterbacks are worth considering for the strategy I mentioned above, I'm going to provide a list of eleven signal callers who were drafted or signed to an NFL team. Some of these players will only get a shot to play this year if the worst-case scenario occurs for each team. Here's how I judged them:

As I mentioned earlier, there were only five quarterbacks who had an end-of-year ranking worth of a fantasy starter in a 12-team league:

Year
Pick
Player
Fpts
Rank
1998
1.01
Peyton Manning
297.15
6th
1986*
1.14
Jim Kelly
287.55
5th
1984*
U
Warren Moon
242.00
12th
1993
1.02
Rick Mirer
241.95
9th
1976
U
Jim Zorn
225.15
6th

* - Player's first year in the NFL, but he played in another league.
U - Player was not drafted by an NFL team.

Technically, only Peyton Manning, Rick Mirer, and Jim Zorn fit the profile of true rookies, but there was still an overall gap in talent between the NFL, USFL, and CFL so Kelly and Moon will also be factored into this examination. What do these players have in common?

Not a lot substance to these points other than they met the prototypical size/weight requirements and talent, and for the most part, the football world recognized it. Only two of the quarterbacks (Manning and Mirer) had 1000-yard rushers (Marshall Faulk and Chris Warren, respectively), and Faulk also had 86 receptions for 908 yards. Mirer, Kelley, and Zorn had backs with at least 380 yards as receivers, which is a healthy amount from the position.

It is intriguing to me that all of these quarterbacks had a receiving corps where the most productive two to three wide receivers had fewer than five years of experience. Manning, Kelly, and Zorn each had two receivers with at least 500 yards and a third very close to that figure. The stats also show that Manning, Mirer, Moon, and Zorn operated frequently from two-TE sets: all four had two tight ends rank within the Top 28 at their position for fantasy points during their rookie season. Jim Kelly's tight end, Pete Metzelaars, was ranked tenth. All of the quarterbacks listed had a receiver with at least 30 catches and a 14-yard per catch average, but I do think this information tells us that these quarterbacks spread the ball around and weren't afraid to dink and dunk their way up the field to tight ends and backs. They took what the defense gave them.

Will this information help us determine if there is a quarterback capable of breaking out as a rookie? We'll see if any of these signal callers have a similar environment that could match the past quarterbacks who did have a Top 12 season as a rookie.

Potential Starters

Mark Sanchez, Jets

Matthew Stafford, Lions

Josh Freeman, Buccaneers

Productive Role Player

Pat White, Dolphins

Dynasty Diamond in the Rough

Nate Davis, 49ers

Quality Backups With Long Term Starter Potential

Brian Hoyer, Patriots

Rhett Bomar, Giants

Stephen McGee, Cowboys

Career Backups With Occasional Starting Value

Curtis Painter, Colts

John Parker Wilson, Falcons

Mike Teel, Seahawks


From the Inbox

Footballguys staff writer Chase Stuart sent me an e-mail this week about my RB Workload piece. I want to share the e-mail and my response.

Hey Matt,

Glad to have you on board, and I love listening to you on the Audible. I wanted to throw some thoughts your way on your latest article [Here's something you said that I want to comment on]:

"Certainly he could do what Curtis Martin did and have a huge season later in his career, but if I have to follow historical averages with rankings…"

The thing is, you *don't* have to follow historical averages. You were so receptive to the Shark Pool feedback last week, that I thought you wouldn't mind some more. Looking at historical averages is an interesting thing. Knowing that seven of the Top 12 won't repeat, and that two rookies will be in the Top 12 is interesting.

It's useful if you're writing a book on NFL history. It's useful if you're assigning confidence levels to your fantasy projections. But it's not useful for creating fantasy rankings to the extent that a player falling out of the Top 12 isn't obvious (and in that case, you don't care about historical averages -- think Tiki Barber after he retired) and trying to make your individual rankings match group historical results is a bad way to make accurate projections.

It might seem counter intuitive, but group projections necessarily should differentiate from individual projections in this instance. Consider a 10-team fantasy league. Player A, who has an FBG subscription, has a 37% chance of winning the league. Players B through J, who don't subscribe to FBG, each have a seven percent chance of winning the league. If you were to project someone to win the league, you'd project Player A to win. But if I asked you, "Will Player A win the league?" the correct answer would be "no." He's *not* more likely than not going to win the league. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be projected to win. That's the difference between an individual projection (you give him the best chance to win) and a group projection (the field will win).

How about a more relevant example? You have Knowshon Moreno and Donald Brown in your Top 12 because two rookie RBs "should be" in there and those two are the best rookie RBs. But the notion of two good rookie RBs is a group projection, while your rankings of Moreno and Brown specifically are individual projections.

