10 Lessons Learned from the 2021 Fantasy Football Season
Photo by Justin Casterline/Getty Images ( Via SB Nation Stampede Blue)
Another successful fantasy football season is in the books. If you were able to find success in a season that can only accurately be described as a gong show, I congratulate you. Between navigating through a global pandemic and the constant uncertainty surrounding players availabilities, to several significant injuries, to a number of highly-drafted, big name players not exactly living up to expectations, I firmly believe this past year was more of a grind in comparison to the average season. As us degenerates know, however, the fantasy season is really a 365 day deal. It’s never too early to have some skin in the game and dabble with some early best ball drafts. Plus ,doing your research for the upcoming campaign is never a bad thing either. Not to mention the year-long grind that is Dynasty Football. With that in mind, the offseason can also be used as an opportunity to take some time to reflect upon the season that was, and to take note of any lessons you may have learned along the way. Being stubborn is not an ideal trait in Fantasyland. It is imperative that we adapt to the ever-evolving landscape of the game. If we can acknowledge where things may have gone wrong and make the necessary adjustments, success will ideally follow suit. In the points below, I have highlighted 10 lessons that were learned throughout the 2021 Fantasy Football season. Some are concepts that I had previously (loosely) believed in and have more recently strengthened said beliefs, while others are genuinely newer lessons that were discovered. I am more concerned with macro, big-picture thoughts as far as this article is concerned – I didn’t come here to tell you that Cooper Kupp is good at football. So without further ado, here are 10 Lesson Learned from the 2021 Fantasy Football Season:
(Note that the lessons were not listed/ranked in order of significance)
- Yes, the RB Deadzone is a Real Thing
One of the more highly discussed and debated topics of each offseason is optimal RB draft strategies. It is generally accepted that while their real life value has largely plummeted in the modern NFL, running backs are the hottest commodities in fantasy football. It makes sense when you think about it- a true bellcow who touches the ball in excess of 20 times per game, while being efficient in the process, and possessing considerable touchdown upside to boot- almost feels like a cheat code. While those genuine do-it-all backs are rightfully considered the most valuable assets in fantasy football, as reflected by both ADP and in-season trade values, there remains a great deal of inefficiency in terms of how the position is attacked on draft day, at least beyond the top-end studs. Backs with a generally safe projection of both efficiency and workload are often taken in the first two rounds of fantasy drafts- I do not need to elaborate on that point. But after that is where things get dicey. The “ RB Dead Zone”, loosely defined as rounds 3-6, is the range of fantasy football drafts in which drafted running backs tend to disappoint at an alarmingly high rate, at a meaningful opportunity cost to boot. The combination of positional value and scarcity pushes up the less safe backs who fantasy gamers will still try to talk themselves into. These types of backs are generally overvalued due to overconfidence in projected workload, and/or the idea that any lack of high-end talent they may have will be offset by sheer volume. In previous years, I often fell victim to this trap. Recently, I have made a more calculated effort to fade running backs within this range, with exceptions of course. In short, I am glad I have subscribed to this strategy. In some cases, there is nothing inherently wrong with rostering some of the players drafted in this range- many of them are just fine for fantasy purposes. That said, at a cost that high, you don’t want to settle for “ just fine”, you should instead be aiming for guys who can smash their ADP’s and help you win your league. Opportunity cost is everything. Drafting David Montgomery around 30th overall likely cost you a chance to draft the likes of Cooper Kupp, Chris Godwin, and Mike Evans. If you took Mike Davis around the 4 / 5 turn, it probably cost you Tee Higgins and Diontae Johnson. Taking Myles Gaskin over Jamarr Chase or Deebo Samuel in round 6? No thanks. To add to this point, the next tier of running backs from roughly rounds 7-10 typically finds similar success rates, if not higher, than the aforementioned dead zone– except the cost to obtain these particular players isn’t nearly as steep. This past year alone, the likes of Leonard Fournette, James Conner, Chase Edmonds, and Melvin Gordon were generally available within this range but were undervalued due to a variety of reasons, ranging from workload concerns, injuries, question marks regarding efficiency, etc. That’s not to say that RB’s should be avoided entirely in the dead zone range, as there will always be exceptions to the rule (See : Swift, D’Andre). Stay tuned for later in the offseason, where RB draft strategy will be further discussed. That said, the trends and data tell us that the market is overconfident in their abilities to accurately project which RB’s will finish in the RB 2 / 3 range in a given year, as evidenced by the alarmingly high bust rate. In addition, the drop off between the high-end backs vs the merely passable backs is steep enough that passing on more bankable receivers with higher upside is a suboptimal approach. In an absolutely perfect scenario, you double down on running backs within the first 2 rounds, then wait until at least round 7 to draft your RB3. The Deadzone is the sweet spot to hammer the wide receiver position and chase potential league winners.
