Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
TimmyG

Redraft stacks and strategy

Recommended Posts

I’m at 1.12, 2.1 in a standard scoring league. When thinking about all my different options I got to thinking about stacks and how they affect your season in a league like this instead of a big tournaments.

Potential stacks will be Mahomes Kelce, Mahomes Hill, Hill Kelce, Chubb Beckham

At first glance it seems like Chubb Beckham and Hill Kelce are safer stacks... raising your floor without severely hurting your weekly ceiling. 

Mahomes Kelce and Mahomes Hill could also almost win you weeks in yourself. 

 

Just curious if y’all go after certain types of stacks or try to avoid them or just take the best player available regardless. Interested to hear your opinions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the turn in a 12 teamer, you take the 2 best players, with preference that at least 1 of them is a RB.

If the 2 best players form a stack from the same team, fine.  But if it's close, I prefer not to stack.  Stacking is a viable, if not essential, strategy for DFS tournaments.

The best stacks are probably a RB/QB or a RB/WR or a RB/TE.  QB/WR and QB/TE stacks are more volatile, since if the QB is having a bad game, it is likely the WR/TE will as well.  That said, I probably wouldn't shy away from a Mahomes/Hill or a Mahomes/Kelce stack, but I would probably wouldn't consider Mahomes at 1.12/2.1 (unless it's a superflex league, and in that format, Mahomes probably doesn't get to you at 1.12).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fightingillini said:

If the 2 best players form a stack from the same team, fine.  But if it's close, I prefer not to stack.  Stacking is a viable, if not essential, strategy for DFS tournaments.

This.  I love stacking in DFS but it doesn't seem like it is a "must do" in redraft leagues.  I mean, if it works out, great.... but I'm not going in with this as a set strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mystery Achiever said:

I've always done best player available. If you believe Player A >Player B, why would you take Player B just because you have another player on the team? 

 

It’s all a guessing game. No one knows for certain if A>B, so if things are close we have some leeway in strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mystery Achiever said:

It is, but if B ends up doing better than A, it's not because you drafted his QB.

It’s also not because you didn’t draft his QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The “double” or the “stack” is largely a myth. Always has been, always will be.

Yes, you get 2 TDs when your QB throws your WR a TD. 

You also get 2 TDs when your QB throws someone else a TD & your WR catches a TD from another QB.

the goal is always to draft the position / player who will give you the most value any given Sunday. If player A is more valuable on a weekly basis than player B, draft player A. Never draft player B over player A because you happen to build a “stack”.

From articles I’ve read in the past, the “stack” could actually be a detriment - if your QB has an off game, you’ve put two chickens in that same basket, losing  production at both positions for that day instead of just one. 

Draft best available. I wouldn’t avoid “stacking”, but I’d never pass up greater value to get it. The only true value is psychological. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize it doesn't make sense to reach for a stack...but man, having one can be fun.  Watching that '09 Pats/Titans game in the snow with Brady/Moss, and my score jumping like a pinball machine, is one of my best fantasy football memories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gump said:

I realize it doesn't make sense to reach for a stack...but man, having one can be fun.  Watching that '09 Pats/Titans game in the snow with Brady/Moss, and my score jumping like a pinball machine, is one of my best fantasy football memories.

Yes, it can be fun to have a QB throw a WR a TD & get both.

it can also suck to have a QB have a 3 Int day and your receiver get 1/26/0.

live by the sword, die by the sword. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gump said:

I realize it doesn't make sense to reach for a stack...but man, having one can be fun.  Watching that '09 Pats/Titans game in the snow with Brady/Moss, and my score jumping like a pinball machine, is one of my best fantasy football memories.

We went to bonus points a few years ago for both big plays as well as milestones.

PASSING:

1 pt 40+ yrd completion 

2 pts 40+ TD

1 pt 300 yrds 2 pts 400 yrds 3 pts 500 yrds 

RECEIVING

1 pt 40+ yrd reception 

2 pts 40+ TD

1 pt 100 yrds 2 pts 200 yrds 3 pts 250 yrds

RUSHING

1 pt 40+ yrd rush 

2 pts 40+ TD

1 pt 100 yrds 2 pts 200 yrds 3 pts 250 yrds

If your guy breaks off a long one, it can easy be a 15-18 point play. For example, 75 yard TD run that puts him over 100 = 17.50 points.

