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.
You are probably right, but just like people threw up in their mouth a little as the suggestion was to put Tannehill in for cash games, the same goes for guys like Hoyer. Just doesn't feel right. I guess it just depends where you're more comfortable looking for savings. Just gotten to the point in cash where I would rather pay up for a QB and throw a guy like S.Smith in there for 6300 or look for a cheap TE than take Hoyer and a high priced WR (unless maybe it's Brown).
I was coming here to say exactly that. QB sucks this weekend. If we can take John Fox comments as honest, and im not sure we can, Cutler isn't getting his job back even if he is healthy. I can understand Brady too, but if Hoyer is starting he's a lock for me
I think I'll have some hoyer lineups as well, hard to not go hoyer west Rudolph and spend on studs, but I'll probably spread out my money, I like the options in the 7k range for wr. May end up with a lot of west exposure. Even if Dixon is active I think it will be a couple weeks before he threatens west, if he does at all.
Just wanted to pick your brain on this one, and it just interests me how people look at things different. What is different about this weekend vs. last as far as Qbs go? (unless you didn't like it last weekend either) Pitts is #2 implied total, and NYJ is bad vs. pass. Carr is going up against a team that is good vs. run bad vs pass. Rivers is going against a team that is the worst vs. pass. Brady is probably pissed and facing Clev. I guess that combined with thinking AB is teetering on too expensive now, and no other WRs in the 8000s that I see are worth it for cash since Atl is in Denv.
So the goal each week in cash contests is to count to 120. There are dozens and dozens of ways to do that every week so avoid all uncertain situations. You don't want to give away any edges when you already need to win about 60% of the time to turn a profit.KarmaPolice said:
The "you burnt me last week so ownership will be low" gpp team-
Thanks for the response, and it makes a lot of sense. I think I just remember reading one of the FBG things about FD and it saying to pay up for QBs and TEs for cash games if you could, and that probably just stuck with me. Just found it odd that there was a lot of heeing and hawing about Tannehill (or was that because there was a QB w/in a 100-200 of him?), and this week people are talking up Hoyer as a must start with Chicago on the road. Just wondering why that was. I am sure going the Hoyer route will make it 10x easier to squeeze AB in the lineup.
love Cooper this week.
I have a different take on it. I don't think you can treat positions the same in terms of ROI. IMO you have a serious problem cashing if you don't get into at least the mid-teens @ QB, and I think you need to push 20. Too many QBs get into the 20's every week to be 10 points down at that position. I preached that philosophy in week 1 when everyone was pointing to Dak and the "savings" he could give you.
Granted, they are just projections, but that is what I was staring at last night. I wrote down positions and was looking at their ratios. Damn near all were 2.3+, so it's not like the cheap QBs were getting an edge in that department, so I was thinking to myself "wouldn't I rather have the guy who is more likely to get me that 20pts?". Again, it could just come down to who else you like, and if you like DJ and Brown this week, you have to skimp somewhere else.
I'm fading everyone DET this week; Swartz's DEF in Philly is that good, IMO. Big difference with Chip gone and the DEF isn't spending 40 min's or more per game on the field, plus being back in a 4-3, which better suits the players they have.
you are thinking about this incorrectly.
I don't think you have an easy path to winning a cash game if you only get 12 points @ QB.
I agree. Because QB is so "safe" and someone's bound to disappoint i am looking for 2.5x from the QB.
yeah, fading him in GPP, and with that, fading Edelman / Bennett. Maybe it bites me in the ###, but I am liking the Patriots DEF as a pivot play.
Leaning that direction as of today. I worry about the fact that Matt Jones rushed for 117 yards and a TD last week against Cleveland. With Blount playing so well, doesn't it make sense to try to ease your 39-year old QB back in a little bit by pounding the rock in his first week back?
Agree that you're looking for closer to 2.5x at QB (so at least 15 out of a $6K guy). Every position is a little different target multiple, with WR and TE being the lowest. QB the highest with RB, K and D in between.
This is NE vs. Cleveland. It is possible for both those narratives to be true. Could be 35-7 at the half, Brady gets his, then Blount takes over.Dan Hindery said:
