ATLANTA (-7) at INDIANAPOLIS

The Colts may be halfway to a spectacularly imperfect season, [...]]]>

Eight weeks after Baltimore's 35-7 beatdown, Pittsburgh hopes to continue their four game win streak at home. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)

Last week featured some dreadful picks on my end. But as the first publicized picks of the season, I’m feeling giddy with confidence. Like Philip Rivers in a preseason game. Or Aaron Rodgers in any game. Let’s get to the picks!

ATLANTA (-7) at INDIANAPOLIS

The Colts may be halfway to a spectacularly imperfect season, but the Falcons go from week-to-week without ever really giving observers any confidence. About the only thing you can expect is an interception from Matt Ryan and a 100-yard game for Michael Turner. Who am I kidding? Make that a 200-yard game. The Colts may have shown some brief flashes of mediocrity, but the defense doesn’t stack up against a downhill runner like Turner. Pick: Falcons.

TAMPA BAY at NEW ORLEANS (-8)

I’m torn. On the one hand, Drew Brees is a spectacular quarterback on an offense most defenses find unstoppable. On the other, Tampa Bay beat New Orleans three weeks ago. And one week after the Bayou Crew pistol-whipped the Colts, 62-7, they traveled to St. Louis where the Rams scored four points more than they had in the previous four games and beat them handily. Gah! Good thing the game in New Orleans, where the Saints are 3-0, tallying victories by 17, 7 and 55. Pick: Saints.

CLEVELAND at HOUSTON (-11)

11 points seems like a steep spread, but think about this: Cleveland’s three wins were against teams whose aggregate win percentage is .087 (2-21). And the average margin of victory in those wins was four points. In losses, Cleveland has been helpless, losing by 10, 18, 7 and 10. In other words, this is a really bad Cleveland Browns team. Houston has been shaky at times, but this won’t be one of those games. Pick: Texans.

NEW YORK JETS at BUFFALO (-2)

Riddle: how can an offense ranked 29th in yards also rank 11th in points scored? Answer: it’s riding the coattails of a very good defense (ranked 8th in yards). Unfortunately, the lack of positive yardage on offense is costing the defense, which ranks 18th in points allowed. That’s how important field position is. Expect Buffalo to take advantage of good field position with its third-ranked scoring offense. Pick: Bills.

MIAMI at KANSAS CITY (-4)

Let’s get this straight: Miami, 0-8, is on the road, facing a Chiefs team that has turned its season around and won four in a row. Does no one recognize this? Or are we to assume that four points is too much to ask from a Kansas City team that depends on its running game to carry the offense? My guess is the public still hasn’t come around to the Chiefs being a legitimate contender in the AFC West after the dreadful Jamaal Charles-less start to the season. Whatever the reason(s), in my book and on paper this is the safest pick of the week. Pick: Chiefs.

SAN FRANCISCO (-3.5) at WASHINGTON

One week removed from being beaten down by Buffalo, 23-0, the Redskins limp back to Washington on a three game skid to face the one-loss 49ers. Oddly, San Francisco, with the NFL’s 6th ranked offense, having won 5-of-6 by more than 3.5 points, are just three-and-a-half point favorites. I have a hard time accepting all this talk of Alex Smith now playing like the “quarterback they drafted” (the offense is 31st in passing yards), Frank Gore is on a tear. Forget what I said in the Kansas City-Miami pick – this is the easiest pick of the week. Pick: 49ers.

SEATTLE at DALLAS (-11.5)

Both Seattle and Dallas are in do-or-die mode, though the 2-5 Seahawks might already feel a little dead in the water. Still, Pete Carroll is a players’ coach and he can inspire that defense. Unfortunately, Seattle has nothing to speak of on offense that would make me believe they have a prayer in this one. Unless Romo tosses three freebies to the ‘Hawks, expect Dallas to pull ahead early and keep Seattle from putting double digits on the board. Pick: Cowboys.

