What's new
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.

Redraft stacks and strategy (1 Viewer)

Actually I’ve had some good success going the opposite of a stack. Won a league with Wilson Baldwin Lynch Seattle d Seattle k   In a league where the average score was 110, I scored 120-130 in roughly 80% of the weeks.  Gurley Goff LA D LA K was rolling well for most of last year. 

If you secure the key pieces from a high scoring team the only thing that usually hold them back is defensive or st tds getting them a big lead which is why I like to protect against that with the d

 
BassNBrew said:
Actually I’ve had some good success going the opposite of a stack. Won a league with Wilson Baldwin Lynch Seattle d Seattle k   In a league where the average score was 110, I scored 120-130 in roughly 80% of the weeks.  Gurley Goff LA D LA K was rolling well for most of last year. 

If you secure the key pieces from a high scoring team the only thing that usually hold them back is defensive or st tds getting them a big lead which is why I like to protect against that with the d
Click to expand...
But how does the fact that the players are all on the same team alter this in any way?

What if you had 3 elite players, all on different teams, all scoring the same over the course of the year? 

Wouldn't you still score the same # of points on a weekly basis? 

it’s a false premise/confirmation bias. You assign value to the fact that they’re all on the same team, when there could be other explanations. Maybe you did it & it worked, but stacking isn’t why it worked. 

Note - i’m absolutely not saying that you can’t win by “stacking” - of course you can. But you can also score the exact same point totals from each position whether you have 3 players from 1 team or from 2 teams or from 3 teams. Heck, one player could get traded mid-season & you’d have 3 players from 4 different teams - and so long as they all scored their expected seasonal points or better, you’d have the exact same results.

this is a hill I’m prepared to die on. :lol:  

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
But how does the fact that the players are all on the same team alter this in any way?

What if you had 3 elite players, all on different teams, all scoring the same over the course of the year? 

Wouldn't you still score the same # of points on a weekly basis? 

it’s a false premise/confirmation bias. You assign value to the fact that they’re all on the same team, when there could be other explanations. Maybe you did it & it worked, but stacking isn’t why it worked. 

Note - i’m absolutely not saying that you can’t win by “stacking” - of course you can. But you can also score the exact same point totals from each position whether you have 3 players from 1 team or from 2 teams or from 3 teams. Heck, one player could get traded mid-season & you’d have 3 players from 4 different teams - and so long as they all scored their expected seasonal points or better, you’d have the exact same results.

this is a hill I’m prepared to die on. :lol:  
Click to expand...
Want I’m saying is that if you have all the bases covered from a team that averages scoring at the top of the league that you’re going to score more than than teams pulling from lower scoring teams and your score will be consistent. I also don’t consider this stacking, more saturating 

 
Stacks do 2 things for you in season-long leagues.

First, they increase week-to-week volatility. A QB and his WR are positively correlated week to week - Mayfield's big weeks are likely to mostly line up with Beckham's big weeks, and Mayfield's down weeks are likely to mostly be weeks where Beckham doesn't do a lot. This is slightly bad for your redraft team (compared to having, say, Mayfield + JuJu, whose production is unlikely to be synchronized), but it's mostly irrelevant because week-to-week consistency is unimportant.

Second, they increase the variance in overall team quality. Cleveland's passing offense might be great this year, in which case we're likely to look back and say "man, Mayfield did even better than I thought this year" and "man, Beckham did even better than I thought this year". Or Cleveland's passing offense might struggle this year, in which case we're likely to look back and say "man, Mayfield did not live up to my hopes this year" and "man, Beckham did not live up to my hopes this year." It possible, but not that likely, to get a mixed result where Mayfield does even better than you thought he would but Beckham doesn't live up to your expectations (or vice versa). Whereas Mayfield & JuJu are as likely to be mismatched as they are to be matched. This is good for your fantasy team if you're looking to win championships - you'll win more championships if you have some up years where you hit on a bunch of players and some down years where your team falls apart, rather than a bunch of middling years with a mix of hits & misses.

The research on stacking looks at single games, which tells you about week-to-week volatility - the way to get a positive correlation there is to stack a QB with his WR or TE (or perhaps a pass-catching RB). I don't know of research on season-long production, which is what you'd want to increase the variance in overall team quality. My guess is that QB-WR and QB-TE are still the most strongly correlated stacks, but probably other teammate combinations like QB-RB and WR-RB have at least some positive correlation (e.g., the Chiefs' offensive explosion was good for their RBs' fantasy production along with the QB, WR1, and TE).