From 1988 to 2008, there were 21 NFL drafts and therefore 42 RBs drafted among the first two RBs in their class. Just 9 of the 42 ranked in the Top 12 their rookie seasons. Just once in 21 seasons - 2007 - were the top two RBs drafted in their class also Top 12 fantasy RBs that season. It was Peterson and Lynch (who just made the cut at RB 12). So while you might say 2.3 rookie RBs will be in the Top 12, the odds of Brown and Moreno being in the Top 12 is incredibly small - less than 5 percent based on past history.

Don't let this information make you put Beanie Wells in your Top 12, though. Only two of the 21 RBs drafted third in their class ranked in the Top 12 (Robert Edwards and Eddie George) as rookies, and only three others (Errict Rhett, Cadillac Williams, and Kevin Jones) ranked in the Top 24. So less than one-fourth of the No. 3 RBs ranked in the Top 24 as rookies.

The odds of any Top 12 RB staying in the Top 12 may not be great; but it's *always* higher than the odds of your average RB13-RB24 runner vaulting into the Top 12. Moving a player into the Top 12 just because history says it will happen is not a good way to make individual projections.

The reason for this is often the reason a player falls out of the Top 12 is because something unpredictable happens. He gets hurt. He has a really hard SOS. He falls down at the one-yard line a lot. His backup RB plays much better than anyone thought. By nature, we're calling these things unpredictable; trying to predict what's unpredictable should sound absurd, and it is. The goal of individual fantasy projections isn't to be perfect, but rather to be as accurate as possible. To do that, you should focus on each individual player and not what groups of players do.

To drive the point home with a sledgehammer, consider that almost every season, a Top 12 fantasy QB is not a Week 1 starter. Do you really want to put someone who is not an opening day starter in your fantasy Top 12? We may know that one of Tarvaris Jackson, Matt Leinart, Tyler Thigpen, Chad Henne, Chris Simms, whoever the backup is behind Brees/Manning/Brady is, Charlie Batch, Seneca Wallace, and Jeff Garcia will probably end up in the Top 12. That does not mean you should take the most likely of that group and plop them in your Top 12. While that might seem obviously inaccurate, that's really no different than the theory you espoused in your article.

It's easy to do the math and see what every year seven RBs will fall out of last year's Top 12. Therefore, we should move someone else, up. But it's just as obvious that on a head-to-head basis (say, RB4 in 2008 vs. RB 14 in 2008), the Top 12 RB the prior year is more likely to remain in the Top 12. Obviously I'm not saying you should keep your list the same every year; I'm just saying don't mean any one player down to fit a group trend of players like him falling down. The problem is assigning 100 percent of the penalty to 50 or 58 percent of the players.

Anyway, hopefully these comments don't come off the wrong way. I'm a fan of your work so far and thought you'd be open to criticism. I've taken way more criticism than most in the Pool, and it's made me a much better fantasy writer.

Chase

My response:

Hey Chase,

I'm always open to criticism and thanks for your e-mail. I see your point about individual/versus group projections, but it was fun delving into that kind of thinking. I've done it several ways and frankly, none of us are going to be right.

It sounds like there's a right away to be wrong and a wrong way to be wrong and I'm taking the wrong way based on what you've written. And I'm sure that is true, because if I'm trying to represent something statistically, and it's not the best stance, then yeah, it's wrong even if the results this year proved to be right. I hadn't thought about it from that perspective. You're point about the rookie backs ties that together well.

In one sense my rankings are based on trying to fit individuals into a group dynamic, and your point is valid. What I haven't mentioned is I don't see myself sticking to that dynamic all preseason. I just wanted to use it as a starting point to see where it will take me, and I want to share with readers which players I like to fit these spots if things fell into place based on the historical averages.

As events happen during the season, I will make changes, and it won't fit the format of the averages. Still, I want to experiment with what my rankings will be like if I begin from this place and update it from there rather than the best guys from last year being the best guys to begin this year, which is what I've almost always have done.


One thing I didn't mention in this e-mail response is that I'm looking at the players I think have the best chance to produce not just based on statistical history, but who I really think has the talent and situation to be an excellent player in this league. It's higher risk but yes, if I think Kurt Warner, the back up to Leinart at this time last year, should be the player to target, then I'm going to rank him higher than Leinart and put him in a spot where I think it makes sense to grab him. To play it safe, Chase's explanation of how the stats will play out is more accurate.

At this point, I would rather have a talent like Moreno or Brown over several other established players. The stats available to us only explain the bottom-line production and chances of repeating, but it does not encompass all the dynamics that we factor into determining a talented player. Plus there were three rookie RBs who made the Top 12, and I think Chase was assuming (and correctly according to stats) that the best rookie backs were the first three backs selected, which I wouldn't have assumed. I just think this year Moreno and Brown are the best backs in the best situation to produce like fantasy starters at a high level; the draft status is merely coincidence.