IF YOUR EYEBALLS SURVIVED THE FIRST HALF OF THE AFTERNOON …

DENVER at OAKLAND (-8)

Two weeks ago I would have told you, Oakland (-21) might not be enough of a spread. Tim Tebow has shown flashes of both wow-I-can’t-believe-he-just-did-that! and what-in-the-hell-did-he-just-do? This is his third start of the season — and maybe his make-or-break in the eyes of John Fox. But let’s look at Oakland’s quarterback situation: Carson Palmer, who by his own admission knew just 10 percent of the playbook one week ago, threw three interceptions and looked like a quarterback who spent the last eleven months of his life not throwing a football. That said, Darren McFadden will run roughshod on the Broncos front seven … if he plays. As of this writing, he still hasn’t participated in practice. Expect Oakland to win — but some last-five-minute garbage points will pull Denver within the spread. Pick: Broncos.

CINCINNATI at TENNESSEE (-3)

The Titans, winning in spite of Chris Johnson (who was outrushed by Curtis Painter last week — seriously) , face the most unlikely 5-2 team in the NFL this week. Of course, Cincinnati also happens to have faced one of the most cupcake schedules in all the NFL (they still haven’t played Pittsburgh or Baltimore). Still, one can’t help but be impressed by Andy Dalton and Co. for sticking it out this long. Unfortunately, this is one road game Cincinnati isn’t poised to win. Pick: Titans.

ST LOUIS at ARIZONA (-2)

This matchup is giving me all sorts of fits.  The Rams offense looked like D-III JV scrimmaging USC until last week, when from out of freakin’ nowhere the team went off for 31 against the stunned Saints. The difference: Brandon Lloyd, who after two games in St. Louis has 12 receptions and has injected the offense with a life once thought lost. On the other side, Arizona should have beaten Baltimore last week after leading 27-3 at one point (they lost, 30-27). And the offense has scored more than 16 points more than once this season, unlike their traveling foes this week. I mean, who would actually wager on a pair of 1-6 teams featuring Sam Bradford and John Skelton? Yech. Pick: Cardinals.

NEW YORK GIANTS at NEW ENGLAND (-9)

Can the Patriots really be considered nine point favorites this week? I’ll give Tom Brady a pass for facing a brutal Pittsburgh defense last week, and I’m the first to admit Eli Manning is as shaky as any quarterback in the NFL. But this New England defense is bad. I would fully expect Tim Tebow to hit the 300 yards milestone against it (Chad Henne passed for 416 week one). New England will always be facing shootouts this season. But against a good quarterback like Manning, they won’t win easily. Pick: Giants.

GREEN BAY (-5.5) at SAN DIEGO

The Packers have to lose one game this season, right? Well … maybe not this week. Aaron Rodgers and the offense are fresh off a bye week, facing an imploding Chargers team that has lost two in a row. Those games — against the Jets and Chiefs — were lost by six and three, but those offenses didn’t feature Aaron Rodgers. Or Greg Jennings. Or Donald Driver. Or Jermichael Finley. Or … you get the idea. Expect two more picks for Rivers and another loss for the Chargers. Pick: Green Bay.

‘CAUSE YOU’VE BEEN WAITING ALL DAY …

BALTIMORE at PITTSBURGH (-3)

Holy bejeezus, this match up is interesting. The Steelers, on a four game win streak, are out for revenge against the same Ravens that opened the season by embarrassing Pittsburgh in a 35-7 rout. In the visiting locker room is a team on the verge of a major schism between the offense and defense, unless Ray Rice and Joe Flacco can turn up the heat against a seething Steel Curtain. Baltimore’s defense will put up a valiant effort, but Pittsburgh is out for blood. Pick: Steelers.

ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?

CHICAGO at PHILADELPHIA (-7.5)

I’ve been in Chicago’s corner all season. Jay Cutler has been getting marauded on offense — don’t question his toughness. But Philadelphia is starting to find its groove and getting its season back on track. They’re still in can’t-afford-to-lose mode as part of a three-way tie for second place in the NFC East with a 3-4 record. The key to the game for Philadelphia will be stopping Matt Forte; if they can do that, they’ll win and cover. But I don’t count on it. Pick: da Bears.