- Elite QB’s May Once Again be Separating Themselves From The Pack
I must admit, I was firmly on team “punt quarterback” for fantasy purposes for many years. The line of thinking was that in leagues where you’re only required to start just one signal-caller, and bankable production was very easy to both find and replace, the position can largely be ignored and that my focuses can shift elsewhere. However, the last couple of seasons have made me reconsider my stance on this matter. While I still do not value the position as highly as Running Back or Wide Receiver (or a Tight End that can put up WR1 numbers, for that matter), the last couple of seasons have forced me to do some deeper thinking. Historically, my targets have always been the unproven youngsters with league-winning upside in the double digit rounds. If I fell short on those guys, I would resort to the proven vets who I figured would be “good enough”, while banking on the other positions to help me make up for being weaker at QB. While there is still some merit to that approach and it can still yield success, the reality is that in recent years, there have been a large number of quarterbacks drafted in the middle rounds that have provided meaningful value over replacement. We are firmly in the middle of a golden generation of the position, with countless guys taking the league by storm with not only their arms, but their legs as well.
The same concept applies in DFS. Punting used to be the way to go, but more recently, it has become almost mandatory to spend up. It’s pretty much a given that winning lineups will feature an elite option at the position.
As is the case with most concepts, the truth lies somewhere in between. I can’t, in good conscience, advocate for you to draft a quarterback within the first 3 rounds or so in single-QB formats. The opportunity cost (you better get used to this term on this website) is simply far too great. However, I am now at the point where drafting a QB in the middle rounds is viewed as a more than viable option, especially if value is there and you can stack your QB with one or more of his playmakers. As an example, essentially every single every-week QB1 this past season was a mid-round pick at minimum, whereas the popular late-round dart throws (the rookies, Tua, Darnold, Baker, etc.) largely flopped. You don’t necessarily have to wait until the double digit rounds anymore. Fantasy is all about adapting, don’t forget about that.
- Defenses are an Even Bigger Crapshoot than Initially Thought-Don’t Overthink Them
In the previous point, I had mentioned that I have historically been on team “punt quarterback” for fantasy purposes. For defenses, the same logic applies, but to an exponentially higher degree. While I am warming to the idea of QB’s becoming more valuable, I feel the opposite about defenses. So much so that I will continue to advocate for my home league to eliminate the position entirely, much like we have done with kickers. Defense is the position with the lowest value over replacement over the course of a season, and it is also the position that the market is collectively the worst at projecting. Moreover, events such as turnovers and defensive/return touchdowns are major contributing factors to this positions output, which is heavily influenced by randomness. With that in mind, it makes little to no sense to invest meaningful capital into the position. In the past, if I had a vacant bench spot in more competitive leagues, I would sometimes look ahead and try to stash defenses with favourable matchups the following week to get ahead of a potential bidding war. More recently, I have generally stayed away from doing that as it is largely a waste of time. The amount of times I have seen people get burned by overthinking this is indescribable, for the reasons highlighted above. That’s not to say that defense is completely unpredictable or worthless, in fact I would continue to recommend streaming according to matchups. Just realize that it is a very difficult position to predict, and that being bit in the ass by variance is an entirely plausible outcome, while also being cognizant of the fact that the other positions in your lineup can still more than make up for it. My advice in managed leagues would be to largely punt the position on draft day and stream weekly according to matchups. In large-scale tournaments in DFS, I would advise not to pay up for the position, and to also avoid the chalk. I would instead opt for a cheaper, low-owned option that conceivably has a blow up spot within their range of outcomes.
- Don’t Overthink WR/CB matchups
A common philosophy that many fantasy gamers will have, whether it’s in managed leagues or DFS, is to place a significant amount of weight on potential wide receiver/cornerback matchups. While it is not an irrelevant detail, I have come to the realization that many, including myself, have probably overrated this concept. For one, the notion that a cornerback will shadow an opposing receiver on 100 percent of his routes generally isn’t true, so there is still ample opportunity for the likes of Davante Adams to feast on secondary and tertiary defenders (the article cited is not from this past season, but the principle remains relevant). Moreover, even in cases where the corner shadows on a relatively high percentage of his snaps, there is often this fear/assumption that the cornerback is destined to win the matchup and effectively erase his counterpart. But who’s to say the receiver can’t win his fair share of battles? After all, sometimes all it takes is one big play to pay off. Think of Jalen Ramsey surrendering long touchdowns to Tee Higgins and Mike Evans these past playoffs as an example. (I may or may not have been somewhat burned by completing fading Evans during the divisional round)
For what it’s worth, I have no problem with using opposing corners as a potential tie-breaker when making start/sit decisions, provided the 2 players are in the same tier. Similarly, I am also okay with fading a player in DFS for this reason in favour of other similar-salaried options. However, I would never, ever endorse sitting a surefire, every-week starter in favour of a volatile WR3 type just because you’re worried about Ramsey or Jaire Alexander on the other side. Don’t overthink it.
