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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have a Conner/Juju stack? I have some worry given the home/road play of Big Ben, but touches should definitely be there for those guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kutta said:

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.

Wat?

😳

I’m not “just granting the negative”. 

I acknowledge the positive. However I also recognize that the positive is, literally, a wash. Your QB could throw a TD & your WR could catch one, entirely unrelated to each other. Your QB could throw 3 & your WR could catch 3, entirely unrelated to each other. 

However, the chances that your QB / WR “stack” will combine for 3 doubles is very very small. 

You’re misstating/exaggerating the statistical likelihood of that happening by suggesting there will be multiple huge games, and disregarding the absolute fact that your QB & WR could also have huge games independent of each other, without “stacking”.

and all evidence suggests that the possibility of a negative result with a stack vastly outweighs the possibility of a positive one. Your QB could have a 4 TD day & not throw a single pass to your WR in that “stack”. Or, more likely, the scenario mentioned, where your QB has a terrible game, and tanks your WR. 

So it’s not me dwelling on the negative, it’s me pointing out that you’re in greater jeopardy by stacking than by diversifying. It’s not about anything other than determining likely outcomes. 

And in the risk/reward evaluation, “stacking” has more potential downside than upside. It is what it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DZ2300 said:

Anyone have a Conner/Juju stack? I have some worry given the home/road play of Big Ben, but touches should definitely be there for those guys.

RB/WR isn’t really a “stack”. It’s having 2 players on the same team. 

This one’s been discussed over the years as well - it’s generally not considered ideal to have this combination within your first couple picks, because they don’t usually have great days on the same week. 

The optimum circumstance is the team gets way up via the pass, then grinds it out.

what often happens though is the RB has a monster day & the team doesn’t need to throw much. Or the team gets way up by the pass & they bring in a 2nd stringer for mop-up dory in the 2nd half. 

There are more scenarios that work against having a top WE/RB combo than for it. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy

Share this post


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

RB/WR isn’t really a “stack”. It’s having 2 players on the same team. 

This one’s been discussed over the years as well - it’s generally not considered ideal to have this combination within your first couple picks, because they don’t usually have great days on the same week. 

The optimum circumstance is the team gets way up via the pass, then grinds it out.

what often happens though is the RB has a monster day & the team doesn’t need to throw much. Or the team gets way up by the pass & they bring in a 2nd stringer for mop-up dory in the 2nd half. 

There are more scenarios that work against having a top WE/RB combo than for it. 

Makes total sense. Part of my thought process in my original post was around a QB whose home/road performances are vastly different. When looking at a stack, how much concern is placed on the fact that half the games are played outdoors vs. indoors or home vs. away. 

 

Each situation is unique just like a stack, however, a team like the Steelers with Big Ben performs much different on the toad than at home. IIRC, Brees had a home/road difference the last few seasons. 

 

Do these splits also go into ones thinking around your league’s playoff schedule? Knowing a team plays their wk 15(semi) and wk 16(champ) on the road seems like a worse than 50/50 odds of a loss in one of those weeks.

 

PS: I have never been a fan of stacks except QB/K but I am considering it this year as an option because that is how keepers/predraft trades seems to be aligning. In my league, stacks have worked wonders all season, but failed in playoffs (wk 14,15,16)

 

Also, with Conner/Juju as my option, Big Ben’s play will greatly affect both guys if he throws int (inaccurate passing) and the team is behind (limited running).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DZ2300 said:

a team like the Steelers with Big Ben performs much different on the road than at home. 

I know that's the narrative, but if you look at his fantasy points for 2018, it didn't really pan out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Wat?

😳

I’m not “just granting the negative”. 

I acknowledge the positive. However I also recognize that the positive is, literally, a wash. Your QB could throw a TD & your WR could catch one, entirely unrelated to each other. Your QB could throw 3 & your WR could catch 3, entirely unrelated to each other. 

However, the chances that your QB / WR “stack” will combine for 3 doubles is very very small. 

You’re misstating/exaggerating the statistical likelihood of that happening by suggesting there will be multiple huge games, and disregarding the absolute fact that your QB & WR could also have huge games independent of each other, without “stacking”.

and all evidence suggests that the possibility of a negative result with a stack vastly outweighs the possibility of a positive one. Your QB could have a 4 TD day & not throw a single pass to your WR in that “stack”. Or, more likely, the scenario mentioned, where your QB has a terrible game, and tanks your WR. 

So it’s not me dwelling on the negative, it’s me pointing out that you’re in greater jeopardy by stacking than by diversifying. It’s not about anything other than determining likely outcomes. 

And in the risk/reward evaluation, “stacking” has more potential downside than upside. It is what it is. 

OK. Your position still doesn’t make sense, but I’ll leave it be.