If my stack hits a long passing today, my phone blows up like a flash flood warning. QB 80 yard TD + 300 yards to WR = 28.20.

Basically no lead is safe.

:lol:

We discussed it all winter and I was dubious, but it’s actually really a blast. Or a total guy punch lol you take the good with the bad. 200+ games used to be a once every couple years thing, now it’s 2-3 times per season. It’s especially thrilling to have a Tyreek or AB in his prime player throwing up 55+. All our guys love it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

The “double” or the “stack” is largely a myth. Always has been, always will be.

Yes, you get 2 TDs when your QB throws your WR a TD. 

You also get 2 TDs when your QB throws someone else a TD & your WR catches a TD from another QB.

the goal is always to draft the position / player who will give you the most value any given Sunday. If player A is more valuable on a weekly basis than player B, draft player A. Never draft player B over player A because you happen to build a “stack”.

From articles I’ve read in the past, the “stack” could actually be a detriment - if your QB has an off game, you’ve put two chickens in that same basket, losing  production at both positions for that day instead of just one. 

Draft best available. I wouldn’t avoid “stacking”, but I’d never pass up greater value to get it. The only true value is psychological. 

I agree with this line of thinking.

Stacking a QB / WR or QB / TE increases scoring volatility. In tournament formats where a very high score is needed to win, stacking is a powerful tool.

In most weekly formats where you need to win a series of head to head playoff games to win money, you generally don’t want to add volatility intentionally. There are exceptions like if you expect to be a big underdog. Or sometimes the stacked players are so good and so consistent that you really don’t care about the extra volatility. But in general, I think season long owners overuse stacking because of how fun stacked teams are to root for and end up with lineups with slightly lower winning potential than if they had diversified.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

The “double” or the “stack” is largely a myth. Always has been, always will be.

Yes, you get 2 TDs when your QB throws your WR a TD. 

You also get 2 TDs when your QB throws someone else a TD & your WR catches a TD from another QB.

the goal is always to draft the position / player who will give you the most value any given Sunday. If player A is more valuable on a weekly basis than player B, draft player A. Never draft player B over player A because you happen to build a “stack”.

From articles I’ve read in the past, the “stack” could actually be a detriment - if your QB has an off game, you’ve put two chickens in that same basket, losing  production at both positions for that day instead of just one. 

Draft best available. I wouldn’t avoid “stacking”, but I’d never pass up greater value to get it. The only true value is psychological. 

Its why I prefer the stack to be a QB/RB or RB/WR.  Getting those from high powered offenses usually ensures you get a piece of every TD that team scores.  You get the right team you score a lot.  More risk with the QB/WR or QB/TE stack because they hinge on each other. 

 

Bottom line, they don't know you have them stacked.  Take the players you think will score more.  I use the stack evaluation only if I really believe two players are the same and use that as a tie break.  If it's a high powered offense usually stack in that case.....if not then I usually go the other way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The year was 1998.  I don’t remember who my first rounder was, but I remember getting Jerry Rice in round 2.  He was 1 year removed from messing up his knee and playing 1 game.  A round later I take Garrison Hearst, also a 49er and coming off a decent season.  Then I can’t pass up a young wr in his third year, primed for a breakout..you guessed it, Terrell Owens.  A few rounds later, I can’t help myself.  Steve Young is sitting there available.  He’s coming off 3 lackluster seasons (20, 14 & 19 TD’s) and is clearly on a decline..but what the hell..I take him too.  Well, these are the years stats for the 4 of them:

Young-4170 Yds, 36 td’s, 454 rushing yds, 6 rushing td’s (career year)

