John Paulsen columns

We hear it all the time. NBA analysts call one point guard “pass-first” and another “shoot-first.” Or they say one guy is “turnover-prone” while another “takes care of the ball.” But really, what makes a player a “pass-first” point guard? How carefree must he be with the ball to be considered “turnover-prone”?

I first tackled this subject two years ago, and settled on the shot-to-assist ratio to determine whether a player is "pass-first" or "shoot-first." The higher the number, the more of a "shoot-first" player he is. To determine whether or not a player is "turnover-prone," I calculated each player's assist-to-turnover ratio. The higher the number, the better the player is at taking care of the ball.

I narrowed the list of players to 33, one for each team plus a few extra for teams like Cleveland, Sacramento and Denver, who have a couple of players manning the position. I also added eight prospects (indicated in green) just to see where a few of the younger guys land. Here's the graph -- it's small, but if you click it, you'll get to a bigger version:

So the pass-first/shoot-first aspect goes left to right, and the turnover-prone players will be towards the bottom, while the guys that take really good care of the ball will be up top. Players indicated with a blue diamond are in the Top 10 in this group in Efficiency Per Minute. I set the axis for each category at the average of the 33 players in question, so 1.97 for FGA-to-assist and 2.70 assist-to-turnover.

Two years ago when I conducted this study, seven of the top 10 EPM performers were in the top left quadrant (pass-first, takes care of the ball). This year, only five of the top 11 (I included both Rondo and Calderon, since they tied for #11) are in that quadrant. This is due to the emergence of three shoot-first, (fairly) turnover-prone guards who are emerging as stars: Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook and Stephen Curry.

A few takeaways:

Ty Lawson looks like a star. He is #13 in this group in EPM, so if he can continue to post big numbers in bigger minutes he's poised to join the Top 10 sometime soon.

Kyle Lowry isn't too far behind him. It's not clear if Houston has decided that Lowry is their point guard of the future, but he is #16 in EPM and is well above average in assist-to-turnover ratio.

Brandon Jennings can still become a Top 10 point guard. Two years ago, I would have said that Jennings would have to drastically change his game to join the elite group of point guards, but with the way Rose, Westbrook and Curry have emerged, he can continue to be himself. One thing I've noticed with his game is that he has a tough time finishing around the hoop when he gets bumped, which is something that Westbrook and Rose excel at. Jennings needs to master the floater -- that way, he can use his quickness to get into the lane pretty much any time he wants, and then get his shot off without taking a big hit.

Roddy Beaubois is an interesting prospect, but it's doubtful he's going to be a quality starter in this league... unless he changes his game to become more of a distributor. He doesn't need to turn into Jason Kidd, but right now he's an outlier so he needs to take better care of the ball and create a few more opportunities for teammates. You may notice that Tyreke Evans is very close to Beaubois, but he really needs to play shooting guard.

If John Wall can take care of the ball, he'll be right there with Deron Williams. For a rookie, Wall's numbers look great. Sure, he's a little turnover prone, but no worse that Westbrook, Billups, Collison or Curry. He's a playmaker, so once he cuts back on the turnovers, his assist-to-turnover ratio really has a chance to skyrocket. I wouldn't be surprised if he's up in the area of Maynor and Lowry with a blue diamond next to his name in a couple of seasons.

When I originally debuted this list almost two years ago, I took some (surprisingly angry) flack for not settling on a 10th player and for ranking a few guys too high.

The idea for the list sprung from a conversation that I regularly have with a buddy when we are tipping back a few adult beverages: If you could have one current NBA player to build your franchise around, with the goal of winning a NBA title in the next five years – who would it be?

Here's who I had almost two years ago:

10. Dirk Nowitzki, Carmelo Anthony, Carlos Boozer, Chris Bosh, Kevin Garnett, Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce, Tim Duncan and Tony Parker (A reader named "all" was very upset that I couldn't pick a #10 guy. He's probably still upset about it.)
9. Derrick Rose
8. Brandon Roy
7. Deron Williams
6. Chris Paul
5. Kevin Durant
4. Dwight Howard
3. Kobe Bryant
2. Dwyane Wade
1. LeBron James

I took some heat for including Rose, but obviously he has panned out very well and is likely to win the league MVP this season. Roy's knees have killed his stock. The other seven picks look pretty solid.

So let's take another stab at this. Remember, we're trying to win a title in the next five years, so youth and health is paramount.

Honorable Mention: Carmelo Anthony (defense), Amare Stoudemire (defense, age, knees), Pau Gasol (age), Tyreke Evans (regressing) Tim Duncan (age), Dirk Nowitzki (age), Paul Pierce (age), Rajon Rondo (moody, in a funk since Kendrick Perkins trade) and Kevin Garnett (age).