Disagree? Think I’m as good at picking spreads as Kim Kardashian is at picking husbands? Give me your thoughts in the comments section!

His footwork is sloppy. His throwing mechanics are all wrong. His release is too slow. He can’t read a defense. He should be a fullback. He should be a linebacker. He should be a missionary. He’s good in the red zone, but a team needs someone between the 20s. He’ll never [...]]]>

Jack Dempsey - AP

He can’t play quarterback.

His footwork is sloppy. His throwing mechanics are all wrong. His release is too slow. He can’t read a defense. He should be a fullback. He should be a linebacker. He should be a missionary. He’s good in the red zone, but a team needs someone between the 20s. He’ll never develop into a good quarterback. He’s overrated. Kyle Orton should be in the game. The Broncos problems go deeper than Orton. Did you see the first 55 minutes? Did you see the game against Detroit? You do know he has a sub-50 career completion percentage, right? He’ll never be a pocket passer. Suck for Luck. I mentioned he’s overrated, right?

Is that all of it? Does that cover all the reasons Tim Tebow shouldn’t be playing quarterback in the NFL? Have the analysts at ESPN and NFL Network and CBS and FOX and NBC driven it down your throat yet?

Good.

A lot of it’s true.

His mechanics are wrong and his release is slow. His feet awkwardly prevent him from completing passes other quarterbacks take for granted. And, yes, the playbook is dumbed down because he’s still learning to read NFL defenses.

Tebow will you tell you this.

So what?

“God knows physical talent and perfect mechanics don’t produce Pro Bowl quarterbacks left and right.”

That doesn’t mean he can’t develop into a starting NFL quarterback. God knows physical talent and perfect mechanics don’t produce Pro Bowl quarterbacks left and right. Ryan Leaf was scary talented in college; David Carr looked like an ideal franchise quarterback once-upon-a-time; and no one in the past decade had more raw talent than JaMarcus Russell.

None of those guys are starters in the NFL.

Tim Tebow is. And he’s been given a chance. Not because his coach believes in him (he doesn’t, in case you weren’t in on that dirty little secret). Not because the oracles and analysts believe in him. They don’t. A typical analyst on ESPN will go out of his or her way to rip Tebow to shreds; to laugh at the very idea he’s a starting quarterback; to take jabs at the Denver fans who pleaded for their Savior, Tim Tebow.

And then they have the gall to argue until they’re blue that he’s overrated.

They invented the hype, the hoopla, the excitement, and the resentment. This perfect storm was manufactured by talking heads at ESPN who had nothing to speak about. Then they grew angry at the very idea fans could be inspired by this guy. He has a terrible release! There’s no way this guy should be in the NFL!

Stop believing!

They’ve made hypothetical arguments based on the wrong assumption that those who believe in Tebow see a stud quarterback right now.

They’ve reminded fans that being a good human being has nothing to do with being a good quarterback. Just ask Steelers fans; Ben Roethlisberger has earned the right to be an asshole. He’s won Super Bowls.

It’s easy to poke fun of Tebow’s beliefs. It’s easy to say he’s a kook. We can laugh at his Christianity, his propensity for circumcising, and his well-publicized virginity.

But why do it?

Judge him on the field, and do it in the correct context. The Broncos fired Josh McDaniels, the Te-believer that brought Florida’s Son to Denver. John Fox took over, but the NFL lockout prevented Tebow from practicing with teammates. And before he got the opportunity to show his stuff, Fox buried him beneath Brady Quinn on the depth chart.

No reps with the starting offense.

No respect from the head coach.

“He started out pretty efficiently, went down and scored a would-be touchdown that was denied (when officials ruled the play out of bounds), had a field goal, and then basically went into hibernation for about nine series,’’ Fox said after the Broncos’ loss to Detroit. “The game was out of hand.’’

“Unless you purposely wish to sabotoge any shred of hope Tebow has of making it in this league, support him.”

Your quarterback went into hibernation? As an NFL head coach, something to avoid is throwing your face of the franchise under the bus. Not because it upsets the fans, but because it feeds into media fodder for the next week. Unless you purposely wish to sabotoge any shred of hope Tebow has of making it in this league, support him. Do it because confidence is key when developing a quarterback. Do it because you don’t want a schism in the locker room. Or do it because it’s the right thing to do.