Hearst-1570 rushing, 7 tds, 535 rec yds, 2 rec tds

Rice-1157 rec yds, 9 tds

Owens-1097 rec yds, 14 tds, 1 rushing td 

anyway..I had a blast that year, going undefeated and getting a first round bye.  This stacking thing may work!  Well, not so much. Week 15 is a Monday night game at home against the hapless Lions.  I get to watch my guys dominate on a Monday night!  They crushed the Lions alright, and Hearst did well, but young only threw 18 passes and Rice and Owens got 60 yards combined.  They basically took the  second half off.  Terry Kirby also did well, but I didn’t have him.  Point is, I don’t recommend stacking, or maybe extreme stacking, as 1 bad game can end your season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had Culpepper and Moss during Moss' rookie year. That was a blast.

I had Warner and Faulk during Warner's first year. That was also a blast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, neal cassady said:

The year was 1998.  I don’t remember who my first rounder was, but I remember getting Jerry Rice in round 2.  He was 1 year removed from messing up his knee and playing 1 game.  A round later I take Garrison Hearst, also a 49er and coming off a decent season.  Then I can’t pass up a young wr in his third year, primed for a breakout..you guessed it, Terrell Owens.  A few rounds later, I can’t help myself.  Steve Young is sitting there available.  He’s coming off 3 lackluster seasons (20, 14 & 19 TD’s) and is clearly on a decline..but what the hell..I take him too.  Well, these are the years stats for the 4 of them:

Young-4170 Yds, 36 td’s, 454 rushing yds, 6 rushing td’s (career year)

Hearst-1570 rushing, 7 tds, 535 rec yds, 2 rec tds

Rice-1157 rec yds, 9 tds

Owens-1097 rec yds, 14 tds, 1 rushing td 

anyway..I had a blast that year, going undefeated and getting a first round bye.  This stacking thing may work!  Well, not so much. Week 15 is a Monday night game at home against the hapless Lions.  I get to watch my guys dominate on a Monday night!  They crushed the Lions alright, and Hearst did well, but young only threw 18 passes and Rice and Owens got 60 yards combined.  They basically took the  second half off.  Terry Kirby also did well, but I didn’t have him.  Point is, I don’t recommend stacking, or maybe extreme stacking, as 1 bad game can end your season. 

Stacking (from a great offense) is great for the long game but can burn you come playoff time.  Most of my leagues play straight through week 17 with best record taking the title (I think a much better way to award the best team) so this is a good way to go but for my playoff leagues it can bite you as you found out. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, electric Ape said:

I agree with this line of thinking.

Stacking a QB / WR or QB / TE increases scoring volatility. In tournament formats where a very high score is needed to win, stacking is a powerful tool.

In most weekly formats where you need to win a series of head to head playoff games to win money, you generally don’t want to add volatility intentionally. There are exceptions like if you expect to be a big underdog. Or sometimes the stacked players are so good and so consistent that you really don’t care about the extra volatility. But in general, I think season long owners overuse stacking because of how fun stacked teams are to root for and end up with lineups with slightly lower winning potential than if they had diversified.

I’m not sure that I agree with this.  You still need to win one week at a time.  Having the most evenly scoring team over the season doesn’t necessarily translate in h2h.  I typically have pretty good balanced, season-long teams that often don’t end up with great records or playoffs.  I haven’t quite figured out how to do it, but I really think that figuring out a model that does incorporate volatility without adding too much risk is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Long Ball Larry said:

I’m not sure that I agree with this.  You still need to win one week at a time.  Having the most evenly scoring team over the season doesn’t necessarily translate in h2h.  I typically have pretty good balanced, season-long teams that often don’t end up with great records or playoffs.  I haven’t quite figured out how to do it, but I really think that figuring out a model that does incorporate volatility without adding too much risk is the way to go.

I agree. It’s ok to lose some, even by a lot. As long as it’s not too many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Long Ball Larry said:

I’m not sure that I agree with this.  You still need to win one week at a time.  Having the most evenly scoring team over the season doesn’t necessarily translate in h2h.  I typically have pretty good balanced, season-long teams that often don’t end up with great records or playoffs.  I haven’t quite figured out how to do it, but I really think that figuring out a model that does incorporate volatility without adding too much risk is the way to go.