NOT QUITE WORTH MAX MONEY...YET

12. John Wall (20 years-old)
All right, I'm projecting a little bit here, but it worked with Derrick Rose and I think Wall has a chance to be in the same league. Check out his month-by-month stats over the course of his rookie season:

So he burst into the league with a good October and November, but struggled a bit over the next two months as teams had a chance to game plan for him. Then in February and March, he's able to counter that and get back to his early-season numbers. Great sign.

He's an outstanding playmaker (9.1+ assists in 2-of-5 months) and is lightning quick. His rookie numbers are very similar to Rose's, only he's averaging 2.4 more assists per game. He'd likely be the Rookie of the Year if Blake Griffin hadn't blown out his knee last season. In three or four years he might be vying for best point guard in the league honors.

11. Russell Westbrook (22)
I like Westbrook a lot, but his turnovers (3.9 per game) worry me for a third-year point guard. His assist-to-turnover ratio has actually decreased by 12% since last season, and that shows a lack of progress. Other than a sketchy (yet improving) outside jumper, he's a great all-around player and his stats are comparable to Derrick Rose's:

One's an MVP favorite and the other isn't even in the conversation. Go figure.

WORTH MAX MONEY, BUT KEEP THOSE FINGERS CROSSED

10. Kobe Bryant (32)
Sorry Laker fans, I had to drop him several spots on this list after that 6-for-24 outing in Game 7 of the Finals. The Lakers still won the game, but it wasn't because of Kobe. Plus, he's not even practicing these days, so it would be tough to build a team around him if they can't build chemistry. Still, he is Kobe Bryant.

9. Kevin Love (22)
What's not to love about Love? He's averaging 20-15 and is shooting 42% from 3PT and 85% from the free throw line. His defensive numbers at 82games are a little worrisome (-6.2 net defense?), but the by position PER (24.6 vs. opponents' 15.7) is very favorable.

8. Blake Griffin (22)
He's not the long-range shooter that Love is, but he's averaging 22-12 and is a better playmaker (3.7 apg). His defensive numbers (-1.3 net defense) look better as well. I'm just worried that he's going to kill himself with one of those acrobatic dunks that he's become famous for.

THE BONA FIDE 'FRANCHISE PLAYERS'

7. Dwyane Wade (29)
He's getting a little long in the tooth for this particular list, but he still has three or four years of dominating play left in him. My only issue with his game is that he takes too many threes (2.7 per game) given his accuracy (31% this year).

6. Deron Williams (26)
5. Chris Paul (25)
I'm still going to give CP3 the edge despite the sore knee since he didn't clash with a Hall of Fame coach like Williams did. I still think the Nets got a great deal in the trade and that Deron Williams is definitely a franchise point guard, but right now I lean Paul.

4. Dwight Howard (25)
Let's see, he's averaging 23-14 with 2.4 blocks, and is shooting 60% from the field. Plus, he's just 25 years-old and is a bona fide center in a league that doesn't have very many. He already has one Finals appearance under his belt, but he's going to need a great perimeter player to take the load off.

3. LeBron James (26)
I dropped him one spot because of "The Decision" (I don't need the drama) and another spot because he has been very unclutch in big moments the last few years. If I'm going to pay max money, I need a guy who is going to give max production, especially in those last few possessions in the game (his solid clutch stats notwithstanding).

2. Kevin Durant (22)
Yes, I'd take "No Drama" Durant ahead of LeBron because he's my kind of superstar: quiet and unassuming. He leads by example and he's arguably the best scorer in the league. After all, the team with the most points usually wins.

1. Derrick Rose (22)
Rose is the front-runner for the league's MVP award after (possibly) leading the Bulls to a #1-seed in the East despite having to deal with the absence of Joakim Noah and/or Carlos Boozer for long stretches this season. His three-point shooting (34%) is now respectable, which makes him nearly impossible to guard. He's not a classic pass-first point guard, but drops enough dimes (7.8 per game) to keep his teammates happy. It looks like it may be his year.

So those are my Top 12 -- who are yours?

Late last week, FantasyPros announced that I was 2010's Most Accurate Expert, and as a part of the competition's post-mortem, I was asked to answer a few questions for the site's founder, Dave Kim.

Q: Can you tell us a little about your site, The Scores Report, and how you got started in the fantasy business?

John: The Scores Report is a national sports blog. We cover all the major sports, but my focus is on fantasy football during the NFL season, and then my focus turns to the NBA and college basketball once the season is over. I started writing for Bullz-Eye in 2005 and shortly thereafter began covering fantasy football on BE and then on The Scores Report.