Maybe that’s the Tebow spirit rubbing off on me. Or maybe it’s common sense.

I’m not a Christian, but I am a Tebow fan. I want to him to succeed not merely because he’s a decent human being working his ass off to prove 99 percent of the experts wrong; I want to see him succeed because he shakes the status quo and forces us all to question everything we’ve “known” about quarterback prospects.

You see, the geniuses have developed the wildly arrogant idea that they can measure the perfect quarterback. He’s 6-foot-5, weighs 230 pounds, comes from a pro-style offense, and has the mechanics to throw a perfect spiral on target.

It’s basically a science.

Never mind that these brilliant minds who spend their days doing nothing but picking apart the minute details of every college prospect are wrong as often as they’re right. Never mind that they said Matt Leinart was pro-ready, declared Carson Palmer was the next Peyton Manning after two NFL seasons, and are now hyping yet another quarterback to the point you’d think his spot in Canton will be sealed when he signs his first NFL contract.

Forget all that.

The guidelines for judging a quarterback blatantly dictate Tim Tebow is worth no more than a fifth round draft pick. Some would interpret their measures and argue Tebow is best suited to act as some sort of lead blocker.

Tebow heard this everywhere leading up to the draft. He was asked point blank if he would consider playing fullback. He smiled, said the right the right things, and emphasized that he would do everything he could to help his team — but he wanted to play quarterback.

John Fox is now begrudgingly giving him that chance. Fox, who represents a view of football that is quickly dying, wears his weariness of the situation in press conferences. He wants to see Tebow fail so he can be done with it, so he can draft his own quarterback and develop an offense around a tried-and-true model of a passer.

Except that Fox has no positive history with quarterbacks. He entrusted his last franchise with Jake Delhomme, a flash-in-the-pan if ever there was one. Years of disappointment later, he tried Matt Moore, the quarterback Tebow bested two weeks ago in Miami. Finally he drafted and gave a shot to Jimmy Clausen, picking him in the same draft from which Tebow emerged. Clausen, the quarterback who came from a pro offense and seemed to have all the tools, was primarily questioned on his merits as a leader.

He failed.

But like the talking heads on your television, Fox will never admit he was wrong. And so we’ll ignore that Tebow is surrounded by the worst supporting cast in the NFL. We’ll ignore that he was demoted to third on the depth chart in a lockout-shortened offseason and had precious little time to work on his rapport and timing with teammates. We’ll ignore that he’s had to fight critics constantly to put himself in the position he finds. And we’ll pretend he can never play quarterback in the NFL and argue our pseudoscience with authority and condescension.

But maybe — just maybe — we’re wrong this time. It has happened before.

Sitting watching tape off bronco offense from last year! Orton or Tebow? It’s embarrassing to think the broncos could win [...]]]> Merril Hoge has been spouting off a lot about Tim Tebow lately, ripping the quarterback on ESPN’s SportsCenter and then continuing to slam the second year quarterback via his Twitter account. Here’s a quick recap:

Sitting watching tape off bronco offense from last year! Orton or Tebow? It’s embarrassing to think the broncos could win with tebow!! (August 3)

Orton or tebow? QB play is not just about who works hard gives rare rare college speeches or who is a good guy!! Because orton works hard (August 3)

College credentials do not transfer to NFL raw raw speeches do not work! You must poses a skill set to play! Tebow struggle with accuracy! (August 3)

Classy as always, Hoge.

As for Tebow’s response to the criticism? A simple, “Hey Merril…… ‘ppreciate that.”

Oh, snap. Merril just got Tebow’d.

But that’s not all. Shortly after Hoge’s comments, an unlikely supporter snapped to Tebow’s defense: Miami Heat superstar Lebron James.

Listened to Merril Hoge today on SC and he was just blasting Tebow. The man hasn’t even play a full season and its only his 2nd year in.

