2018 NFL Pro Bowl Daily Fantasy Breakdown: Fade Runners, Play Pass Catchers

The NFL Breakdown offers data-driven analysis for the Pro Bowl slate. For more of our football content, visit the NFL homepage.

DraftKings and FanDuel have posted contests for the Pro Bowl. I’m walking the tightrope without a net, because the Pro Bowl is pretty random, which means that we have no data in our Models, so if you decide to play on this one-game slate just know that you’re walking into the jungle without a . . . I just spent a solid minute trying to remember how to spell the word “compass.” I’m a pretty firm beleever that werds shood be spelled the way they sound. Anyway, a compass — you don’t have one. Instead, you have me. I’m your guide on this adventure that’s the Pro Bowl. Let’s safari. By the way, I’m convinced it’s OK to use “safari” as a verb.

DraftKings & FanDuel

DraftKings is offering contests via its Showdown format with four offensive players and two defensive players. FanDuel’s contests sport flex-only lineups with four regular flex spots and one turbo flex with double scoring. I’m unequipped to talk about defensive players and scoring — especially in the Pro Bowl — but as for the offensive players there are some trends you should know.

Randomness Reigns

Before breaking down this game in particular, I should talk about what Pro Bowls have looked like in recent history.

First of all, I looked at ‘only’ six years of player-specific data, but . . .

1. That’s sufficient to describe this sh*t show of an exhibition.
2. ESPN has accessible game data for only the past three years.
3. Not even Pro Football Reference has game statistics for the Pro Bowl. Think about that. PFR has data for basically everything, and they were like, “Pro Bowl, nah, thanks, we’re good.”

Ultimately I had to crawl through NFL.com to find the data, and I’m not a big fan of that site’s functionality. Seriously, I haven’t been cutting and pasting this much since the third grade.

Also, the rules for the Pro Bowl are different than the rules of a regular NFL game. Let me amend that sentence. I think the rules are different. It’s impossible for me to find the rules for this year’s Pro Bowl, so I’m assuming that the last rules I can find are still applicable.

For the three years prior to last year’s eventl, the NFL attempted to make the Pro Bowl more ‘fantastic’ by explicitly treating the players like the fantasy assets they are. In 2014, Jerry Rice and Deion Sanders picked the teams. In 2015, Cris Carter and Michael Irvin selected the rosters. In 2016, Irvin and Rice. Last year, the league thankfully returned to the classic/non-awful AFC/NFC format, which is what we once again have this year.

But there are other rule changes from the ‘fantasy era’ that are (probably) still in effect. For instance, in 2015 the league decided that for field goal attempts the uprights would be the standard width of 18 feet 6 inches, but for extra points the goal posts would be narrowed to 14 feet. I’m not joking. I don’t joke about kickers.

Here some other oddities.

• Timeouts: Teams have two timeouts per quarter. Unused timeouts from the first and third quarters carry over to the second and fourth quarters.
• Two-Minute Warning: Each quarter has a two-minute warning, and possession changes after every quarter.
• Kickoffs: There are no kickoffs.
• Secondary Configuration and Coverage: The defense is not allowed to use nickel and dime subpackages. In other words, no more than four defensive backs can be on the field at a time. More on this later. Also, defenses are now allowed to use a Cover 2 zone and press coverage. Before the 2014 game, they were allowed to use only man coverage. The defense isn’t allowed to blitz, and it must be in a 4-3 at all times.
• Tight Ends: A tight end must always be on the field for the offense. More on tight ends later.
• The Clock: Within the two-minute warning, the clock stops if the offense does not gain at least one yard on a play. Incomplete passes, though, don’t stop the clock except within the last two minutes of the first half and the last five minutes of the second half. A 35-/25-second play clock is used instead of the standard 40-/25-second clock. And sacks don’t stop the clock except in the final two minutes of the game. The effect of most of these rules is that the Pro Bowl is shorter/played faster.

This game is an exhibition of a sport resembling football.

I cannot emphasize this point enough: Randomness reigns at the Pro Bowl.

For instance . . .