Q: Can you briefly describe your process for coming up with your player projections/rankings?

John: I have an engineering background, so statistics play a big role in my rankings. I calculate strength of schedule each week, and use matchups to put my rankings together. I don’t do player-specific projections, at least not yet, so my rankings probably have more “feel” than some of the more math-driven rankings that are out there. This allows me to create rankings that reflect my own opinion on each player, including the level of trust that each player has earned. In other words, if a player is a risky start but has considerable upside, I generally won’t rank them ahead of a solid start with little upside. If I have one player ranked ahead of another, it almost always means that I would personally start them in that order as well. I wouldn’t want to advise my readers to start someone that I wouldn’t start myself under the same circumstances.

Q: You were a fixture in our top 5 leaderboard for most of the year. In fact, you held on to the #1 spot for 11 consecutive weeks! We know your profile page on FantasyPros.com has had a ton of visitors – have you also seen an increase in readers and exposure this season?

John: Yes, we have definitely seen an uptick in traffic and many of our readers who post questions on our weekly Q&A have said that they’ve found the blog through FantasyPros. It has provided great exposure for me as well as our blog. Those fantasy owners who are thirsty for greater detail should talk to my co-worker, Anthony Stalter, from time to time. He writes from a pure football standpoint, so he can tell you which offensive line should improve the most or which cornerback has the best chance to develop into a shut-down cover guy. He has been a great resource for me over the years.

Q: If you had to name one peer in the industry that you’d hate to go up against in a fantasy league, who would it be?

John: I’m not sure how to answer this because I enjoy measuring myself against the best competition, so I’d love to be in a league with the top names in the industry. That said, I have been a member of Footballguys for several years, so purely from a “winning time” standpoint, I’d rather not compete against David Dodds or Sigmund Bloom if there were money on the line.

Q: I know it’s way too early for this discussion, but off the top of your head, name one “sleeper” for next year and tell us why he’ll surprise us.

John: Oddly enough, I wrote a piece entitled “Looking ahead to the 2011 fantasy season,” so a plug here wouldn’t hurt.

I don’t know if he qualifies as a sleeper, but Jonathan Stewart has a chance to put up Top 10 RB numbers in 2011 if the Panthers don’t re-sign DeAngelo Williams this summer. He got off to a rough start as the starter when Williams went down, but really got it going down the stretch. From a deep sleeper standpoint, I really like the opportunity that Jerome Simpson, Andre Caldwell and Jordan Shipley will have in Cincinnati assuming both Terrell Owens and Chad Ochocinco move on. They’re young and ready to emerge, and they’ve all played well in spots when given the opportunity. All three could be fantasy-worthy depending on who’s QBing the Bengals in 2011.

Kim also interviewed three other experts that finished in the Top 5. To see those questions and answers, click here. Thanks again to everyone over at FantasyPros for putting this study together. It was a great opportunity for me to rank against many of the biggest names in the industry.

I love sports, but that doesn't mean they're perfect. Here are ten things that drive me crazy on a regular basis, in order of increasing stupidity:

10. The scoring system in tennis
Love? 15? 30? 40? Deuce? Actually, I kind of like "deuce." But why not just go to four, win by two. It's the exact same thing and a lot easier to follow when you've already thrown back a couple of Bloody Marys.

9. The overkill of NASCAR
Does it really take 500 laps to figure out which car and driver are the fastest? Here's an idea: Make every race 50 to 100 laps and limit the number of pit stops. Every decision will be magnified and second-guessed and strategy will become an even bigger part of the sport.

8. Offsides (in soccer and hockey)
Anytime that you have defenders trying to encourage offsides calls by pulling up as they run/skate back to protect their goal, it's not a good thing. There's no offsides in basketball and it works just fine. When Randy Moss outruns a cornerback, play doesn't stop because he has a clear path to the endzone. Why not reward anticipation and speed, and make soccer and hockey that much more exciting by creating a flurry of one-on-one situations between the striker/forward and the goalie?

7. The Pro Bowl
Why? What's the point? For years, the Pro Bowl was played in Hawaii after the Super Bowl, which is like going to a concert where the headliner plays before the supporting act. To its credit, the NFL finally realized it had a wet turd on its hands and moved the game to Miami to take place before the Super Bowl. This should help, but football is a violent sport, so why play the game at all? Guys don't want to get hurt, so they're only going to go half speed. Plus, with all the guys scratching due to injury and the players that won't play because their team made the big game, the rosters aren't nearly as good as they could be. Just forget it -- hand out All-NFL awards and be done with it.