I'm not sure how big the "variance in overall team quality" effect is compared to the advantage of just picking the individual players that you like more (plus the disadvantage of having shared bye weeks). My guess is that it matters just enough to make a difference for close calls, but not anything more drastic.

 
ZWK said:
Stacks do 2 things for you in season-long leagues.

First, they increase week-to-week volatility. A QB and his WR are positively correlated week to week - Mayfield's big weeks are likely to mostly line up with Beckham's big weeks, and Mayfield's down weeks are likely to mostly be weeks where Beckham doesn't do a lot. This is slightly bad for your redraft team (compared to having, say, Mayfield + JuJu, whose production is unlikely to be synchronized), but it's mostly irrelevant because week-to-week consistency is unimportant.

Second, they increase the variance in overall team quality. Cleveland's passing offense might be great this year, in which case we're likely to look back and say "man, Mayfield did even better than I thought this year" and "man, Beckham did even better than I thought this year". Or Cleveland's passing offense might struggle this year, in which case we're likely to look back and say "man, Mayfield did not live up to my hopes this year" and "man, Beckham did not live up to my hopes this year." It possible, but not that likely, to get a mixed result where Mayfield does even better than you thought he would but Beckham doesn't live up to your expectations (or vice versa). Whereas Mayfield & JuJu are as likely to be mismatched as they are to be matched. This is good for your fantasy team if you're looking to win championships - you'll win more championships if you have some up years where you hit on a bunch of players and some down years where your team falls apart, rather than a bunch of middling years with a mix of hits & misses.

The research on stacking looks at single games, which tells you about week-to-week volatility - the way to get a positive correlation there is to stack a QB with his WR or TE (or perhaps a pass-catching RB). I don't know of research on season-long production, which is what you'd want to increase the variance in overall team quality. My guess is that QB-WR and QB-TE are still the most strongly correlated stacks, but probably other teammate combinations like QB-RB and WR-RB have at least some positive correlation (e.g., the Chiefs' offensive explosion was good for their RBs' fantasy production along with the QB, WR1, and TE).

I'm not sure how big the "variance in overall team quality" effect is compared to the advantage of just picking the individual players that you like more (plus the disadvantage of having shared bye weeks). My guess is that it matters just enough to make a difference for close calls, but not anything more drastic.
Click to expand...
I think the concept of “stacking” is only relevant to daily fantasy - if you’re doing a 1-day thing, you’ll “stack” several players from a given team. 

But that would seem to have much more to do with matchups.

in daily fantasy baseball, one might stack hitters from the same team against a bad pitcher. 

Likewise in FF, one might stack QB/WR/TE against a bad secondary. 

And that has merit for sure. 

So for “stacking” to work this way  in a season-long redraft league, one would have to do an incredibly deep dive to determine what the defensive secondary schedule favored a pass-heavy team. If the Chiefs faced a disproportionate number of bad pass defenses for say, 75% of the season, then having that “stack” might indeed give you an advantage. 

But it’s still only proportionate to the players you’re drafting.

it also might prove to be detrimental to go for a Mahomes/Hill or Mahomes/Kelce “stack” because you’re sacrificing depth at WR & RB by spending your first two picks on QB/TE.  That’s not about stacking, but value-based drafting. 

So yeah - if you happen to stack up a couple players without that sacrifice, cool - all for it. I don’t think it makes a difference that your players are on the same team, but it can work out, just like drafting players from different teams can work out. 

But team Mahomes/Kelce may well score fewer points than team ARod/Adams for the mere fact that the latter is more likely to have spent their first 4 picks on elite/near elite RB/WR.

I’m not in deep enough to draft by SOS, personally, which may be the only way to truly gain an advantage in “stacking”. 

Those who believe in stacking seem to be applying a DFS concept/strategy to a seasonal format, which I believe is deeply flawed.  

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
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. 

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. 

That’s what I’ve been trying to say this whole topic. 👍🏼
Click to expand...
 Not sure why you’re so passionate about this. It’s pretty much what ZWK states above - it will increase some variance and may make a small difference. No one is claiming it’s the end all strategy.