Guys get on that TV and act like they was all WORLD when they played. How bout encouraging him and wishing him the best instead of hating!!

And then former NFL quarterback turned in-game analyst Rich Gannon put in his two cents, calling out Hoge and questioning his ability to evaluate quarterback talent on his Sirius radio show.

“It bothers me when old running backs or old offensive linemen who’ve now become analysts start analyzing the quarterback position. They’re not experts at it. They’ve never played the position. I’m always curious, when they put on the tape, what are they watching? Are they watching footwork? Are they watching mechanics? Are they watching anticipation? Do they understand what the quarterback is told in terms of the progressions, where the read is? You know, so those are the things that really bother me and I just thought he came out and his comments were very strong and I thought a little out of line when you talk about Tim Tebow.”

Faced with the onslaught of (negative) attention, Hoge addressed Tebow personally — on Twitter.

@TimTebow I’m not going to say its nothing personal, or hide behind its my job, or my producer made me do it, because anytime someone like (…) me in this case makes a FOOTBALL evaluation of you I understand its taken personal and i understand what comes from that.

My views are football only!! I have only met you once but feel your a good soul. Nothing would make feel better than to eat crow!!

I’m a straight shooter and I have no agenda, so know i mean this, good luck this season and prove me wrong!

Hoge’s presumption that Tebow took his comments “personal” is probably based on his original comments. Hoge said it was “embarrassing” to think that Tebow could be the Broncos starting quarterback. That is, one might contend, a personal shot. It’s one thing for Hoge to question Tebow’s accuracy or mechanics — everyone, including Tebow, admits he needs work. But Hoge is claiming Tebow will never be a decent starting quarterback, that it’s embarrassing to think the Broncos might start him this season.

Why? Are the Broncos are a playoff contender with Orton? Is Orton’s just getting a raw deal from the fans, who claim (and I would argue rightfully so) that he’s a game manager and not the future of the franchise?

Get real. The Broncos are a team struggling to rebound, and Kyle Orton flat-out isn’t a Super Bowl quarterback. He’s not efficient in the red zone or on third downs. Let’s not gloss over the fact the Broncos have won only 5 of the past 21 games started by Orton. And it wasn’t just defensive struggles that cost Denver those games — it was inefficiency and weak scoring.

Point is, both of these quarterbacks can be criticized. But it’s not embarrassing to suggest either could earn the starting role.

As a preview of more to come, the following is a series of [...]]]> One of the most misunderstood facets of player projections is opponent strength of schedule, so we’re taking the guesswork out of the equation and preparing a series of in-depth looks at strength of schedule and relating it to your fantasy football draft.

As a preview of more to come, the following is a series of lists comparing the best and worst fantasy defenses against the run, pass, and, because you’re probably curious as I was, both. To determine these rankings, each team’s allowed yards, touchdowns, and yards per play attempt were considered, but more on that later.

For now, scan the lists below to see the defenses that most often gave offenses (and fantasy owners) headaches — or gifts– last season. Each list is preceded by some notes of interest, and the number that follows each team is the number of fantasy points it allowed last season based on standard scoring rules — the numbers don’t always line up because the ranks were determined according to an adjustment created using yards per play attempt (either rush or pass).

10 Best Fantasy Football Defenses — Running Game

Quick Notes: It’s remarkable how much better the Steelers are than the competition — they allowed 50 points fewer than the second best rush defense (and 273 fewer than the worst) … Not a lot of surprises on this list, though it’s interesting San Francisco is third

1. Pittsburgh Steelers – 130

2. Baltimore Ravens – 180

3. San Francisco 49ers – 209

4. Miami Dolphins – 208

5. New York Jets – 211

6. Chicago Bears – 228

7. San Diego Chargers – 234

8. Minnesota Vikings – 224

9. Tennessee Titans – 227

10. New York Giants – 228

10 Worst Fantasy Football Defenses — Running Game

Quick Notes: Denver’s defensive line weakness is really on display in these numbers — ouch … Denver allowed more than three times as many fantasy points as the top-ranked Steelers … Note that the only one team on this list made the postseason: Indianapolis