6. The NBA age limit
I was once a proponent of an age limit, but not anymore. It's not that the NBA doesn't have every right to restrict who can and cannot join the league -- they do -- but the age limit (19) is wreaking havoc on college basketball. Many of the top freshmen that would have otherwise gone straight to the NBA are making a mockery of the term "student athlete." They know they only have to stay eligible for one season, so they only really have to attend class for the fall semester. Coaches are burning hundreds of man hours trying to recruit players that they know are only going to play for one season before bolting for the NBA. Players that went straight from high school to the NBA have a higher success rate than any other sub-group, so why not let them in? The NBA wants to improve the quality of its product, and that's commendable, but this is not the way to do it. Maybe they should expand roster sizes to 18 or 20 to allow rookies to develop in practice. I think that if a player is draft-worthy when he graduates high school, then he should be able to enter the NBA. If a player isn't draft-worthy and goes to college, he should be required to stay for a minimum of two years. This format would allow surefire stars to enter the NBA immediately, and would increase the continuity of the college game while at the same time giving borderline NBA prospects an opportunity to develop in the collegiate ranks.

5. The seven-game series
I get it. Professional sports is a business and leagues like the NBA and NHL need to squeeze as much money out of their playoff systems as possible. (The seven-game series makes sense in baseball; teams need to be able to take advantage of a strong pitching rotation.) But playoff series in the NBA and NHL don't truly get exciting until a team is facing elimination, which is why the single-elimination format is by far the most exciting. (March Madness and the NFL playoffs are two great examples.) While single-elimination is too much to ask for, how about a three- or five-game series? The fewer the games, the more that each game will mean. This creates drama and interest (and, ahem, ratings). There is still the opportunity for the much-ballyhooed "chess match," but there will be a better chance that an underdog could pull the upset. I know this isn't going to happen, but a guy can dream, can't he?

4. Exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket
I live in a condo with no view of the southern horizon, so every Sunday, I have to pack up my laptop and head over to my buddy LaRusso's house to watch Sunday Ticket on his DirecTV. Don't get me wrong -- I like hanging out with my friends, but this Sunday ritual is a pain in my ass. And it's not a technology problem -- it's all about money for the NFL. They realize that Sunday Ticket is a valuable product, and they know that the package is the lifeblood of DirecTV. But enough is enough. DirecTV now has 18 million subscribers, so it's time to offer Sunday Ticket to cable subscribers as well. I have no problem with the NFL's desire to make a profit, but it's not wise (or fair) to leave a good portion of your fan base out in the cold. Most of what the league garners in exclusive rights fees would be covered by a huge increase in its subscriber base. Enough.

3. Seasons that are just too long (MLB, NBA, NHL)
People say the NBA regular season doesn't matter, and for the most part, they're right. The NBA's postseason is so inclusive that sub-.500 teams regularly make the playoffs, so the regular season becomes a grind because the good teams know that they're going to make the postseason come hell or high water. Baseball has a less inclusive postseason, but a 162-game season makes each individual game fairly meaningless. Who wants to go to a game when it doesn't really matter who wins? Of all the leagues, the NHL has the least to lose. They should toss out their current format, cut the regular season in half and drop the number of teams that make the postseason from 16 to eight or 12. Suddenly, every regular season game would be crucial to a team's playoff hopes.

2. No salary cap in baseball
The top four payrolls in MLB -- Yankees, Mets, Cubs and Red Sox -- combine to spend more than the bottom ten. The Yankees alone outspend the Marlins, Padres, Pirates and Nationals combined. The Yankees' payroll is 5.5 times the lowest payroll in the league (the Marlins). How can there be a level playing field when certain teams can afford to spend three or four or even five times as much as the competition? Sure, a small market team with savvy management can make a run every so often, but they can't afford to keep their stars because the big market teams can simply outspend them. Forget ridiculous -- this is ridonkulous. Yeah, I said it.

1. The BCS
The BCS is like a bad marriage. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but somewhere along the line, you realize that it's an awful mess. You don't know when it's going to end, or how, but you know that one day it will be over. And that will be a fine, fine day. We ran a poll a while back and 90% of fans want to see some sort of playoff system in college football. The current system is so asinine and flawed that there's no point in rehashing all that is wrong with it. I'm a proponent of an eight-team playoff where the six BCS conference champs get an automatic bid (unless they are ranked outside of the top 15). The first round of the playoffs would be held at the home stadiums of the higher seeds and the two semifinal games and title game can be rotated amongst the four BCS cities -- Pasadena, Miami, New Orleans and Phoenix -- so that they don't lose any revenue under a new system. Television ratings for the non-title games would go through the roof. That would be like true love -- everybody wins.