Regarding your “truism” statement above, you again leave off the positive. We also know that every TD scored by your WR is also scored by your QB. And we also know that if your QB scores a TD, there’s some percentage chance your WR scores one too.  

The TD’s are correlated both positive and negative in a stack. Not so if they are on different teams.

 
kutta said:
 Not sure why you’re so passionate about this. It’s pretty much what ZWK states above - it will increase some variance and may make a small difference. No one is claiming it’s the end all strategy.

Regarding your “truism” statement above, you again leave off the positive. We also know that every TD scored by your WR is also scored by your QB. And we also know that if your QB scores a TD, there’s some percentage chance your WR scores one too.  

The TD’s are correlated both positive and negative in a stack. Not so if they are on different teams.
Click to expand...
there’s a % chance that you score the exact same amount from those two players in isolation. Right?

It makes zero (0) difference that they’re on the same team. Zero.

Points are points. There’s no greater nor lesser chance of scoring from them because of the “stack” unless that “stack” is against a favorable lineup. 

And i’m passionate about it because I’m a logical person, and these claims of an advantage gleaned from “stacking” are not  logical.

logic dictates taking the best player available regardless of their relationship. 

Logic dictates that if two players are of equal value, the stack doesn’t provide benefit and, may even be detrimental by increasing risk through consolidation. I’m not sure how many times or ways I can explain that. It’s been made abundantly clear. 

Even in the best case scenario, (your QB throws 3 TDs, your WR catches 3 TDs,) how is that any different or worth any more than those happening with a QB/WR from different teams?  It’s still 6 TDs right? Same scoring, right? So unless your team gets special bonuses for the “double”, it’s the same value. 

This reminds me of debates folks used to have about “cancellation” - how team A’s WR is “cancelled” out by team B’s QB. It’s utter nonsense. Because it’s about Team A’s QB vs Team B’s QB, and Team A’s WR vs Team B’s WR. 

That’s illogical too, and so I am always on the “that’s nonsense” side of the cancellation theory: 

As with applying a DFS strategy to a seasonal league  - it is also illogical. 

I’m not sure why you’re so passionate about it either,  but then I thought you were done with it, so....

:shrug:

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
there’s a % chance that you score the exact same amount from those two players in isolation. Right?

It makes zero (0) difference that they’re on the same team. Zero.

Points are points. There’s no greater nor lesser chance of scoring from them because of the “stack” unless that “stack” is against a favorable lineup. 

And i’m passionate about it because I’m a logical person, and these claims of an advantage gleaned from “stacking” are not  logical.

logic dictates taking the best player available regardless of their relationship. 

Logic dictates that if two players are of equal value, the stack doesn’t provide benefit and, may even be detrimental by increasing risk through consolidation. I’m not sure how many times or ways I can explain that. It’s been made abundantly clear. 

Even in the best case scenario, (your QB throws 3 TDs, your WR catches 3 TDs,) how is that any different or worth any more than those happening with a QB/WR from different teams?  It’s still 6 TDs right? Same scoring, right? So unless your team gets special bonuses for the “double”, it’s the same value. 

This reminds me of debates folks used to have about “cancellation” - how team A’s WR is “cancelled” out by team B’s QB. It’s utter nonsense. Because it’s about Team A’s QB vs Team B’s QB, and Team A’s WR vs Team B’s WR. 

That’s illogical too, and so I am always on the “that’s nonsense” side of the cancellation theory: 

As with applying a DFS strategy to a seasonal league  - it is also illogical. 

I’m not sure why you’re so passionate about it either,  but then I thought you were done with it, so....

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I was done with it, but you keep posting stuff that just isn't right, and it bugs me. :shrug:

You keep saying that if your QB has a bad day he will bring your WR down with him. But you refuse to say if the QB has a good day, he may bring the WR up with him.

Here's the point that I think you are missing, and it's been said 20 times in this thread so I don't know how you can miss it.

1. Since a WR and QB on the same team are linked, the chance of them both having a good day, or both having a bad day, is higher than if they are on different teams. Do you agree with this? Yes or no. If no, you can stop here. If yes, proceed to the next step.

2. Since we agree a "stacked" QB/WR combo has a better chance of either a high or low score, we can agree that increases the variance in your team's score. Instead of scoring 50 and 50 points across a couple games (non-stacked), you may score 30 and 70 points across those two games (stacked). At the end of the year, it's all the same, it's just the points MAY come in differently. Do you agree with this? If yes, proceed.