• In 2017, fullback Kyle Juszczyk led all backs in fantasy scoring with 51 yards on three carries and five receptions.
• In 2016, the Rice quarterbacks combined to throw six interceptions . . . and these were so-called All-Star passers.
• In 2015, fullback John Kuhn led the Carter team with 31 yards rushing. He had only two carries, which was three carries too many.
• In 2014, running back Alfred Morris led the Sanders squad with four receptions and 69 yards receiving. In the season leading up to that game, he had only nine receptions for 78 yards.
• In 2013, return specialist Leon Washington led the game with five carries. He had seven yards rushing.
• In 2012, quarterback Drew Brees attempted an extra point. He missed.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

“When You Play the Bowl of Pros, You Score or You Lose”

Historically, the Pro Bowl has been a high-scoring game. Before last year’s 33-point travesty, the event averaged 59.7 points per game (PPG) in the fantasy era. And in the 10 years before that the event averaged an outrageous 76.2 PPG.

Multiple reasons for this outperformance can be found. Defenses often rely on cohesion for success, and an assortment of all-star defenders — though impressive — is likely less than the sum of its separate parts when it has only one week to congeal.

That’s especially the case when the defenders give less than full effort. I’m not saying that the offense tries harder than the defense. All players probably exert roughly the same low amount of energy at the Pro Bowl. It’s the dynamic between offense and defense that’s paramount. When defenders play in a meaningless game at the end of a brutal campaign and want nothing more than not to suffer an injury, they tend not to be at their best when it comes to reacting to and stopping offensive players, who have the benefit of knowing the play they’re running. In an environment in which lackadaisical exertion is the norm, the people who know in advance what they’re doing generally do the best.

Additionally, Pro Bowl teams are somewhat deincentivized to punt or attempt field goals. No fans go to the Pro Bowl to see Johnny Hekker pin an opponent inside the five-yard line or Justin Tucker nail a 50-yarder. At the Pro Bowl, coaches can afford to be bold. If a team fails to convert on fourth down, there are no repercussions for the coach or the players. Because the stakes are so low/nonexistent, people tend to play as if they have nothing to lose.

On top of all that, the offenses are highly incentivized to throw the ball (and throwing results in more points per play than running). Why are teams incentivized to pass? For one, run blocking requires more cohesion along the offensive line than pass blocking, especially in a game in which the defense can’t blitz. With only a week of practice, the offensive line doesn’t have time to become collectively good as a unit. In other words, it’s easier for an offensive line to pass block and a quarterback to complete a pass to a wide receiver than for an offensive line to run block well as a group and for a running back to make the right cut behind a cohort of unfamiliar blockers. Plus, passing plays are more exciting.

Here are some numbers. Over the last six years, Pro Bowl quarterback units have averaged exactly 46.1 pass attempts per game, even with the rule adjustments to speed up the event. During that same time, the running back units have collectively averaged 16.2 carries per game. Passing is a priority in the Pro Bowl. Running definitely is not.

Plus, offenses are incentivized to pass because defenses can’t play nickel and dime. The impact of this rule cannot be overstated. If a defense is forced to have no more than four defensive backs on the field, then the offense is likely to use a three-wide set to create mismatches. Even if the defense substitutes a third cornerback for one of its safeties — and I believe that is allowed — there is still only one ‘free’ defensive back on the field. A base defense is inherently strained in defending three wide receivers. Wide receivers have an advantage in the Pro Bowl.

But that advantage is nothing in comparison to the advantage that tight ends have. Most tight ends who make the Pro Bowl aren’t there because they’re good blockers. They’re there because they’re good receivers — sometimes better than all but the best wide receivers in the league. Think about who’s defending them in this game. If three defensive backs are covering three wide receivers, then either a safety is on the tight end (with no defender deep) or a linebacker is on him. In general, the linebackers at the Pro Bowl aren’t there because they’re good in coverage. They’re there because they’re either good at rushing the passer or stopping the run. Because of the rule that the defense can’t have more than four defensive backs on the field, Pro Bowl tight ends have the best situation of any group in the slate.

The Positions

Here’s some analysis of the position groups. Because it’s hard to project individual usage at the Pro Bowl, I’m focusing much more on historical usage rates at the event and on value as opposed to what we might see out of any given player.

Quarterbacks

As of writing, here are the quarterbacks slated to participate in the event.