That’s just it though - by “stacking” you’re increasing risk. Diversification diffuses that risk.

Analogous to fantasy baseball, if you’ve got 5 hitters going against Jacob deGromm, you’re probably not going to have an awesome day on offense.

of course lot every SP is deGromm, so if you crush it on offense in other games it balances out. But in FFB each week carries greater importance because there are only 14-15 regular season games. 

So yeah - while I wouldn’t avoid “stacking”, I wouldn’t go out of my way to do it either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 8/15/2019 at 12:52 PM, Mystery Achiever said:

I've always done best player available. If you believe Player A >Player B, why would you take Player B just because you have another player on the team? 

 

This sums it up pretty well. You guys are overthinking this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Long Ball Larry said:

I’m not sure that I agree with this.  You still need to win one week at a time.  Having the most evenly scoring team over the season doesn’t necessarily translate in h2h.  I typically have pretty good balanced, season-long teams that often don’t end up with great records or playoffs.  I haven’t quite figured out how to do it, but I really think that figuring out a model that does incorporate volatility without adding too much risk is the way to go.

I think we can all agree that you need an above average scoring team to win in fantasy. So that part is a given. For the part of the discussion we should be focusing on, I think you and others may be engaging in more hunch-based thinking where mathematical thinking is superior.

Volatility matters. It matters way less than picking good players but to suggest, like Sasgaard, that it’s irrelevant is wrong. In most league formats, you also need to train yourself to have an extreme focus on playoff games and a much lesser focus on regular season games where the "win value" or correlation between wins and financial outcome is much, much lower.

Let me use an extreme and admittedly contrived example to prove this point. Since we’re all fantasy geniuses here, let’s say you drafted an awesome team and while the scoring average for playoff teams in your league is 80 points per week your team averages 125 points. That being the case and the playoffs starting where you need to win 3 head to head games in a row, which of these scoring profiles would you prefer?

--Profile #1: Every week you score exactly 125 points

--Profile #2: 90% of the time you score 139 points but 10% of the time you score 0 points

--Profile #3: 10% of the time you score 1,250 points but 90% of the time you score 0 points

Obviously these examples are extreme, and real teams don’t score in ways that are anywhere near this predictable, but we can all agree that you wouldn’t want profile #3 right? So in the extreme cases we would all agree that volatility matters. And hint in less extreme, realistic cases it matters too, just less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, electric Ape said:

I think we can all agree that you need an above average scoring team to win in fantasy. So that part is a given. For the part of the discussion we should be focusing on, I think you and others may be engaging in more hunch-based thinking where mathematical thinking is superior.

Volatility matters. It matters way less than picking good players but to suggest, like Sasgaard, that it’s irrelevant is wrong. In most league formats, you also need to train yourself to have an extreme focus on playoff games and a much lesser focus on regular season games where the "win value" or correlation between wins and financial outcome is much, much lower.

Let me use an extreme and admittedly contrived example to prove this point. Since we’re all fantasy geniuses here, let’s say you drafted an awesome team and while the scoring average for playoff teams in your league is 80 points per week your team averages 125 points. That being the case and the playoffs starting where you need to win 3 head to head games in a row, which of these scoring profiles would you prefer?

--Profile #1: Every week you score exactly 125 points

--Profile #2: 90% of the time you score 139 points but 10% of the time you score 0 points

--Profile #3: 10% of the time you score 1,250 points but 90% of the time you score 0 points

Obviously these examples are extreme, and real teams don’t score in ways that are anywhere near this predictable, but we can all agree that you wouldn’t want profile #3 right? So in the extreme cases we would all agree that volatility matters. And hint in less extreme, realistic cases it matters too, just less so.

In your scenario, profile 2 has a sliiiightly better EV and a better upside, so I would take that.  And the general premise of scoring exactly 125 every week seems far less of a realistic representation of reality than profile 2.

i like the way you are framing this though, and definitely think it advances the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

That’s just it though - by “stacking” you’re increasing risk. Diversification diffuses that risk.