3. What this does is POTENTIALLY increase your chances of winning a few games, let's say three or four, where your "stack" goes off and has a great game. Now granted, this could happen even if you aren't stacked, but since we agreed in step one the chance of a big or small game is increased, we agree there's a better chance of it happening in a stack.

4. It also POTENTIALLY increases your chances of losing a few games if your stack is held in check. And that's OK. You still have a chance to win those bad games (just as you still have a chance to lose the big games). The point is, you want to try to lock in those 3 or 4 wins, and let the chips fall where they may in the othere games. 

5. You are also hoping that when the playoffs hit, your stack hits (again, see step 1).

And that's it.

 
kutta said:
I was done with it, but you keep posting stuff that just isn't right, and it bugs me. :shrug:

You keep saying that if your QB has a bad day he will bring your WR down with him. But you refuse to say if the QB has a good day, he may bring the WR up with him.

Here's the point that I think you are missing, and it's been said 20 times in this thread so I don't know how you can miss it.

1. Since a WR and QB on the same team are linked, the chance of them both having a good day, or both having a bad day, is higher than if they are on different teams. Do you agree with this? Yes or no. If no, you can stop here. If yes, proceed to the next step.

2. Since we agree a "stacked" QB/WR combo has a better chance of either a high or low score, we can agree that increases the variance in your team's score. Instead of scoring 50 and 50 points across a couple games (non-stacked), you may score 30 and 70 points across those two games (stacked). At the end of the year, it's all the same, it's just the points MAY come in differently. Do you agree with this? If yes, proceed.

3. What this does is POTENTIALLY increase your chances of winning a few games, let's say three or four, where your "stack" goes off and has a great game. Now granted, this could happen even if you aren't stacked, but since we agreed in step one the chance of a big or small game is increased, we agree there's a better chance of it happening in a stack.

4. It also POTENTIALLY increases your chances of losing a few games if your stack is held in check. And that's OK. You still have a chance to win those bad games (just as you still have a chance to lose the big games). The point is, you want to try to lock in those 3 or 4 wins, and let the chips fall where they may in the othere games. 

5. You are also hoping that when the playoffs hit, your stack hits (again, see step 1).

And that's it.
Click to expand...
:doh:  

 I have absolutely knowledged, time and time again, that if the quarterback has a good day it may absolutely result in a good day of the wide receiver. 

 that is a true and factual statement, and it has absolutely nothing to do with stacking.

because your quarterback & your wide receiver may or may not have a good or a bad day whether they are on the same team or on different teams. Right?

You could get the exact same points out of a wide receiver  without a “stack“ & without your quarterback throwing your wide receiver those touchdowns. 

Therefore, the theory about having the stack potentially increasing anything is  fallacious. 

 And because  that potential upside is a wash - meaning, your quarterback and your wide receiver scoring points independently of each other  or together, the only potentially predictable outcome is for the negative.  The Positive is assumed, and thus it is 100% neutral.  Because you could have a good day or a bad day with or without the stack,  just like you could have a good day or a bad day with the stack. 

 We are talking about probabilities. 

1.  Quarterback having a good day 

2.  Receiver having a good day 

3.  Quarterback having a bad day 

4.  Wide receiver having a bad day 

5.  Quarterback having an average day

6.  Wide receiver having an average day 

 Any independent outcome or combination of these  outcomes may or occur. 

 Why would stacking offer any potential upside as opposed to having to elite players on two different teams? 

The only possibility of that happening is an a good match up. In which case it’s about the matchup, not the Stack.  But even that has an interesting aside. In daily fantasy the best players all tend to stack the same hitters against a bad pitcher for example. The  folks who win are the ones who are able to find the low percentage players that aren’t part of the stack because that’s what sets their score apart from everyone else who picks those obvious  stacking plays.  So  One key to daily fantasy seems to be diversification. 

And I have acknowledged already but if your “stack“ is against a good matchup, the probability is you will have a pretty good day with that “stack”.

 But the same holds equally or greater in true value that if your quarterback has a bad day your wide receiver will as well   specifically because of the “stack“.  The only outcome that really isn’t probable on that list above is your quarterback having a bad day and your wide receiver having a good one within a stack.  Whereas if you have a quarterback and wide receiver from two different teams, you could have a huge day from your wide receiver independent of your quarterback. 