1. Denver Broncos – 403

2. Buffalo Bills – 379

3. Arizona Cardinals – 346

4. Jacksonville Jaguars – 309

5. Detroit Lions – 308

6. Washington Redskins – 294

7. Oakland Raiders – 298

8. Tampa Bay Buccaneers – 283

9. Indianapolis Colts – 287

10. Carolina Panthers – 318

10 Best Fantasy Football Defenses — Passing Game

Quick Notes: See number two for proof it wasn’t a good idea to start a quarterback against the eventual Super Bowl champs … Chicago was on both this list and the top ten rush defenses (#6) … So were the Chargers (#7), Saints (#10), Steelers (#1), Jets (#5), and Ravens (#2) … The point difference between the best and worst fantasy pass defenses (135) is just half as significant as the rush defenses (273)

1. San Diego Chargers – 198

2. Green Bay Packers – 195

3. New Orleans Saints – 198

4. Chicago Bears – 214

5. Pittsburgh Steelers – 210

6. Tampa Bay Buccaneers – 234

7. New York Giants – 248

8. New York Jets – 245

9. Carolina Panthers – 229

10. Baltimore Ravens – 249

10 Worst Fantasy Football Defenses — Passing Game

Quick Notes: Denver is #5 on this list and #1 on the worst rush defenses … Note the Patriots, Eagles, and Seahawks all made the postseason

1. Houston Texans – 333

2. Jacksonville Jaguars – 299

3. Dallas Cowboys – 307

4. Seattle Seahawks – 312

5. Denver Broncos – 283

6. Washington Redskins – 287

7. New England Patriots – 282

8. Philadelphia Eagles – 274

9. San Francisco 49ers – 270

10. Cleveland Browns – 262

It’s well known among the fantasy community that one should be cautious when considering drafting a rookie. There are two primary reasons for this: first and foremost, it’s difficult to predict the potential of a player who has never played a down in a professional arena; second, [...]]]>

It’s well known among the fantasy community that one should be cautious when considering drafting a rookie. There are two primary reasons for this: first and foremost, it’s difficult to predict the potential of a player who has never played a down in a professional arena; second, it’s nearly as vexing to predict how much a player will actually play or, in fantasy terms, how many touches he’ll see.

Despite these warnings and the sound reasoning behind them, it’s still tempting to draft a hyped rookie hoping for the next Adrian Peterson or Matt Forte. Both players had breakout rookie seasons, and the fantasy owners who took a chance on them were rewarded in kind.

But, often as not, an owner will end up regretting that wasted pick on a Dez Bryant.

So what’s the actual story? Are rookies a valuable asset whose risk is justified with tremendous upside? Or are rookies typically mirages, suckering in fantasy owners believing college performance can directly translate to year one NFL success?

Let’s investigate.

Fair warning: those who don’t love statistics might not enjoy reading all the stat-talk that follows. So to save you the headache (and potential confusion), click here to skip to the conclusion. Otherwise, enjoy the numbers!

The Methodology

I’d like to consider this a preliminary investigation, something I can expand upon at a later date. For this article, we’re looking at the statistics from 2010 and relevant rookies from that season. To determine the rookie’s “relevance”, he had to perform at a certain threshold. That threshold was determined to be 200 yards in any category or combined categories for the sake of simplicity. That is, a running back who rushed for 100 yards and added 100 receiving is recognized on this list; a rookie who hypothetically passed for 199 yards is not. The methodology chosen leaves room for argument (why is a RB with 200 yards and no touchdowns recognized over one with 195 yards and 2 touchdowns?), but this is really just an exploratory analysis.

That threshold also limited the field of candidates to 31 players (6 quarterbacks, 6 running backs, 16 wide receivers, and 3 tight ends). So remember, only 31 rookies put up good enough numbers last season to be analyzed and only a fraction of those rookies were draftable.

