Hey guys, been a while. The questions is as the topic line suggests, would you rather have Steven Jackson or Matt Forte for next year?
My league uses a 0.5 PPR system, so I'll be making my statements with that in mind, but feel free to comment on their relative value in traditional and full PPR leagues as well.
The rankings have Jackson ahead almost across the board, though it's fairly close. However, there are a few points in favor of Matt Forte.
1) The two players put up very similar point totals in 2010, with Forte actually holding the slight edge on Jackson (199 to 182 in ESPN standard scoring) even though Forte actually played the more difficult run schedule. (Based on 2010 pre-season ranking, didn't have time to analyze the data myself)
2) Forte has the far easier run schedule this year. (according to FFtoolbox, http://www.fftoolbox.com/football/strength_of_schedule.cfm?type=d
) 6 vs. 21 in terms of ease of schedule for RBs is a pretty significant difference!
3) Forte is less likely to break down. Both of these players will cost you a pretty high draft pick, so most teams won't be able to afford their second round RB going down with injury. Steven Jackson has the most touches of any RB in the last five season combined, and has had injury problems in the past. Forte on the other hand, has yet to miss a game in the NFL. Given that it's not really possible to win your league in the first few rounds, but it's certainly possible to lose it, Forte seems the much safer pick.
So my questions is, despite Forte being more productive last season, having an easier schedule, and being less of an injury risk, why is he being drafted after Jackson? Are drafters counting on Sam Bradford's emergence leading to a higher TD total for Jackson? Please leave comments below to debate and discuss!