Those are my top 10...what is it about sports that drives you crazy?

All right, a show of hands...how many of you thought that Santonio Holmes was going to start of the 2009 season with a 9-131-1 statline against the Tennessee Titans last night?

Be honest.

Holmes finished 2008 (his third season) as fantasy's WR33, averaging 3.7 catches for 55 yards and 0.3 TD in 15 games. His ADP entering the season was in the 5th round, largely because of the numbers he produced in the playoffs. After a mediocre 2-25-0 start against the Chargers, he posted 2-70-1 against the Ravens in the AFC Championship Game and 9-131-1 against the Cardinals in the Super Bowl. (You're reading that right -- Holmes had the exact same line in the Super Bowl as he did last night against the Titans.)

Heading into the season, I thought Holmes was a nice value in the 6th round, or a decent pick in the 5th if I had to go WR and the other guys -- Eddie Royal, Vincent Jackson, DeSean Jackson, Anthony Gonzalez and Braylon Edwards -- were already gone. Holmes just seemed overrated after winning the Super Bowl MVP. After all, this is a guy who finished no better than WR29 in PPR leagues in the last two seasons, and converted just 48% of his targets into catches in 2008. (The league average last season was 57.5%.)

Holmes' production seems to be at least partly dependent on how well the Steelers are running the ball. Over the past two-plus seasons (and including last night's game), Holmes has posted 70-plus receiving yards in 13 games. In those games, the Steelers ran the ball well (4.0 ypc or greater) just three times: versus the Bengals and Rams in 2007 and again against the Bengals in 2008.

Intuitively, this makes sense. The Steelers have always wanted to be a running team, and generally don't cut the passing game loose unless they're having real problems on the ground. In the 17 games over the past two-plus seasons where the Steelers have averaged fewer than 4.0 ypc, Holmes has averaged 4.3 receptions for 74 yards and 0.8 TD, which equates to 16.6 fantasy points per game. Last season, eight WRs -- Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, Brandon Marshall, Roddy White, Calvin Johnson, Antonio Bryant and Steve Smith -- had higher averages.

What does this all mean? Well, when the Steelers have trouble running (i.e. they are unable to rush for 4.0 ypc or more), then Santonio Holmes is a top 10 receiver. This happened in 17 of the Steelers' last 34 games, and 12 of those 17 games were in 2008 or 2009, so as the Steelers continue to have bigger and bigger problems running the ball, Holmes's average production should continue to rise.

It's worth noting that in games where the Steelers rushed for 4.0 ypc or more, Holmes averaged 3.7 receptions for 57 yards and 0.2 TD (or 10.5 fantasy points). These are WR30-WR35 numbers.

So if it looks like the Steelers are going to have a tough time running the ball, Holmes should be in all fantasy lineups. How will we know? The opposing defense's rank in average rushing yards allowed is a pretty good gauge. Against top 10 teams (and assuming Tennessee finishes this season in the top 10), Holmes has averaged 3.9 catches for 72 yards and 1.0 TD, or 17.1 fantasy points. Against teams ranked 11-20, he averaged 4.0 catches for 68 yards and 0.3 TD (12.8 fantasy points) -- still startable in PPR leagues, but not a must-start. Against teams ranked 21-32 against the run, he averaged 4.1 receptions for 59 yards and 0.2 TD (11.4 fantasy points). In other words, he was a borderline starter at best.

If Anthony Stalter is right and the Steelers are going to have a tough time rushing the ball this year, then Holmes should be in for a big year. But if the Steelers are playing a team that can't stop the ground game, then fantasy owners might want to bench Holmes if they have an attractive option.

And if Holmes starts producing consistently against teams that can't stop the Steelers from rushing the ball, then we'll know that he's turning the corner and is becoming an elite fantasy WR. If that happens, he'll be a must-start.

DirecTV subscribers may be wondering if the NFL Network's new channel, "NFL RedZone" is the same as the RedZone Channel that is available as part of the Sunday Ticket package. The answer is yes...and no. It's not the exact same channel. It has a different host and a different studio, but the concept is the same.

The channel will bounce around from game to game to show live action or instant highlights from a multitude of games. I've watched the DirecTV version for six hours straight, and it's a great way for fantasy football enthusiasts to spend a Sunday. I assume that the NFL Network's version will be just as good.

I have long been critical of the NFL's decision to make the Sunday TIcket exclusive to DirecTV, largely because I'm a diehard Packer fan living in a California condo with no view of the southern horizon (making me one of the millions of football fans that simply can't get DirecTV without moving). The DirecTV monopoly exclusive rights extend through 2014, though the package may be available to non-DirecTV subscribers in 2012. I mention the Sunday Ticket debacle because this NFL Network Red Zone channel is a step in the right direction.

