I love fantasy football, but I'm not in a loving mood today. In fact, I think I have a legitimate gripe with a lot of host sites and it has soured my experience. I'll tell you how by answering this question I got earlier in the week:
@TheSackSBN "I dropped Adrian Peterson only to see him picked up by my biggest rival once the plea deal was announced. How dumb am I?"— Tom Garrett (@TheAxisOfEgo) November 5, 2014
No, you aren't dumb. Why would you be dumb? The consensus was that there s no reason to expect Adrian Peterson to play a down this year in the NFL, and you made a decision based on that knowledge. Now, things have clearly changed. It's still far from a guarantee that he'll be reinstated anytime soon, but just the fact that the opportunity presents itself throws a wrench into fantasy leagues across the board.
And you know why? Because there are too many freaking fantasy host sites that don't allow you to keep a suspended player that doesn't count toward a roster spot. Everyone else allows this for injured players, but not suspended ones. Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge that some do, and that's great! But to the ones that don't? Why! WHY? This is not a rhetorical question. I want an answer.
Play Fanduel, Win big money
So now, what you have is owners who drafted Peterson getting screwed because of a pointless restriction and they have two choices-- either sit on their hands while everyone else enjoys having rosters with one more spot than them, or risk dropping a premier talent and having him fall into the hands of an owner who is ALREADY PLAYING AT AN ADVANTAGE. How is this fair? It's not mismanagement on the owner's part, so why should he or she be punished?
And let's be honest, suspended players aren't exactly a rarity in today's NFL, and it hasn't been for quite some time. Fantasy leagues, get your act together. Let us put suspended players on a reserve list. Come on.
@TheSackSBN how confident should I be in Mark Sanchez as my QB1 going forward? Enough to play him over Cam and the rest of the way?— Andrew Constant (@andrew_constant) November 5, 2014
"Confident" is not a word I would use if I'm plugging Mark Sanchez into my lineup, and the chief reason for that is because he is Mark Sanchez. Despite that, there's no denying that upside exists as long as he's playing in a high-scoring Chip Kelly offense.
That upside was displayed by Nick Foles in 2013, but 2014 was a different story. Foles ranked 19th among quarterbacks in fantasy points per game before his clavicle injury, compiling 13 touchdowns and 10 interceptions over eight games and leaving several big plays on the field. Foles wasn't seeing wide-open receivers and he routinely made risky throws and still often escaped unscathed despite his 10 interceptions. At the end of the day, Foles wasn't winning too many fantasy matchups for his owners, which is something I cautioned in SB Nation's fantasy draft guide before the season began.
Back to Sanchez-- since Foles wasn't playing at a high level, it's not unfair to think the Eagles offense seamlessly transitions with him at the helm. But at the end of the day, what you're getting is a decent streaming option at the position that I would plug and play in certain matchups, but not someone I'd regularly start over Cam Newton. I know, Newton's been a disappointment, and just when it looked like he was on the cusp of returning to fantasy glory, he has his worst game of the season versus the New Orleans Saints.
The Sanchize gives you more flexibility as an owner, but this isn't a week I give Newton the boot, especially versus an Eagles defense that has surrendered the third-most fantasy points to quarterbacks this season. Sanchez deserves a start this week in most cases since he has a plus matchup and six teams are on bye, but Newton isn't a quarterback I'm starting him over.
@TheSackSBN In PPR, give Forte and Keenan Allen, to get Antonio Brown and either Ellington or Lacy. Is it worth giving up Forte?— Eric Zizich (@Eric_Zizich) November 5, 2014
It's a fair offer, but I would only do it if you're desperate for wide receiver depth. Antonio Brown is on fire and has been staking his claim on making the All-Pro team, consistently posting huge games even when Ben Roethlisberger isn't throwing for half a dozen touchdowns each week.
The thing is, you could say the same thing about Matt Forte's output, and he's doing it at the thinnest position in fantasy football. At the end of the day, that's what I'd rather have, even though Eddie Lacy and Andre Ellington are fine running backs to own. Lacy's just been too inconsistent and Ellington's schedule down the stretch looks problematic, especially with the St. Louis Rams and Seattle Seahawks looming during playoff weeks.
Also something to be considered is where your team sits in the standings. If you're on the playoff bubble and need an aggressive move to bolster your team's starting lineup, I'd advise making this move. The obvious goal is to win, and if your team isn't going anywhere, then a change has to be made. But if you're at the top of the standings, I would rather just stick to what got you there.
@TheSackSBN Dan, I have Sims in my RB 2 over Cadet :(. Should I offer a trade of WR T.Williams for Fred Jackson? WRs-Cobb,smithSr, Bryant— Meridith Black (@MerBla) November 5, 2014
I would do this, but this is a trade with the rest of the season in mind as opposed to this week. Jackson practiced at a limited capacity on Wednesday, but it remains to be seen if he'll be available for Week 10. That said, he'll be handed the keys to the backfield upon return, and amid a revitalized offense with Kyle Orton at quarterback (weird, right?), there's plenty of value to be had. Acquiring that at the cost of a fringe WR3/WR4 like Terrance Williams is well worth it when you're looking for running back depth. Do it.
Hey, guys, thank you for reading this week's edition of The Sack. If you would like to be in next week's The Sack, please post your fantasy questions in the comments or tweet me at @TheSackSBN. Be sure to also visit SB Nation's Fantasy War Room so I can pull questions from there as well.