The '85 Bears gave up only 12.4 points per game. The '07 Patriots averaged 19.7 more points per game than their opponents. This year's Patriots have them both beat, giving up only 6.9 points per game and netting 25 more points per game than their opponents.
Some argue New England's soft schedule is the main reason why they look so good. True, their opponents' combined record is 12-32. But it's hard for any team to crush it week after week. Aside from a hard-fought road win in Buffalo, the Pats have destroyed their competition by a combined score of 207 to 38.
I don't care how soft a schedule is. 207 to 38 isn't a fluke.
Fantasy-wise, Sony Michel continues to run poorly (3.3 YPC on the year) while producing for fantasy managers, and Phillip Dorsett makes it three good outputs in five tries. This was also Julian Edelman's third relatively quiet game of the season. Aside from the perennially consistent James White, no offensive player is a weekly must-start in this largely spread-it-around offense. That said, you have about a 50% chance that one of the 4-5 main guys will come up big.
As for Tom Brady, he was my QB bust of the week (see Saturday's column). The consensus 11th ranked fantasy quarterback, Brady finished 19th--his third non-top-10 outing in his last five contests. Only 3.7% of his throws are for touchdowns--by far the lowest mark of his career. And by the way, Brady throwing it with four minutes left up 33-0 is the quintessential Belichick-Brady Era meme. There is no doubt this team feasts on the tears of opponents' bitter rage.
As for the 1-5 Jets, what can be said? Sam Darnold's sub-freezing 3.6 QB rating was the obvious culprit, as was a lacking offensive line. Their leading receiver, Demaryius Thomas, wasn't good enough this summer to be the Patriots' #6 WR. Their problems are numerous and deep. The good news is their schedule's about to get a heckuva lot easier: two games against the Dolphins and one each against the Giants, Redskins, and Bengals. So don't sell Le'Veon Bell quite yet. And Darnold will be entirely serviceable when he's not facing one of the greatest defenses in NFL history.
---
OBJ is on pace for an 1,163-3 season. Chris Godwin's on pace for 1,765-16.
Le'Veon Bell is headed for an 869-3 rushing line, while Mark Ingram's projected to achieve 1,074-16.
It's easy to fall in love with massive production. And when it's coming from great players, it makes sense. It's seemingly sustainable. But I'm generally suspicious of peerless production, unless it's coming from a peerless player.
Last week I stressed Christian McCaffrey was in the midst of one of the greatest offensive seasons in NFL history. He's on pace for 2,461 yards, 93 receptions, and 24 scores, which would come to 483 fantasy points. For perspective, remember Todd Gurley's incredible 2017 campaign? Yeah, well he had 100 fewer points.
There's greatness, and there's insane greatness. CMC is producing at a never-before-seen level. There are too many variables in the NFL to expect more of the same.
On a different level, Godwin and Ingram are in similar boats. Godwin's high usage and touchdown rate have come at the expense of Mike Evans, O.J. Howard, and an underperforming running game (more Ronald Jones, less Peyton Barber please). And as expected, Ingram's efficiency has dropped in recent weeks, leaving him more exposed as a TD-dependent RB with a minimal passing-game role. Similarly, OBJ's rough patch will start to clear with puff matchups against the Dolphins (Week 12) and Bengals (Week 14). Baker Mayfield's on pace for 15 TD passes and 29 picks. Once those projections level out a bit, OBJ will reap the rewards. The same goes for Bell, as described above.
Obviously some disappointing players remain disappointing most of the season, and some breakout performers maintain it for good reason (Austin Ekeler, for example). The key is not to get overly hung up on success or failure. The NFL is a progression of adjustments and counter-adjustments. If bad results are correctable--whether through a softening schedule or a coaching change or a "We need to get so-and-so the ball more" mentality--then sit tight. And if great results seem unsustainable, in most cases they probably are.
Some argue New England's soft schedule is the main reason why they look so good. True, their opponents' combined record is 12-32. But it's hard for any team to crush it week after week. Aside from a hard-fought road win in Buffalo, the Pats have destroyed their competition by a combined score of 207 to 38.
I don't care how soft a schedule is. 207 to 38 isn't a fluke.
Fantasy-wise, Sony Michel continues to run poorly (3.3 YPC on the year) while producing for fantasy managers, and Phillip Dorsett makes it three good outputs in five tries. This was also Julian Edelman's third relatively quiet game of the season. Aside from the perennially consistent James White, no offensive player is a weekly must-start in this largely spread-it-around offense. That said, you have about a 50% chance that one of the 4-5 main guys will come up big.
As for Tom Brady, he was my QB bust of the week (see Saturday's column). The consensus 11th ranked fantasy quarterback, Brady finished 19th--his third non-top-10 outing in his last five contests. Only 3.7% of his throws are for touchdowns--by far the lowest mark of his career. And by the way, Brady throwing it with four minutes left up 33-0 is the quintessential Belichick-Brady Era meme. There is no doubt this team feasts on the tears of opponents' bitter rage.
As for the 1-5 Jets, what can be said? Sam Darnold's sub-freezing 3.6 QB rating was the obvious culprit, as was a lacking offensive line. Their leading receiver, Demaryius Thomas, wasn't good enough this summer to be the Patriots' #6 WR. Their problems are numerous and deep. The good news is their schedule's about to get a heckuva lot easier: two games against the Dolphins and one each against the Giants, Redskins, and Bengals. So don't sell Le'Veon Bell quite yet. And Darnold will be entirely serviceable when he's not facing one of the greatest defenses in NFL history.
---
OBJ is on pace for an 1,163-3 season. Chris Godwin's on pace for 1,765-16.
Le'Veon Bell is headed for an 869-3 rushing line, while Mark Ingram's projected to achieve 1,074-16.
It's easy to fall in love with massive production. And when it's coming from great players, it makes sense. It's seemingly sustainable. But I'm generally suspicious of peerless production, unless it's coming from a peerless player.
Last week I stressed Christian McCaffrey was in the midst of one of the greatest offensive seasons in NFL history. He's on pace for 2,461 yards, 93 receptions, and 24 scores, which would come to 483 fantasy points. For perspective, remember Todd Gurley's incredible 2017 campaign? Yeah, well he had 100 fewer points.
There's greatness, and there's insane greatness. CMC is producing at a never-before-seen level. There are too many variables in the NFL to expect more of the same.
On a different level, Godwin and Ingram are in similar boats. Godwin's high usage and touchdown rate have come at the expense of Mike Evans, O.J. Howard, and an underperforming running game (more Ronald Jones, less Peyton Barber please). And as expected, Ingram's efficiency has dropped in recent weeks, leaving him more exposed as a TD-dependent RB with a minimal passing-game role. Similarly, OBJ's rough patch will start to clear with puff matchups against the Dolphins (Week 12) and Bengals (Week 14). Baker Mayfield's on pace for 15 TD passes and 29 picks. Once those projections level out a bit, OBJ will reap the rewards. The same goes for Bell, as described above.
Obviously some disappointing players remain disappointing most of the season, and some breakout performers maintain it for good reason (Austin Ekeler, for example). The key is not to get overly hung up on success or failure. The NFL is a progression of adjustments and counter-adjustments. If bad results are correctable--whether through a softening schedule or a coaching change or a "We need to get so-and-so the ball more" mentality--then sit tight. And if great results seem unsustainable, in most cases they probably are.