• Ben Roethlisberger, AFC: $13,200 DraftKings, $12,000 FanDuel
• Alex Smith, AFC: $11,300 DraftKings, $7,800 FanDuel
• Derek Carr, AFC: $9,500 DraftKings, $10,000 FanDuel
• Russell Wilson, NFC: $13,500 DraftKings, $13,500 FanDuel
• Drew Brees, NFC: $12,000 DraftKings, $12,500 FanDuel
• Jared Goff, NFC: $11,600 DraftKings, $11,000 FanDuel

Historically, Pro Bowl quarterbacks tend to ball out as a unit, but individually they underwhelm. Each team has three quarterbacks on its roster, and over the last six years it has been rare for one quarterback to get a ton of snaps and the other two to get hardly any.

Pro Bowl quarterbacks are beyond risky in cash games. The quarterback units have averaged 27.3 completions on 46.1 attempts for 370.6 yards and four touchdowns over the last six years. That’s awesome, but they also collectively average 2.25 interceptions per game because they have a limited connection with their receivers, and each passer averages only 123.5 yards and 1.33 touchdowns per game. Plus, Pro Bowl quarterbacks don’t run. They just don’t. Over the last six years the most a quarterback has rushed for is 15 yards, and that was Tyrod Taylor, one of the best running quarterbacks in the league. Last year they ‘rushed’ three times — all of them quarterback kneels. Don’t look for a lot of quarterback rushing production in this game.

With three players rotating at the position, upside is greatly limited. Only one quarterback in the last six years has passed for more than 300 yards: Matthew Stafford (316) in 2015. Fantastic! — but in that same game Tony Romo passed for only 43 yards. Besides Stafford, only one other quarterback has hit 200 yards: Andrew Luck (205) in 2013. Pro Bowl quarterbacks simply tend not to get yardage.

But if you want to court contrarianism in guaranteed prize pools then you can probably do so because these guys do score touchdowns. Even with limited snaps, all but five quarterbacks in the last six years have scored touchdowns (and three of those players were in last year’s low-scoring affair.) In fact, 44.4 percent of Pro Bowl quarterbacks have scored multiple touchdowns. It’s rare for a quarterback to score three touchdowns — it’s happened only twice in this time frame (Wilson in 2013 and 2016) — but if a cheap quarterback gave you 125 yards and two touchdowns could you really complain?

If you roster a quarterback, you probably will want to go cheap. Roethlisberger, Wilson, and Brees are the most expensive passers, and all of them — especially Roethlisberger — deserve fade consideration. Roethlisberger is likely to start for the AFC, as Smith and Carr are both alternates, but the Pro Bowl starter historically has played only 2-3 series or maybe the first quarter. Here’s some data suggesting that starting quarterbacks are bad investments.

• No. 1 quarterback: 11.3 attempts, 98.7 yards, 1.25 touchdowns
• No. 2 quarterback: 18.2 attempts, 153.9 yards, 1.42 touchdowns
• No. 3 quarterback: 16.7 attempts, 118 yards, 1.33 touchdowns

If you roster a passer, you don’t want him to be a starter. Roethlisberger is almost certainly starting for the AFC, and either Wilson or Brees will start for the NFC, as Goff is an alternate.

Of Goff, Smith, and Carr, the first two are the most enticing. While Carr underperformed his fantasy expectations all season — his 25 percent Consistency Rating was horrid — Smith led the league with 8.6 adjusted yards per attempt (AY/A), and Goff was right behind him with an 8.5 AY/A. Especially on FanDuel, where Smith is by far the cheapest option, he’s a viable possibility and perhaps someone to stack with Chiefs wide receiver Tyreek Hill, who is appearing in the Pro Bowl for a second straight year as a return specialist but will likely have the opportunity to run routes.

Running Backs

Here are the running backs (and fullbacks).

• Le’Veon Bell, AFC: $10,100 DraftKings, $10,000 FanDuel
• LeSean McCoy, AFC: $7,700 DraftKings, $8,500 FanDuel
• Kareem Hunt, AFC: $7,100 DraftKings, $9,500 FanDuel
• Roosevelt Nix, AFC: $5,000 DraftKings, $5,000 FanDuel
• Todd Gurley II, NFC: $9,800 DraftKings, $14,000 FanDuel
• Alvin Kamara, NFC: $9,000 DraftKings, $11,000 FanDuel
• Mark Ingram, NFC: $6,500 DraftKings, $10,000 FanDuel
• Kyle Juszczyk, NFC: $5,000 DraftKings, $5,500 FanDuel

Bell might be intriguing on FanDuel, where he’s relatively discounted — and Juicy Juszczy is in play, given his low salaries and proven pass-catching prowess — but for the most part the running backs are fast fades.