 Those two outcomes are in no way equal  probability-wise . One has a dependency built-in where the other one does not. 

 That is why I will not give equal weight to your positive outcome scenario as to my negative outcome scenario.  The factors that determine those outcomes are not the same. 

 But yes, to be fair, they are absolutely scenarios where a stack is going to help your team more than hurt it. I have never denied this. But that doesn’t mean it’s a viable  or predictable strategy.  Unless you’re predicting a negative outcome because of that dependency. 

 I’m not sure I could be any more clear with this  and I fear I’m repeating myself, so probably best we simply agree to disagree at this point. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
:doh:  

 I have absolutely knowledged, time and time again, that if the quarterback has a good day it may absolutely result in a good day of the wide receiver. 

 that is a true and factual statement, and it has absolutely nothing to do with stacking.

because your quarterback & your wide receiver may or may not have a good or a bad day whether they are on the same team or on different teams. Right?
Click to expand...
I bolded the crux of what just isn't making sense to me.

In the first sentence you say you acknowledge that in a stack, a good day from a QB may absolutely result in a good day from the WR.

Then you say it has nothing to do with stacking.

Here's an example. You have Mahomes, Hill, and JuJu. You hear Mahomes threw 6 TD's in the morning game, and you've heard nothing about what Big Ben did. Are you pretty excited to see Hill's stats? Of course you are, because a big day from Mahomes at least has a chance of resulting in a big game for Hill. JuJu may or may not have a big day.

Anyway, I'm guessing that I am just not understanding your point, so I am fine agreeing to disagree.

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
 I

We are talking about probabilities. 

1.  Quarterback having a good day 

2.  Receiver having a good day 

3.  Quarterback having a bad day 

4.  Wide receiver having a bad day 

5.  Quarterback having an average day

6.  Wide receiver having an average day 
Click to expand...
Yes, these are the possible outcomes of two events (QB play and WR play) but these events are not always independent of each other.   Events are independent, by definition, if the outcome of one does not affect the probabilities of the outcomes of the other.  If the outcome of one event affects the probabilities of outcomes of a second, the events are not independent,

When stacking a QB and a WR, the probability of the WR having a good/bad/average day will be different depending on whether the QB had a good/bad/average day.  With players on different teams, the QBs performance does not change the probability of WR outcomes.  Thus stacking introduces non-independence into what was otherwise independent.

Note that this may or may not affect the overall probabilities of various outcomes.  But I think the word “independent” is being misused in several parts of this conversation.

 
Arodin said:
Yes, these are the possible outcomes of two events (QB play and WR play) but these events are not always independent of each other.   Events are independent, by definition, if the outcome of one does not affect the probabilities of the outcomes of the other.  If the outcome of one event affects the probabilities of outcomes of a second, the events are not independent,

When stacking a QB and a WR, the probability of the WR having a good/bad/average day will be different depending on whether the QB had a good/bad/average day.  With players on different teams, the QBs performance does not change the probability of WR outcomes.  Thus stacking introduces non-independence into what was otherwise independent.

Note that this may or may not affect the overall probabilities of various outcomes.  But I think the word “independent” is being misused in several parts of this conversation.
Click to expand...
 Of course. I acknowledge that completely.

I’m saying there are both independent and dependent relationships.  Obviously, in real football those relationships matter. 

You can have a wide receiver and quarterback independent of each other  in the NFL still score the exact same points  in your magical football lineup as if they were dependent on each other in the NFL.. 

 So for fantasy purposes, why does it matter if they are stacked or not?

if you do the stack, you’re creating the same dependency found in real life  football as a dependency on your  magical  football  team.  

That dependency already exists in real  football, but is not necessary to your magical football team. 

 Just clarifying what I mean about independent and dependent. Obviously if one player throws a ball and another player catches it there is an inherent dependency. The question is whether mimicking that on your magical team has any added benefit or detriment. 

 
kutta said:
I bolded the crux of what just isn't making sense to me.

In the first sentence you say you acknowledge that in a stack, a good day from a QB may absolutely result in a good day from the WR.

Then you say it has nothing to do with stacking.

Here's an example. You have Mahomes, Hill, and JuJu. You hear Mahomes threw 6 TD's in the morning game, and you've heard nothing about what Big Ben did. Are you pretty excited to see Hill's stats? Of course you are, because a big day from Mahomes at least has a chance of resulting in a big game for Hill. JuJu may or may not have a big day.