Analogous to fantasy baseball, if you’ve got 5 hitters going against Jacob deGromm, you’re probably not going to have an awesome day on offense.

of course lot every SP is deGromm, so if you crush it on offense in other games it balances out. But in FFB each week carries greater importance because there are only 14-15 regular season games. 

So yeah - while I wouldn’t avoid “stacking”, I wouldn’t go out of my way to do it either. 

I’m not necessarily saying to go out of your way to stack.  But I do think that it’s less risky than trying to pull multiple boom/bust players from multiple teams (assuming the team you stack from has a really good situation).

another way to do it is try to do kind of a backdoor stack with a bench player that has high upside.  Like say I go with garoppolo as qb and I think that’s a really good situation because Shanahan is a super good and advantageous playcaller.  ANd then I am deciding between petits and Corey dAvis as wr3 or 4.  Getting pettis could expose you to more upside I think and in that situation would be the better pick even if you were to think that he is more risky in general.

i don’t know, this is more of a speculative proposition than anything that I have worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Long Ball Larry said:

I’m not necessarily saying to go out of your way to stack.  But I do think that it’s less risky than trying to pull multiple boom/bust players from multiple teams (assuming the team you stack from has a really good situation).

another way to do it is try to do kind of a backdoor stack with a bench player that has high upside.  Like say I go with garoppolo as qb and I think that’s a really good situation because Shanahan is a super good and advantageous playcaller.  ANd then I am deciding between petits and Corey dAvis as wr3 or 4.  Getting pettis could expose you to more upside I think and in that situation would be the better pick even if you were to think that he is more risky in general.

i don’t know, this is more of a speculative proposition than anything that I have worked out.

I understand what you’re saying, but I think it’s all psychological. 

It *feels* advantageous. 

But it’s not. 

And confirmation bias may convince you it worked out well (e.g. they do, in fact, score a double TD) - but that doesn’t actually prove anything. 

What it proves is your QB threw a TD & your WR caught a TD. Nothing more, nothing less.

and it can have no greater benefit to your team than if any QB threw a TD independently or any WR caught a TD independently. 

The universe doesn’t know you have the “stack”. It’s not fate or kismet that those players score. There is only a QB & a WR. Your QB may throw a TD, and your WR may catch one. But it makes zero difference whether that happens on the same play at the same time. 

And if your QB has a good matchup, you’ll decide to start him. Chances are you’re starting him regardless.  And this part is key - if your WR5 has a better matchup than your WR4, you may decide to start that’s WR5 instead.  But that holds true whether it’s a stack or not. 

And if there’s no benefit to doing it, diversifying can actually benefit you more. Because it is entirely possible that your QB lays an egg that week. 

And if you have diversity, you might even win despite your QB laying an egg by having other players in other games step up. 

but if you “stack”, and your QB lays an egg, he’s likely gonna take that WR down with him. 

So with “stacking” I see little upside, and increased risk. 

Again, confirmation bias tells us that if we have Tyreek HIll & Mahomes, and they get a 70 yard TD, that it’s a huge amount to score all at once. And it is. No doubt. But it’s not any more points than if Mahomes throws that 70 yard TD &’Odell Beckham catches a 70 yard TD instead in your lineup 15 mins later. 

Same points, different psychological impact. 

“Stacking” is a myth. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

14 minutes ago, Long Ball Larry said:

Again, I am not really arguing for any side per se, but I can assure that nothing that I am saying has anything to do with confirmation bias.

Wasn’t saying you were. I’m just speaking to the topic at large in relation to your post.

Everything I’ve seen positive about the “double” or “stacking” sounds like confirmation bias. “It worked, so it’s true” when a number of other factors/outcomes may also be true. 

I wasn’t saying you were defending confirmation bias. 🍻 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been mock drafting selecting Kelce in the late 1st and Mahomes early 2nd and I actually really like the team I've been getting.

QB Mahomes and TE Kelce

RB1 Freeman  or Jones

WR1 Edelmen

You can skip Edeleman and pick 2 RBs in 3 and 4 and still end up with a decent WR group. 