Share this post


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

And in the risk/reward evaluation, “stacking” has more potential downside than upside. It is what it is. 

The flaw in this statement is that you have a choice in the quality of the stack you go after.  I would agree that an average QB/WR stack could have more potential downside than upside.

 

However taking an elite QB/WR combo minimizes the downside potential and increases the upside potential.  If your QB is not likely to have a poor game and he relies on the elite WR (who also is not likely to have a down game) then the overall potential of a negative overall game is minimized.

 

In addition there are times when you don't care about a higher volatility if you are using a lesser quality stack.  The main situation is when you are a heavy underdog.  In that case the reward for the huge game (where that is possibly your only chance to win) is well worth the risk of the terrible game because you are likely to lose anyway.  Where on the flip side of being heavily favored you would try and minimize that negative outcome and stay away from marginal stacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting discussion.  I'm in a local keeper league and I am keeping Mahomes.  drafting in the bottom half of round 1 and will have my choice of stacking Tyreek with Mahomes, or go with players like Davante, Julio, Bell or DJ.  it might come down to how I feel on draft day but a Mahomes/Tyreek stack is tempting. 

years back, I won a championship with Peyton, Knowshon, Welker, Julius Thomas, Prater and the Denver D.  they were scoring 5-7 TDs a game on that offense

Share this post


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

However taking an elite QB/WR combo minimizes the downside potential and increases the upside potential.  If your QB is not likely to have a poor game and he relies on the elite WR (who also is not likely to have a down game) then the overall potential of a negative overall game is minimized.

Doesn't this hold true regardless of whether the elite QB and elite WR on your roster are on the same NFL team?
(eta- Assuming your WR still has elite QB, your QB has elite WR)

Edited by Mystery Achiever

Share this post


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

Doesn't this hold true regardless of whether the elite QB and elite WR on your roster are on the same NFL team?
(eta- Assuming your WR still has elite QB, your QB has elite WR)

Not really. Every TD your WR scores is also a TD for your QB, if you have the stack. If they are on different teams, that’s not necessarily the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kutta said:

OK. Your position still doesn’t make sense, but I’ll leave it be.

Only if you don’t understand basic probabilities, but ok. Leave it be. 👍🏼

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jomar said:

interesting discussion.  I'm in a local keeper league and I am keeping Mahomes.  drafting in the bottom half of round 1 and will have my choice of stacking Tyreek with Mahomes, or go with players like Davante, Julio, Bell or DJ.  it might come down to how I feel on draft day but a Mahomes/Tyreek stack is tempting. 

years back, I won a championship with Peyton, Knowshon, Welker, Julius Thomas, Prater and the Denver D.  they were scoring 5-7 TDs a game on that offense

You take Davonte because he’s likely to score more over the course of a season. It’s a no-brainer. No disrespect intended, I’m just saying....go by your draft sheet. If you believe Hill scores more over a season than Adams, by all means stack away. But the vast majority seem to believe Adams is more valuable. 

Factoring your QB into that equation is madness. Take the best player available. 

Anyone who takes a lower rated player so they can get the “stack” is fooling themselves into a disadvantage because of a perceived benefit that doesn’t actually exist. 

And, as mentioned, one that’s statistically likely to hurt more than help since there’s added risk in putting more eggs in one basket. 

I get it - getting a double TD feels great. Whee!

in my IDP league a dude had a DB throw a TD to his WR. That doesn’t mean he should draft that DB in the first round next year. 

Stacking is a myth. It has zero benefit. 

The goal is to win each week at each position. You do that by taking the best available player in every round. Their relation to each other is irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Gally said:

The flaw in this statement is that you have a choice in the quality of the stack you go after.  I would agree that an average QB/WR stack could have more potential downside than upside.

No, there’s no flaw in my statement. It’s reality. 

Any stack is irrelevant. 

You want an elite QB.

you want an elite WR. 

You want as many elite players as possible. 

If they happen to be a “stack”, great. Have fun with it. But when deciding between elite players at different positions, their relationship to each other is largely irrelevant. 

Quote

 

However taking an elite QB/WR combo minimizes the downside potential and increases the upside potential.  If your QB is not likely to have a poor game and he relies on the elite WR (who also is not likely to have a down game) then the overall potential of a negative overall game is minimized.

That’s simply not true. How are you creating any advantage/increase by taking one elite WR over another? Please explain that to me. You say it “increases the upside potential” - how? Because you get a double TD or two double TDs?

is that worth more in your league than your QB throwing two TDs to different WRs & your WR catching two TDs from a different QB? 

You drafted an elite QB. Great. 

Now you’re drafting a WR & you have Davonte Adams or DeAndre Hopkins on the board. 

If those players score relatively the same # of points over the course of the season, how on earth would it possibly matter that you have Watson at QB?  Won’t Adams & Hopkins still score roughly the same as each other? 