With that in mind, the players were analyzed through 6 statistical categories: rushing yards and touchdowns; receiving yards and touchdowns; and passing yards and touchdowns. Those categories were further simplified to the fantasy points they produced under the following assumptions:

• 1 point for 10 rushing yards, 10 receiving yards, or 20 passing yards
• 4 points for a passing touchdown
• 6 points for a rushing touchdown or receiving touchdown

For the sake of simplicity and overall applicability to as many leagues as possible, these fantasy “standards” were employed. Again, there’s room to argue that these statistics are not all encompassing (many leagues penalize on the basis of interceptions; points per reception is growing in popularity; etc.), but simplicity and applicability were the primary goals.

The Results

After breaking down all the numbers, a few names rose to the surface. For example, Sam Bradford had an impressive rookie season, passing for 3,512 yards and 18 touchdowns. The question is, where does that put him and other breakout rookies relative to their peers?

In the early 1990s, Joe Bryant popularized a system referred to now as the Value Based Draft system (VBD). In a nutshell, VBD takes a player’s fantasy production in points and subtracts a baseline player’s production from that season, where the baseline player is the 12th ranked quarterback, 24th ranked running back or wide receiver, and the 12th ranked tight end. Here it is in equation form (don’t be afraid of the equation; it’s exactly what I explained above in its most basic form):

VBD = Points _{Example Player} – Points _{Baseline Player}

In 2010, those baseline players scored as follows:

• Quarterback: 276 points
• Running Back: 138 points
• Wide Receiver: 118 points
• Tight End: 96 points

The 2010 VBD among the most productive players at each position is as follows:

• Quarterback: -12.1 points
• Running Back: 2.2 points
• Wide Receiver: -21 points
• Tight End: 18.6 points

Let me quickly translate that to make sure we’re still on the same page. Those numbers mean that the most productive rookie quarterback of 2010 scored 12.1 points fewer than the 12th ranked quarterback; the top running back scored 2.2 points more than his baseline measurement, the 24th ranked running back; the top ranked wide receiver was outscored by his baseline (again, the 24th ranked wide receiver) by 21 points; and the top rookie tight end outscored the baseline by 18.6 points.

Those were the best rookies of 2010.

The median rookies (median is the middle player in the mix, not the average, which would be skewed by exceptionally good or poor seasons) shake down as follows:

• Quarterback: – 168.5 (about 10 points per game)
• Running Back: -24.2 (about 1.5 points per game)
• Wide Receiver: -72.1 (about 5 points per game)
• Tight End: -22.4 (about 1.5 points per game)

Those numbers mean that the median quarterback (or “middle guy”) was outscored by the 12th ranked quarterback by about 10 points each week of the season; the median running back was outscored by the baseline by about 1.5 points (making him a solid backup running back); the median receiver was outscored by 4 points per game (passable backup); and the median receiver was outscored by about 22.4 points per game.

Okay, before you bore me to death with all that statistical mumbo-jumbo, what’s the bottom line?

The bottom line from this brief analysis is this: if you draft a rookie, draft a running back. They performed best across all measures, though the three tight ends analyzed either exceeded their baseline significantly or were within two points of the baseline.

More specifically …

• If you drafted Sam Bradford last season, you’d probably be okay with it. He performed just below the baseline, making him a solid fantasy backup. Any other rookie quarterback would have been a disaster.
• If you drafted a fantasy running back (at least any of the top four), you’d probably be okay with it. None performed exceptionally well (the best was just slightly better than the baseline, making him a borderline starter any given week), but they were solid backups.
• If you drafted a wide receiver, you were probably disappointed. A handful of rookie wide receivers performed within two points per game of the baseline, making them fine WR3s, but the rest should have been ignored. Rookie wide receivers also have the most difficult time breaking out with more competition than any other position; they’re harder to predict for the same reason. Rookie receivers get playing time; they don’t (usually) get numbers.
• If you drafted one of the three tight ends that made this list, you were probably happy. All three performed within two points per game of the baseline and one (Rob Gronkowski, for the curious out there) exceeded the baseline by more than 18 points.

Bottom bottom line: 2010 was a season in which there weren’t any “super-hyped” rookies; they performed accordingly. If you’re looking at a rookie, look to draft one as a borderline starter. And just ignore rookie quarterbacks. It’s not worth the headaches.