The danger with running backs is obvious. At the position, volume is everything, and the backs in this game traditionally don’t get the opportunity to dominate. Over the last six years, only one back has had double-digit carries: Ingram (11) in 2015. He’s the only back in the time frame to have more than 60 yards rushing. Per ESPN, the most carries a back has ever had in the Pro Bowl is 19. The runner? O.J. Simpson in 1974. I’m telling you, this position is murder.

If you want to go with a Brees-Kamara stack in GPPs since Brees could shower his trusted Saints teammate with high-percentage targets, that might be viable. (The same possibility exists for Roethlisberger-Bell and Goff-Gurley stacks, but Roethlisberger is a poor option since he’s likely to start, and Gurley is expensive and might not be on the field at the same time as the third-string Goff.)

It’s worth thinking a little bit more about the running backs not as runners but as receivers. Over the last six years, running backs have contributed more points as pass catchers than as runners.

• DraftKings (per team): 15.7 PPG receiving, 9.5 PPG rushing
• FanDuel (per team): 12.6 PPG receiving, 9.5 PPG rushing

Over the last six years, backs have scored five receiving touchdowns to four rushing touchdowns — and two of the rushing scores were by blocking fullbacks.

Overall, here are the main points to takeaway: If you’re going to invest in a back, maybe think of him as more of a receiver than a runner — and maybe don’t invest in running backs in the first place. Running backs have averaged 25.2 DraftKings and 22.1 FanDuel PPG per team, which means that the ceiling projection for any given back is probably not much higher than 10 fantasy points, and his floor projection is in the basement.

In general, Pro Bowl backs are just too expensive for the production they are likely to offer.

Wide Receivers

Welcome to the value.

• Antonio Brown, AFC: $11,100 DraftKings, $14,000 FanDuel
• Keenan Allen, AFC: $10,300 DraftKings, $9,500 FanDuel
• T.Y. Hilton, AFC: $8,000 DraftKings, $8,000 FanDuel
• Jarvis Landry, AFC: $7,200 DraftKings, $7,500 FanDuel
• Tyreek Hill, AFC: $5,400 DraftKings, $8,000 FanDuel
• Michael Thomas, NFC: $10,700 DraftKings, $10,500 FanDuel
• Adam Thielen, NFC: $8,500 DraftKings, $11,500 FanDuel
• Davante Adams, NFC: $7,400 DraftKings, $8,500 FanDuel
• Doug Baldwin, NFC: $6,800 DraftKings, $9,500 FanDuel
• Pharoh Cooper, NFC: $5,000 DraftKings, $4,500 FanDuel

Each year four wide receivers per team play in the Pro Bowl, sometimes five if the return specialist is also a wideout. The base formation is typically a three-wide package. Occasionally, teams will mix it up by using 12 (one back, two tight ends) or 21 (two backs, one tight end) personnel, but in general Pro Bowl wide receivers play a relatively high percentage of snaps.

At quarterback and running back, three guys split snaps for one spot each. At wide receiver, four-ish guys split snaps for three-ish spots. Because of the improved ratio, it’s possible that a number of wide receivers could play 60-70 percent of the offensive snaps. That’s outstanding usage for this game.

On average, Pro Bowl receiving units have scored 49.3 DraftKings and 42.6 FanDuel PPG on the strength of 13.3 receptions, 212.9 yards, and 2.4 touchdowns. As a point of comparison: This year the Buccaneers had the worst pass defense in the league against wide receivers, allowing opposing units to score 39.5 DraftKings and 31.4 FanDuel PPG. Rostering Pro-Bowlers is like owning guys going against the Bucs secondary plus 10 fantasy points.

Even against the best defensive backs in the league, these wide receivers have decent chances of finishing the slate with positive Plus/Minus values. It really helps all of them that they are playing against non-nickel/dime defenses.

Minus Cooper, who played little as a receiver in 2017, the nine Pro Bowl wideouts returned value this season.