- Don’t be Shy to Spend Lots of FAAB Early in the Season
Let me start off by stating that if your league is still using the priority system instead of FAAB as far as waivers are concerned, it’s time for you to find a new league. Now that I have your attention, let’s take some time to discuss how those precious FAAB dollars are optimally spent. One lesson I have learned is that I have not been aggressive enough in the early portion of the season. Of course, there’s not one exact answer regarding how much money you should place on a particular player. It is largely dependent on your situation, and some teams “need” certain players more than others. However, as a general rule of thumb, if it makes sense to add a particular player, do not be afraid to be aggressive, even if it is after week 1. You may not realize it at the time, but it can ultimately make or break your season. The notion that there is plenty of time left to add similarly impactful players down the road may not hold up, especially in more competitive leagues. Take this past season as an example. Everyone rushed to bid for Elijah Mitchell after week 1, but in many competitive leagues, no other player came even close in terms of potential value (under the assumption the likes of Patterson and Penny were stashed before they blew up). As each week passes, your FAAB becomes less valuable, and the window of opportunity to snatch a potential league-winner shrinks. So if you get the opportunity, go for it. You may ask, if I spend a large chunk of my budget early on, how am I supposed to keep adding viable players? My response to that would be to think ahead of the competition and stash high-upside players ahead of any potential bidding war. A smart fantasy manager understands that every bench spot is meaningful. Instead of rostering multiple players at the onesie positions, or some perennially mediocre receiver, the end of your bench should be occupied by talented, young receivers who are due for larger roles, high-upside handcuffs, and backs in an ambiguous backfield with a path to relevance. Stashing these types can help offset a lack of FAAB and can put your squad in prime position for success to boot.
6.Cognitive Bias Can Come Back to Bite You
Let’s face it, we’re all guilty of succumbing to various biases at least to some degree. The idea is to try and mitigate said biases as much as possible, and to be as impartial as we can when making decisions. In fantasy, we sometimes feel way too confident about particular players, which can result in us getting burned by a conviction held far too strongly. We have a tendency to get caught up in the idea of what we want a player to become, while overlooking what their most accurate projection actually is. Like many in the fantasy community, I wanted Antonio Gibson to have the “ DC CMC” role more than anything. I also salivated over the prospect of Laviska Shenault mimicking the Percy Harvin/Curtis Samuel positionless playmaker role that Urban Meyer got so much success out of in college. Even though their respective teams essentially telegraphed that those wishes wouldn’t come to fruition via preseason/early season usage, I wanted to convince myself these outcomes were still a possibility. On the flip side, while I was high on him from day 1, Joe Mixon was an extremely polarizing figure within the fantasy community. His detractors were so convinced that he would get hurt, and that he would not be able to succeed behind a shoddy offensive line. In spite of that, the evidence suggested that Mixon was destined to have a career year thanks to having the best environment of his career, coupled with the Gio Bernard release opening up even more opportunity. The injury-prone narratives were mostly noise.
The takeaway from this is we should stick to what we believe a players most likely projections are, as hard as that may be in times. Usually when there’s smoke, there’s fire. Stuff like preseason usage and corresponding transactions/roster construction can definitely matter. It is the type of evidence that should be factored in when determining player valuation.
- Not all WR/TE Peripherals are Created Equally
When evaluating potential trade/waiver targets, and also when setting your lineups in general, there are plenty of data points that should be taken into consideration before making final decisions. Simply looking at the most recent box score results and calling it a day is very much a losing strategy- context is everything. Underlying data, or peripherals, are excellent tools in which every fantasy manager should be using to their advantage. That said, it is also important to understand that not all situations are created equally. As a general premise, buying low on supremely talented players due for positive regression seems like a wise idea. Justin Jefferson and Tee Higgins are just 2 examples of players who were popular buy-low targets who predictably blew up shortly thereafter. However, sometimes popular buy/sell propositions can be a tease. Mike Evans has been the poster boy for selling high for the last 2 years thanks to an absurdly high touchdown rate. What many were guilty of overlooking is that he was an alpha receiver in an elite offense, hyper-targeted in high-leverage situations, such as downfield and the red zone, not to mention he is a grown-ass man who excels at catching 50/50 jump balls. Perhaps his combination of talent and environment could have been used to foresee a higher-than-average touchdown rate. On the other hand, sometimes popular buy-low targets end up flopping, and it is often easy to see why in hindsight. The likes of Robby Anderson and Jerry Jeudy come to mind. While those players have talent,and their peripherals were certainly decent, the fact they played in low-volume, low-efficiency offenses with other mouths to feed should have been a bigger red flag than it was.