Of course, the NFL Network is still at odds with several cable companies -- including my carrier, Time Warner -- as they haggle over carriage fees for the channel. Actually, "haggle" would imply that the two sides are negotiating. As far as I know, they've both walked away from the table.

The cable giant wants to offer NFL Network on a sports tier, while the NFL Network wants the channel to be on the basic tier, which due to its high carriage cost, would have a significant impact on the bottom line and increase cable rates for all subscribers. Essentially, the Network wants every subscriber to pay for the channel even if they don't want it in their lineup.

It was one thing for Time Warner to walk away from negotiations when the NFL Network only carried eight games in a season, but now that TWC's subscribers will be missing out on this new Red Zone channel, I'd expect the pressure to strike a deal will be amped up. I, for one, am not pleased that this product is readily available and the 2nd-largest cable company in the country does not offer it. What's the point of having a monopoly if you aren't going to use your negotiating power to get what you want?

Between the offering of exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket and the high carriage fees of the NFL Network (and presumably, the new RedZone channel), the NFL is not treating a subsection of its fan base very well.

We just want to watch the games -- all of them. Why is the league making it so difficult for fans to consume its product?

Yesterday, I posted my DTBWW picks for Week 1 and thought I'd spend a little more time discussing the subject. I've used DTBWW quite a bit in the past, and it's not always by design. Sometimes a defense that I'm counting on doesn't perform up to snuff, so I need to look elsewhere for production. The idea is that every week, there is usually one or two mediocre or solid defenses on your league's waiver wire that have a favorable matchup. A mediocre defense with a great matchup is just as good as having a great defense with a medicore matchup.

Last season, my top weekly DTBWW pick averaged 9.8 points per week, which over the course of the season equates to DT2 or DT3 numbers. My second pick averaged 6.1 points, which obviously isn't as good, but still solid. The top two picks averaged 7.9 points, or DT6-type numbers. (If you're wondering what scoring system I'm using, it's the Antsports High Performance scoring system that awards one point per sack, fumble and interception, two points per safety and six points per defensive/special teams touchdown.)

The best way to pick a DTBWW candidate is to look for medicore/solid defenses that are facing bad offenses that allow a lot of sacks. Total sacks is the most consistent defensive scoring category week-to-week and it's also a good indicator of quarterback pressure, which can lead to turnovers and touchdowns. It also helps to pick defenses that are playing at home, as most DTs play better at home than they do on the road.

One great thing about DTBWW is that it's very fluid and flexible. If a particular defense is playing really well or if a particular offense is really struggling to protect the QB, it's easy to utilize those teams with this approach. But most owners like a game plan, so to that end, I have put together a loose DTBWW schedule for the 2009-10 season.

To do so, I picked five teams that consistently struggle to protect the quarterback: the 49ers, Lions, Bengals, Rams and Raiders. Last season, defenses ranked outside of the top 12 scored an average of 8.6 points per game against these five teams, who were all in the top 10 in total sacks allowed. That production equates to 146 points over the course of a 17-game season, which would translate to DT5-type production.

The following table shows the 2009-10 schedule for these five teams.

Remember, we're looking for medicore or solid defenses playing at home. I eliminated the top 10 (drafted) defenses because it's not likely that they'll be available on your league's waiver wire. (If they are, go ahead and use them as part of your DTBWW.) I indicated the ideal matchups in green and good matchups in blue. As you can see, there are ideal matchups available in 10 of the first 16 weeks, and in the other six weeks, there are an average of two good matchups available for use in the DTBWW.

So as the season wears on, fantasy owners can use this table as a guide. But remember, it's important to be flexible. If Carson Palmer comes back strong and the Bengals start scoring 25+ points a game, you may want to stop using Cincinnati in your DTBWW. Conversely, if a team like the Chiefs really starts to struggle offensively, you may want to add them to the list of teams that you're considering on a weekly basis.

Shaun Hill recently beat out Alex Smith for the starting QB gig in San Francisco, but his Average Draft Position (ADP) hasn't risen all that much. He's still available in roughly 85% of ESPN's fantasy leagues, and is a nice pickup for fantasy owners looking to bolster their QB position.

Last season, he took over a 2-6 team in Week 10, and averaged 234 passing yards, 1.5 pass TD and 0.3 rush TD over the last eight games of the season. Subtracting interceptions (1.0 per game), this works out to about 19.1 fantasy points per game. Had Hill averaged these numbers over the course of an entire season, he would have finished as last year's QB6, ahead of Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb. Moreover, he led the 49ers to a 5-3 record down the stretch, so he has proven that he can win games.