• DraftKings: 16.9 PPG, +2.24 Plus/Minus
• FanDuel: 13.3 PPG, +0.74 Plus/Minus

All of the receivers are intriguing, but Tyreek on DraftKings is especially notable, given that he’s the second-cheapest receiver on the slate and priced as just a return man. Given the defensive restrictions, he could easily get deep for a score, and he always has the potential to turn a punt return into a touchdown, particularly since most NFC Pro-Bowlers don’t play on special teams and might exert significantly less than their full effort on punt coverage.

Don’t roster only Pro Bowl wide receivers, but strongly consider going overweight on the position.

Tight Ends

Usually the tight ends who play in the Pro Bowl are consistent and big producers throughout the season. This year . . .

• Delanie Walker, AFC: $6,700 DraftKings, $7,000 FanDuel
• Jack Doyle, AFC: $6,200 DraftKings, $6,000 FanDuel
• Kyle Rudolph, NFC: $6,900 DraftKings, $10,000 FanDuel
• Jason Witten, NFC: $5,800 DraftKings, $6,500 FanDuel

. . . not so much. It’s not that these guys are bad, but not one of them was voted to the Pro Bowl: Travis Kelce, Rob Gronkowski, Zach Ertz, and Jimmy Graham were the tight ends selected, but Kelce (concussion) is out, Gronk and Ertz are slated for the Super Bowl, and Graham (knee) has pulled out of the event because he doesn’t want to aggravate any lingering injury issues as he heads to free agency. On top of that, Rudolph on FanDuel is categorized as a wide receiver (even though positional designations don’t matter), so he’s priced as a receiver instead of a tight end, making him difficult to roster.

Still, there are significant reasons to go overweight on tight ends. They’re in an ideal situation because of the defensive requirement that no more than four defensive backs be on the field. Most of the routes they run will be against (outmatched) linebackers. When given the option of throwing against linebackers who aren’t used to covering route runners all the time or defensive backs who are among the best in the league, the Pro Bowl quarterbacks could easily choose to throw to tight ends more than they usually do.

Over the last six years, tight ends on a per-player basis have averaged 11.3 DraftKings and 9.6 FanDuel PPG in the Pro Bowl — and that includes classic non-performances by charity case Jermaine Gresham (2012 and 2013) and the dad-running Witten (2013-2015) as well as an injury-shortened outing in 2016 by Tyler Eifert.

There are two additional factors that make the tight ends attractive.

1. In comparison to quarterbacks and running backs, they have less positional dilution. There are only two (instead of three) players per team competing for snaps at one spot, and both players might play at the same time in 12 formations. All of the tight ends are likely to play about 50 percent of the offensive snaps, which is pretty good for the Pro Bowl.
2. On a per-snap basis, Pro Bowl tight ends tend to block relatively little. They’re there to run routes.

Last year three touchdowns were scored at the Pro Bowl: Tight ends scored two of them. Considering how cheap the tight ends are and how prolifically they have produced in the past, exposure to them is almost mandatory.

Kickers

I like kickers as much as the next degenerate who grinds kicker props every Sunday, but Pro Bowl kickers tend not to fair well. Since 2015 they’ve had the narrowed goal posts for extra points. They don’t have their typical holders, so there’s more opportunity for miscommunication and botched attempts. They also participate in high-scoring games in which touchdowns are at a premium, so would-be field goals are bypassed in favor of fourth-down conversion attempts. Last year there were four field goal attempts in the Pro Bowl, and that was the most within the past six years. On average, each kicker has attempted just 1.08 field goals per game, and the cohort has converted just 69.2 percent of the time. Naturally, some extra point attempts have also been missed since the goal posts were narrowed.

Disregarding bonuses for field goals in excess of 40 and 50 yards, kickers have averaged just 5.58 NFL PPG in the last six Pro Bowls. The position’s historical floor (two points) is much more extreme than the ceiling (11 points). Because of their slate-low $4,500 salaries on FanDuel, Graham Gano and Chris Boswell might offer some value — and in GPPs they could be contrarian plays, because who wants to roster kickers? — but they seem to offer relatively little upside.

——

Matthew Freedman is the Editor-in-Chief of FantasyLabs. He has a dog and sometimes a British accent. In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he’s known only as The Labyrinthian.

Photo Credit: Aaron Doster-USA TODAY Sports