In short, I would very much encourage everyone to continue relying on underlying metrics when making decisions. Just realize that context is important.
- Fade Freak Talents at Your Own Risk
At Go for Two, you will notice a common theme in our fantasy-related articles is that they will be very process-oriented, and data-driven. With that in mind, sometimes we need to accept the fact that some players are just built differently. I have been guilty of being slightly below market on Derrick Henry for the last couple of years. No way can a larger back who doesn’t catch passes and has a lot of mileage on his body keep this up, I keep telling myself. Boy, has he ever burned me. I was also a tad lower on Jonathan Taylor this past year, but not because I questioned his talent. I was worried that the inevitability of losing passing-down work to Nyheim Hines, as well as the general state of the Colts offense would make it difficult to pay off at his expensive ADP. Again, I was wrong. In some cases, we just need to accept that some dudes were just made in factories and nothing will stop them from wreaking havoc. That said, I will continue to be process-based with everything I do, and will trust that success will follow. However, I may have to start adjusting my expectations for those select few who have proven to be freaks of nature and defy any median projections. They’re called outliers for a reason, after all.
- Tread Carefully Buying The Dip on Injured Players
Buying low is a basic fundamental concept for fantasy gamers that does not need to be delved into much deeper at this point. However, I think it is necessary to start a dialogue regarding the merits of buying low on injured players. In a vacuum, it makes a lot of sense. At a certain point in the year your league will get to a point where you have guys who are solidly in a playoff position and begin to stockpile for a potential championship run. On the flip side, you may have your guys who are in scramble mode to try and find immediate results and cannot afford to wait on their injured stars to return. Thus, you have a match made in heaven as far as trade partners are concerned. With that in mind, the buyers should definitely be proceeding with caution, even if on the surface it seems like an easy long-term W for them. Perhaps more weight should be placed on the type of injury you are dealing with. If the player is dealing with a type of injury that is more about pain tolerance than anything else, and does not pose a meaningfully increased risk of reinjury, then managers should feel more comfortable acquiring those types of players. However, it is a different story when we’re talking about soft tissue injuries, high-ankle sprains, etc. As we know by now, these types of ailments tend to linger over the course of a season, and are notorious for re-injury should the player be rushed back into game action. Of course, managers remain gung ho over trading for these players given the reduced cost, under the assumption the injury isn’t that serious, and that the player will return to full speed in short order. However, that often isn’t the case. This past year alone, Christian McCaffrey, Saquon Barkley, Michael Thomas, Julio Jones, and Jerry Jeudy were just a few examples of players who were burned by this particular concept.
That isn’t to say that you should never buy-low on injured players. In fact, if the acquisition cost is so cheap it is extremely tempting, if not recommended. However, I do think we need to proceed with more caution, and that the possibility of not getting any return on this investment is higher than you want it to be.
- Slot-Heavy Receivers Can Have A Ceiling, Too
Everyone seems to have their “type” in fantasy. For me, I have long preferred outside “Z” or “X” receivers instead of slot guys, because there has long been this perception that the former generally lends itself to blow up, higher-ceiling outcomes. As a result, I have historically been lower on these aforementioned slot types, because of the perception of a lower ceiling. As I alluded to off the top, it is important to mitigate biases as much as possible, and also to adapt to how things evolve and to adjust accordingly. A big takeaway from this past year is that slot receivers deserve more credit, and also that players should not simply be pigeonholed as slot guys, since many are way more versatile than you think. This past year, Cooper Kupp, Chris Godwin, Hunter Renfrow, and late-season fantasy hero Amon-Ra St.Brown are examples of receivers who lined up in the slot a large percentage of the time and still had several high-ceiling performances. Of course, these guys are not purely slot guys, they are versatile and move around plenty. However, they were/are perceived by many and low-aDot slot guys, which made them undervalued. No one is undervaluing them anymore. Often, when talent and opportunity collide, it’s a recipe for success, no matter your style. That’s not to say that these aforementioned low- aDot, low-ceiling slot types do not exist, because they still do. However, sometimes there are players who are perceived as such when it is not an entirely accurate representation of reality. That is where eliminating bias and making adjustments come into play.
References
https://twitter.com/JackMiller02/status/1494406918688944136
Damn, even more good fucking content.
Great Stuff