Amongst all NFL QBs, Hill also projects to face the 8th-easiest schedule. Obviously, projections are just projections, but all else being equal, I'd rather have a guy with a schedule that looks favorable. The 49ers are also likely to be trailing for much of the season, which will make it difficult for the team to follow through with its planned 60/40 run/pass split.

Hill doesn't have a lot of weapons in the passing game, but the situation is pretty much unchanged from last season, so that isn't a huge concern. If Vernon Davis ever taps into his significant potential and/or Michael Crabtree signs and learns the offense, it could be make Hill's job a lot easier.

Hill is an undrafted 29-year-old journeyman, so he isn't going to set the world on fire. I wouldn't expect Top 10 numbers, though his performance last season would indicate that he's capable of posting that kind of production. He's one of those QBs who plays for a pretty bad team that should be trailing much of the time. If he can stay healthy, this could result in fantasy gold.

Grab him as a fantasy backup, especially if you have a QB that has a bye during one of Hill's favorable matchups (McNabb, Warner, Ryan, Rivers, Brees, Rodgers and Cutler). He's also a great guy to look for as part of a QBBC, specifically when used with Matt Cassel, David Garrard and Eli Manning. Throughout the preseason, he has been readily available in the 12th round of most fantasy drafts, and has actually gone undrafted in many leagues.

The Scores Report is officially on Twitter. AnthonyStalter has all of your NFL, CFB and MLB cravings covered, John_Paulsen covers the NBA and college hoops, and fantasytips is a good source for all things fantasy football.

With the relative depth at the position, one approach to drafting a fantasy quarterback is to spend the first six or seven rounds drafting running backs, wide receivers and even a tight end. Then, in the eighth round or later, start to think about drafting a QB. Oftentimes, the players available in the 4th or 5th round won’t drastically outscore those QBs taken in the 8th or later.

Why is this? Well, one reason is that, once fantasy owners have a starting QB, they tend to draft for depth at running back and wide receiver instead of drafting a backup QB, whom they know probably won’t sniff their starting lineup, except as a bye week fill in.

Another reason is that most leagues require two starting running backs, which means 24 starting RBs in total (assuming a 12-team league). With more and more real NFL teams utilizing a RBBC, the position is much thinner than QB, which requires 12 fantasy starters of 32 real world starters.

Typically, this results in good depth at the QB position, where the expected production from QB10 isn’t all that different than QB20. This year the QB10 off the board is Matt Ryan (7.01) while the QB20 is Joe Flacco (11.02). To illustrate my point, in a “high performance” scoring system (4 pts per pass TD, 1 pt per 20 yards passing), Footballguys projects Ryan to score 255 fantasy points and Flacco to score 235. Are those 20 fantasy points worth burning a 7th round pick instead of an 11th? Over a 17-game schedule, that works out to less than 1.2 fantasy points per week.

In other words, it’s probably not going to cost you too many wins to go with Flacco instead of Ryan. In fact, you’ll probably be better off because the WR or RB you draft in the 7th round (Santana Moss?) is likely to vastly outperform his 11th-round counterpart (Michael Jenkins?). Footballguys projects Moss to outscore Jenkins by 75 points, a 4.4-point per week advantage. So by going with a Moss/Flacco combo instead of a Ryan/Jenkins combo, you’re gaining a net of 3.2 points per week.

Going one step further: why not draft two middle- to late-round quarterbacks whose schedules mesh well together to create a Quarterback By Committee (QBBC)? That way, you can load up on RB, WR and TE talent in the first seven or eight rounds knowing that you’ll still be able to get good QB play from a couple of later picks by taking advantage of the ebbs and flows of each player's schedule.

To that end, I took the QB strength of schedule data from Footballguys and calculated the per week projections (by using the aforementioned Footballguys projected stats) for every starting quarterback in the league.

Once that was done, I eliminated the 13 QBs with an average draft position (ADP) in the first seven rounds. This means that Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Kurt Warner, Aaron Rodgers, Phillip Rivers, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Jay Cutler, Matt Ryan, Matt Schaub, Carson Palmer and Ben Roethlisberger are not a part of this study.

This left 19 potential QBs – actually a few more when you consider those teams that haven’t settled on a starter yet. More on this later.

I then determined the best combined schedule (based on projected points scored) for each of the 171 two-QB combinations for a 16-game season (since most leagues don’t play in Week 17).

So who came out on top?

#1 COMBO

Matt Cassel and Shaun Hill (or Alex Smith)...280.7 fp
This combination is a little tough because Cassel is currently being drafted QB14 (8.08), so you’re probably going to have to use an 8th or 9th round pick on him. This means that you may have to pass on some value at RB, WR or even TE that slips into the 8th. On the flip side, Hill is going 14.01, so there’s no rush in grabbing him after you have Cassel.