Anyway, I'm guessing that I am just not understanding your point, so I am fine agreeing to disagree.
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense to me, so maybe were speaking different languages. 

QB 1  scores 20 points 

WR 1  scores 20 points 

QB 2 scores 20 points 

WR2  scores 20 points 

What difference does it make which combination  of QB/WR you have  on your magical team?  At the end of the day you still scored 40 points  from those two positions. 

If you can explain why one combination is better than the other, I will fully concede that your stacking theory has merit. 

Your level of excitement over what player may have done what or not isn't relevant to whether stacking as effective or not. 

in your hypothetical example, Mahomes could’ve thrown those six touchdowns to everybody but your receiver. 

So while you personally may be excited about what Hill did  because you have that stack,  it isn’t relevant to what Hill actually did or did not do. 

The fact is that JuJu could well have had a much better day than Hill in that scenario. Because it’s possible for Mahomes to have a great day and Tyreek Hill to have a terrible day. That is one possible outcome. 

Unless you’re talking about a Schrödinger's cat scenario where  tyreek Hill both had a great day and a bad day until you observe the results? 

 That’s a whole other level of thought experiment. lol 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
It makes perfect sense to me, so maybe were speaking different languages. 

QB 1  scores 20 points 

WR 1  scores 20 points 

QB 2 scores 20 points 

WR2  scores 20 points 

What difference does it make which combination  of QB/WR you have  on your magical team?  At the end of the day you still scored 40 points  from those two positions. 

If you can explain why one combination is better than the other, I will fully concede that your stacking theory has merit. 

Your level of excitement over what player may have done what or not isn't relevant to whether stacking as effective or not. 

in your hypothetical example, Mahomes could’ve thrown those six touchdowns to everybody but your receiver. 

So while you personally may be excited about what Hill did  because you have that stack,  it isn’t relevant to what Hill actually did or did not do. 

The fact is that JuJu could well have had a much better day than Hill in that scenario. Because it’s possible for Mahomes to have a great day and Tyreek Hill to have a terrible day. That is one possible outcome. 

Unless you’re talking about a Schrödinger's cat scenario where  tyreek Hill both had a great day and a bad day until you observe the results? 

 That’s a whole other level of thought experiment. lol 
Click to expand...
So you think Mahomes throwing six TD's isn't relevant to what Hill did? Really?

So Mahonmes throws six TD's and Big Ben throws one TD. Would you say the chances that Hill and JuJu scored a TD are exactly the same?

 
kutta said:
So you think Mahomes throwing six TD's isn't relevant to what Hill did? Really?

So Mahonmes throws six TD's and Big Ben throws one TD. Would you say the chances that Hill and JuJu scored a TD are exactly the same?
Click to expand...
Oy.

 It’s not about what I think. It’s about what I know. And I know for a fact that Mahomes could throw six touchdowns and Hill could catch zero touchdowns.  

Both of those things, and everything in between, are on the list of possible outcomes.  So absolutely yes, juju could catch one touchdown for 80 yards with five short passes for another 50 and have a 130 yard day with a touchdown and do better than Tyreek Hill, even if Mahomes throw six touchdowns that day. 

You are using extreme single-game hypotheticals to justify a draft strategy  for a seasonal league . 

 In your scenario, Tyreek Hill could catch all six, catch five, catch four, catch three, catch two, catch one, or catch a cold and miss the game altogether. 

Any of those things are possible.  But more importantly, it is also possible that an equal caliber elite wide receiver  from another team could also have a great day that day.  Or a bad day, or anything in between, just like Tyreek Hill. 

 The fact is Mahomes is going to throw the touchdowns he throws, and Tyreek Hill is going to catch the touchdowns he catches. In real life NFL football there is a direct relationship there. So yes, absolutely, you could hypothetically get all six touchdowns for Tyreek Hill. But you could also get zero touchdowns for Tyreek Hill in the exact same scenario. 

 That said, none of that is relevant to whether that stack of players is a better drafting strategy  for a seasonal league over drafting equal (or better) caliber players from different teams. 

 I get the impression that you would draft Tyreek Hill over Hopkins if you had Mahomes as your quarterback because you feel the “stack” gives Hilll more value. 

