Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Ownership Fades (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ChaosM83
- Start date
karmarooster
Footballguy
I think it depends on why you are fading the QB in the first place. If it's because you are playing a large tournament and are fading many/most of the highly owned players, then there's not much rationale for taking the WR as "insurance". Because if the highly owned QB blows up, and you don't have him, you're basically already dead. And if you are correct in the fade, you don't want the stinker WR or you are dead that way too.
The WR should be evaluated independent from the QB -- such as considering his ownership percentage, his likelihood of having a big game, whether or not that WR is a good option due to CB match-up or game script, etc. For example if we're talking Cam Newton last season and you decide to fade, you don't need to grab his WR (or in reality TE as the defacto WR1) because there's just not a major connection there like the old A-Rod to Jordy type example. And it's also a crappy insurance policy because the QB could easily spread it around to multiple WRs with TDs.
If you are talking about a cash game, there's no reason to fade a QB just because he's highly owned. In fact you should probably give serious consideration to the crowd since there's probably reason the QB is highly owned (match-up, price, etc.). So you must have some inside knowledge that says the QB won't be as good as everyone thinks. In which case, you wouldn't want his WR either.
The WR should be evaluated independent from the QB -- such as considering his ownership percentage, his likelihood of having a big game, whether or not that WR is a good option due to CB match-up or game script, etc. For example if we're talking Cam Newton last season and you decide to fade, you don't need to grab his WR (or in reality TE as the defacto WR1) because there's just not a major connection there like the old A-Rod to Jordy type example. And it's also a crappy insurance policy because the QB could easily spread it around to multiple WRs with TDs.
If you are talking about a cash game, there's no reason to fade a QB just because he's highly owned. In fact you should probably give serious consideration to the crowd since there's probably reason the QB is highly owned (match-up, price, etc.). So you must have some inside knowledge that says the QB won't be as good as everyone thinks. In which case, you wouldn't want his WR either.