I like this combo, but Cassel worries me a little bit because he’s joining a new offense that lost Tony Gonzalez over the summer. Dwyane Bowe is a very good target, but the Chiefs are lacking other proven playmakers in the passing game. On the other hand, Hill was very productive (18.3 ppg) in nine starts for the 49ers, though Mike Singletary hasn’t been very impressed with him in camp. (The same goes for Alex Smith, by the way.)

Another issue with this pair is that I assumed that Hill would start all 16 games and would score the points projected for Smith (or vice versa). After all, only one QB can score at a time, right?

To utilize this combo, start each guy in the following weeks:

Cassel / (Hill/Smith): (1), (2), (3), 4, (5), 6, (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12) 13, (14) 15, 16

Now there’s word that Smith may win the job, making this combo dicey at best for fantasy owners drafting soon. I’d recommend waiting until the 49er QB situation is settled before trying to pull the trigger on this QBBC (unless you have plenty of roster space and can grab both Hill and Smith very late).

KEY QUARTERBACKS

As I peruse the top 20 or so combinations, a few names keep popping up.

David Garrard (10.02)
I love Garrard as a value pick this year and he should be deadly in a QBBC format. The Jacksonville offensive line is healthy again and the addition of Torry Holt should give Garrard a good option in the passing game. He was QB9 last year, so I don’t see why he wouldn’t post similar numbers in 2009 with a better line and an improved receiving corps.
Combines well with: Trent Edwards, Matt Cassel, Eli Manning, Jason Campbell

Trent Edwards (10.02)
Edwards missed two games last year and had a few other clunkers, but he showed some promise (nine of 14 starts with 14+ fantasy points) and the arrival of Terrell Owens opposite Lee Evans gives him two legitimate threats to throw to.
Combines well with: David Garrard, Kyle Orton, Hill/Smith, Matt Cassel, Jason Campbell, Eli Manning

Eli Manning (9.08)
Losing Plaxico Burress definitely hurts, but Manning has a great offensive line and a group of young receivers that have a good chance of developing into a solid unit. Domenik Hixon played well in Burress’s place last season and Steve Smith is a good possession receiver. Throw in rookie Hakeem Nicks and young tight end Kevin Boss, and the Giants’ passing game should be all right without Plax.
Combines well with: Hill/Smith, David Garrard, Trent Edwards, Kyle Orton

Jason Campbell (12.10)
Campbell should benefit from some stability in terms of what kind of offense he’s trying to run. Santana Moss is a very good receiver and Chris Cooley is a top five tight end. Campbell rarely puts up a total stinker – he scored at least 10 points in 15 of 16 starts in 2008, and that makes him a safe start.
Combines well with: Hill/Smith, Trent Edwards, David Garrard

Kyle Orton (9.07)
“Neck Beard” is now the Broncos’ QB and he has a much better receiving corps (featuring Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal) than he had in Chicago. He will also be protected by one of the best offensive lines in football -- that won't hurt. Still, he’s joining a new team and Marshall is disgruntled, so he’s not a sure bet. Plus, there are other guys I’d rather have in the 9th.
Combines well with: Hill/Smith, Cassel, Edwards

Matt Cassel (8.08)
Combines well with: Hill/Smith, Kyle Orton, Trent Edwards, David Garrard, Joe Flacco, Matt Hasselbeck

Hill/Smith (14.01)
Combines well with: Matt Cassel, Kyle Orton, David Garrard, Eli Manning, Trent Edwards, Jason Campbell, Joe Flacco, Matt Hasselbeck

Most of these combos are projected to net 270+ points, so assuming a 15-point fill in during the bye week of a “stud” QB, a QBBC is projected to outscore all but the top six or seven QBs at a fraction of the price.

RECOMMENDED COMBOS

At this point, these are the QBBCs that I would target:

Cassel/Garrard
Garrard/Campbell
Garrard/Edwards
Garrard/Manning
Cassel/Edwards
Cassel/Orton
Cassel/Flacco

Once the Hill/Smith situation clears up, the winner would make a nice combo with Garrard, Cassel, Manning and Orton. The nice thing about QBBC is that given the depth at the position, if you miss out on Cassel in the 8th, there’s a good chance that Garrard will be there in the 9th, and there are several QBs who schedules mesh well with his. If he's gone, you could always grab Eli Manning (if available) and draft Shaun Hill and/or Alex Smith later on. The options are numerous, so pick two or three combinations that you like and give it a try.