Last week, we pointed out how many of the fantasy producers from the NFC North were over-performing, which surprised us.  If you think about it, only one or two divisions probably featured fewer players selected in the first half of most fantasy drafts this season than the Black & Blue.  Those who invested in skill players from the NFC North, however, have been rewarded. 

On the other hand, the worst division in the NFL—the NFC West—probably had more players selected in the first several rounds of fantasy drafts this season than any other division in the NFL.  Go back and look at your draft results.  We did.  Here are the players from the NFC West who were drafted (12 teams) in the first five rounds:  Steven Jackson; Frank Gore; Shaun Alexander; Torry Holt; Larry Fitzgerald; Edgerrin James; Anquan Boldin; Deion Branch; Marc Bulger; Darrell Jackson. 

That’s 10 of the first 60 picks, or 16.8%—and many of those picks were weighted in the first three rounds.  If all eight NFL divisions demonstrated an “even” distribution of fantasy picks for those first 60 picks, each division would have 7.5 players drafted (12.5%).  So, obviously, expectations for fantasy production from this division were high.  If you look at each player’s name above and grade that player’s performance thus far versus what was expected, you would have a hard time arguing that any of them have done better than expected. 

We reviewed the Rams and Seahawks in our Week 7 article.  We’ll use this forum to close out this woeful division by spending our valuable time reviewing the Cardinals and 49ers.   

Beginning the ’07 season, here is the CQ+ for the Cardinals: 27 

Beginning the ’07 season, here is the CQ+ for the 49ers: 44 

The Cards have rotated Levi Brown in for Elton Brown.  The 49ers have offered too many changes to track*. 

Through Week 10 of the ’07 season, here is the CQ+ for the Cardinals:  58

Through Week 10 of the ’07 season, here is the CQ+ for the 49ers:  52 

We’ve done this enough times to have a good enough sense to label the above as bad.  And while the Seahawks’ CQ+ isn’t this bad, the Rams’ is worse.  What a terrible division for offensive line continuity!  We don’t want to be too rash in suggesting that the “effect” of being the worst division in the NFL can be attributed primarily to the “cause” of a low CQ+; but we will quickly point out the correlation.  It could very well be the case that poor skill positions combined with a poor CQ+ create lollapalooza results (eg., the San Francisco 49ers).  In other words, it very well may be that the sum of these individual weaknesses create exponentially greater weaknesses.  Or, whatever.  It’s all weak, man!  See these pertinent offensive rankings: 

We will point out that a team like the Cardinals, which is veritably loaded in the skill positions, has demonstrated an ability to rise above a weak CQ+.  This is a subtle point:  While the Cardinals have maintained mediocre numbers in the face of a very poor CQ+, still none of their players have exceeded preseason fantasy expectations. 

Would we have predicted a better year for the NFC North than for the NFC West if we had focused on the CQ+ in both divisions prior to the season?  There’s no reason to think that we would have—particularly when we consider that the difference between the in o-line quality in these divisions has become much more pronounced as the season has worn on.  But now that we have collected this data, we intend to start next season with at least one set of predictions that should help us to test the value of the CQ+.  We will use the formula we have been working with to forecast which division will prove to be the most disappointing in 2008—as well as which division is the most likely to give those who invest in it a pleasant surprise.   

Extra Points Archive