 I don’t see how that’s remotely possible. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Oy.

 It’s not about what I think. It’s about what I know. And I know for a fact that Mahomes could throw six touchdowns and Hill could catch zero touchdowns.  

Both of those things, and everything in between, are on the list of possible outcomes.  So absolutely yes, juju could catch one touchdown for 80 yards with five short passes for another 50 and have a 130 yard day with a touchdown and do better than Tyreek Hill, even if Mahomes throw six touchdowns that day. 

You are using extreme single-game hypotheticals to justify a draft strategy  for a seasonal league . 

 In your scenario, Tyreek Hill could catch all six, catch five, catch four, catch three, catch two, catch one, or catch a cold and miss the game altogether. 

Any of those things are possible.  But more importantly, it is also possible that an equal caliber elite wide receiver  from another team could also have a great day that day.  Or a bad day, or anything in between, just like Tyreek Hill. 

 The fact is the  I Mahomes is going to throw the touchdowns he throws, and Tyreek Hill is going to catch the touchdowns he catches. In real life NFL football there is a direct relationship there. So yes, absolutely, you could hypothetically get all six touchdowns for Tyreek Hill. But you could also get zero touchdowns for Tyreek Hill in the exact same scenario. 

 That said, none of that is relevant to whether that stack of players is a better drafting strategy  for a seasonal league over drafting equal (or better) caliber players from different teams. 

 I get the impression that you would draft Tyreek Hill over Hopkins if you had Mahomes as your quarterback because you feel the “stack” gives he’ll more value. 

 I don’t see how that’s remotely possible. 
Click to expand...
You didn’t answer the question. I think you’re saying the chances are equal that they both catch a TD in my scenario above?

 
kutta said:
You didn’t answer the question. I think you’re saying the chances are equal that they both catch a TD in my scenario above?
Click to expand...
 I’ll answer that as soon as you answer my repeated questions about why any combination of players is more valuable than any other when they both score the same points. You’ve evaded that repeatedly. 

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
 I’ll answer that as soon as you answer my repeated questions about why any combination of players is more valuable than any other when they both score the same points. You’ve evaded that repeatedly. 
Click to expand...
In a stack...the probability of the WR having a good day if the QB has a good day is increased over a totally independent set of players.  This is based on the assumption that a QB has a good day.  Of course nobody knows ahead of time if this happens.  However, in @kutta example if Mahomes throws six td's the probability of Hill having a good day is increased.  Will it happen for sure....of course not.  But the probability is higher.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
 I’ll answer that as soon as you answer my repeated questions about why any combination of players is more valuable than any other when they both score the same points. You’ve evaded that repeatedly. 
Click to expand...
I haven't evaded it at all. I agree with that.

My point though, is that when you have a stack, and your QB has a big day, your WR is more likely to have a big day. Those big days help you win games. And I have granted that the bad games make you more likely to lose games.

Maybe saying it this way will help - Let's say we have a stack (Mahomes and Hill), and a non stack (Rodgers and JuJu). Let's grant that Mahomes and Rodgers score the same total points at the end of the year, and so do Hill and JuJu. My point is you are more likely to have a few big games with Mahomes and Hill, because when one goes off, the other has a chance to go off too - they are correlated. The Rodgers/JuJu combo isn't correlated at all, so if they have big games it is just coincidence. That's it. Can we agree on that at least?

 
Gally said:
In a stack...the probability of the WR having a good day if the QB has a good day is increased over a totally independent set of players.  This is based on the assumption that a QB has a good day.  Of course nobody knows ahead of time if this happens.  However, in @kutta example if Mahomes throws six td's the probability of Hill having a good day is increased.  Will it happen for sure....of course not.  But the probability is higher.
Click to expand...
As a defense of @kutta‘s  hypothetical, that’s perfectly sensible. 

As defense of the concept of “stacking“ as a season long strategy? Not  convincing. 

Obviously I agree, have agreed, and will continue to agree with the fact that if someone like Mahomes has a huge day, there is a probability the Tyreek Hill will also have a huge day.  But it’s just that… A probability. You even acknowledge that it is not a guarantee. So how can this perceived value be created from something it is merely a possibility, or even a probability? 

 You specifically state that it creates a  “greater” probability.

How do you quantify the probability as greater than if you have two players on separate teams having big days  independent of each other within the context of an NFL game? e.g. why would your Hill/Mahomes “stack”  be more valuable than say my Mahomes/Hopkins duo? 