With the #1 QB and #1TE all your waiver moves can be spent on fishing for RBs and WRs. Someone talk me out of this...especially in short bench leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Charlie Harper said:

I have been mock drafting selecting Kelce in the late 1st and Mahomes early 2nd and I actually really like the team I've been getting.

QB Mahomes and TE Kelce

RB1 Freeman  or Jones

WR1 Edelmen

You can skip Edeleman and pick 2 RBs in 3 and 4 and still end up with a decent WR group. 

With the #1 QB and #1TE all your waiver moves can be spent on fishing for RBs and WRs. Someone talk me out of this...especially in short bench leagues.

QB & TE with first two picks? 

Dangerous. 

I could see stretching to get one or the other, but both? Yeesh. WR & RB depth will be a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

QB & TE with first two picks? 

Dangerous. 

I could see stretching to get one or the other, but both? Yeesh. WR & RB depth will be a problem. 

Would you feel these groups are too thin?

TEAM A

RB Jones/Mack/Coleman/Hunt/Breida 

WR Moore/Westbrook/Davis/MVS/Brown 

TEAM B

RB Jones/Coleman/Barber/Breida/Duke

WR Edelman/Davis/Robinson/MVS/Z.Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charlie Harper said:

Would you feel these groups are too thin?

TEAM A

RB Jones/Mack/Coleman/Hunt/Breida 

WR Moore/Westbrook/Davis/MVS/Brown 

TEAM B

RB Jones/Coleman/Barber/Breida/Duke

WR Edelman/Davis/Robinson/MVS/Z.Jones

Yes. I don’t see a true WR1 or RB1 in the bunch. 

But what’s more important to me is that you can draft a QB1 5-8 rounds later than Mahomes and get 75-85% of his value week to week. 

And you can draft a TE1 3-4 rounds later and still get 85-95% of Kelce’s value week to week. 

But you can’t usually draft a RB1 or WR1 & get near the same value of the top guys in the first 2 rounds. 

I’ve come around to maybe taking a TE in round 1-2 over the years. I still haven’t done it, but I’m open to the idea. QB is still off the table for me. 

I get that people are hot for Kelce, & I overpaid for Mahomes in dynasty. But in redraft it’s a tough call to take a TE & QB around a 1-2.

OP asked me to talk him out of it. This is me, talking OP our of it. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2019 at 10:44 PM, montana_grizzly_bears said:

Brady and Moss in 2007- 1080 total points. Somehow only managed a 3rd place finish.

Brady/Moss/Welker owner (Boston guy) dominated our league that year. 

Beat him in the championship game with Warner - off waivers after Leinart broke his collarbone - and a 7th rounder who went off for 16 TDs in his third year breakout (Braylon Edwards - 2 TDs championship week.)

Still my most satisfying title ever. 

Warner went 361-3 in a shootout while Brady was 215-3-2 in a blowout of the Dolphins. LT2 (114-1) and Reggie Wayne (10-143-1) were my first two picks - won by 3 on Christmas Eve with Tomlinson on MNF sealing the deal.

(aside - that was fun looking up the league history...we had a tie that year, think we went to fractional scoring the next season lol.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a series of draft picks/deals etc I am in the position of having Mayfield/Chubb/Beckham all on one dynasty team.  My entire season pretty much rests on Browns hype which is exciting and terrifying.  Feel like I should do something about it, but I'm very high on all 3 players and love watching them play so I can't motivate myself to part with any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

The universe doesn’t know you have the “stack”. It’s not fate or kismet that those players score. There is only a QB & a WR. Your QB may throw a TD, and your WR may catch one. But it makes zero difference whether that happens on the same play at the same time. 

...

but if you “stack”, and your QB lays an egg, he’s likely gonna take that WR down with him. 

 

Why are you just granting the negative side and not the positive side? If a QB having a bad day can bring down a WR, why can’t a QB having a good day bring up a WR?

That’s the whole thing about stacking. You understand there may be a couple bad games. But you also get the huge games when the offense has a great day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.