Do you think by drafting one or the other they’ll suddenly have a better season because they know you’ve stacked them? 

Seems a little silly to me, but then I’m just trying to look at the big picture here. 

Quote

 

In addition there are times when you don't care about a higher volatility if you are using a lesser quality stack.  The main situation is when you are a heavy underdog.  In that case the reward for the huge game (where that is possibly your only chance to win) is well worth the risk of the terrible game because you are likely to lose anyway.  Where on the flip side of being heavily favored you would try and minimize that negative outcome and stay away from marginal stacks.

I can’t imaging what you’re trying to say here. 

In either situation, you’re hoping your QB scores points, and you’re hoping your WR scores points. 

I could see playing matchups to hope for a better outcome, but “stacking” will have zero effect on your team’s scoring. 

The only impact I could see is your QB having a crap day & taking your WR with him. 

It also cant be assumed that your QB having a big day means your WR is an automatic huge day as well. Your QB could have a monster game & your WR could be relatively quiet. Remember Calvin Ridley’s monster day? How’d that go for the manager with the Ryan/Julio stack?

Players are going to score what they’re going to score over the course of the year. Take the best players & win. 

Stacking is irrelevant 

All due respect, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy

Share this post


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

No, there’s no flaw in my statement. It’s reality. 

Any stack is irrelevant. 

You want an elite QB.

you want an elite WR. 

You want as many elite players as possible. 

If they happen to be a “stack”, great. Have fun with it. But when deciding between elite players at different positions, their relationship to each other is largely irrelevant. 

That’s simply not true. How are you creating any advantage/increase by taking one elite WR over another? Please explain that to me. You say it “increases the upside potential” - how? Because you get a double TD or two double TDs?

is that worth more in your league than your QB throwing two TDs to different WRs & your WR catching two TDs from a different QB? 

You drafted an elite QB. Great. 

Now you’re drafting a WR & you have Davonte Adams or DeAndre Hopkins on the board. 

If those players score relatively the same # of points over the course of the season, how on earth would it possibly matter that you have Watson at QB?  Won’t Adams & Hopkins still score roughly the same as each other? 

Do you think by drafting one or the other they’ll suddenly have a better season because they know you’ve stacked them? 

Seems a little silly to me, but then I’m just trying to look at the big picture here. 

I can’t imaging what you’re trying to say here. 

In either situation, you’re hoping your QB scores points, and you’re hoping your WR scores points. 

I could see playing matchups to hope for a better outcome, but “stacking” will have zero effect on your team’s scoring. 

The only impact I could see is your QB having a crap day & taking your WR with him. 

It also cant be assumed that your QB having a big day means your WR is an automatic huge day as well. You’re QB could have a monster game & your WR could be relatively quiet. Remember Calvin Ridley’s monster day? How’d that go for the manager with the Ryan/Julio stack?

Players are going to score what they’re going to score over the course of the year. Take the best players & win. 

Stacking is irrelevant 

All due respect, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. 

In a game where you are a heavy underdog you need everything to go right to win (based on average scores for each player).  By stacking you give yourself the possibility of maximizing points.  It doesn't mean it will happen but it will give you less moving pieces to get there.  

 

Nobody knows what will happen.  Of course you want the guys that score the most points each week.  You are making a guess regardless.  When a big underdog you are hoping your stack hits which will help close the gap.  You now don't need your qb and another qb to have big games.  You just need your qb to have a big game to your wr.  

 

Bottom line is none of this is relevant.  If your players don't score you won't win stack or not.

Share this post


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

Only if you don’t understand basic probabilities, but ok. Leave it be. 👍🏼

😂

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

In a game where you are a heavy underdog you need everything to go right to win (based on average scores for each player).  By stacking you give yourself the possibility of maximizing points.  It doesn't mean it will happen but it will give you less moving pieces to get there.  

but so will literally *any* QB & *any* WR. 

Right? 

Any QB1 and any WR1 could get you there if they perform well. 

So that’s a wash, right? 

And if that’s a wash, the only truism we know is that if your QB has a terrible day, he likely drags down your WR with him. 

That’s really all we know for certain. 

Quote

Nobody knows what will happen.  Of course you want the guys that score the most points each week.  You are making a guess regardless.  When a big underdog you are hoping your stack hits which will help close the gap.  You now don't need your qb and another qb to have big games.  You just need your qb to have a big game to your wr.  

But that’s not a given. Like I said, your QB could also have a great day without your WR. 

But if your QB has a terrible day, damn sure he takes your WR with him. 

Quote

Bottom line is none of this is relevant.  If your players don't score you won't win stack or not.

That’s what I’ve been trying to say this whole topic. 👍🏼

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy

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.