 Just because Hill “might“ have the occasional monster game with Mahomes doesn’t mean you should take Tyreek Hill over DeAndre Hopkins because you have Patrick Mahomes as your quarterback. 

By suggesting that Hill has more value to the Mahomes owner  to achieve the stack , that seems to be the implication. That somehow this magical value created from hypothetical situations is going to change the real world value of either DeAndre Hopkins or Tyreek hill so that they flip-flop in our preseason projections for them. 

 And I’m still not seeing how that’s possible.  I’m not seeing why having Mahomes/hill would be more valuable in any way, shape, or form, then having Mahomes/Hopkins. 

The only thing that changes their value on a weekly basis would be the matchups they are facing. That’s why people stack in DFS. But for season long fantasy leagues, there will theoretically be an averaging out across the schedule of favorable matchups and unfavorable matchups.  

Over the course of the year, you want to have the players that scored the most points at each position.  Whether they are stacked or not they’re going to score what they are going to score.  But stacking them  in your lineup doesn’t give them more points. 

 I’m not saying stacking players can’t be exciting. Getting a long double touchdown is one of the holy Grails of fantasy football.  I have had  many such combinations of players over the last 20 years of playing this game. It is definitely a woo hoo moment.  

 But it doesn’t add any value in real terms. It merely creates an exciting moment during a game. 

 Let me put it another way: do you have Patrick Mahomes and you have the Kansas City kicker.  You might speculate that with such a high scoring quarterback you’re going to stack a kicker with him so that every one of the touchdowns Mahomes passes for is now seven points instead of six. 

 You might also speculate that was such a high scoring offense that will be the number one kicker. 

And you might be right. Or, that kicker might be less valuable than many others due to the fact they’re kicking PAT instead of FG. 

It is also not a guarantee they make every PAT. So you’ve stacked your kicker to get those seven point touchdowns but you only get six From time to time.

Meanwhile, another kicker on a lower scoring team may go five for five on field goals and have a monster day compared to your kicker who had one field goal and two PAT‘s. 

And in the rare event the Kansas City gets shut out by another team’s defense, you might get zero from that kicker AND  below average day  from your quarterback 

 The point is, you can speculate all day on what might happen.  But speculation does not add real world value to fantasy players.  Combining them on your team only consolidates risk. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
As a defense of @kutta‘s  hypothetical, that’s perfectly sensible. 

As defense of the concept of “stacking“ as a season long strategy? Not  convincing. 

Obviously I agree, have agreed, and will continue to agree with the fact that if someone like Mahomes has a huge day, there is a probability the Tyreek Hill will also have a huge day.  But it’s just that… A probability. You even acknowledge that it is not a guarantee. So how can this perceived value be created from something it is merely a possibility, or even a probability? 

 You specifically state that it creates a  “greater” probability.

How do you quantify the probability as greater than if you have two players on separate teams having big days  independent of each other within the context of an NFL game? e.g. why would your Hill/Mahomes “stack”  be more valuable than say my Mahomes/Hopkins duo? 

 Just because Hill “might“ have the occasional monster game with Mahomes doesn’t mean you should take Tyreek Hill over DeAndre Hopkins because you have Patrick Mahomes as your quarterback. 

By suggesting that Hill has more value to the Mahomes owner  to achieve the stack , that seems to be the implication. That somehow this magical value created from hypothetical situations is going to change the real world value of either DeAndre Hopkins or Tyreek hill so that they flip-flop in our preseason projections for them. 

 And I’m still not seeing how that’s possible.  I’m not seeing why having Mahomes/hill would be more valuable in any way, shape, or form, then having Mahomes/Hopkins. 

The only thing that changes their value on a weekly basis would be the matchups they are facing. That’s why people stack in DFS. But for season long fantasy leagues, there will theoretically be an averaging out across the schedule of favorable matchups and unfavorable matchups.  

Over the course of the year, you want to have the players that scored the most points at each position.  Whether they are stacked or not they’re going to score what they are going to score.  But stacking them  in your lineup doesn’t give them more points. 

 I’m not saying stacking players can’t be exciting. Getting a long double touchdown is one of the holy Grails of fantasy football.  I have had  many such combinations of players over the last 20 years of playing this game. It is definitely a woo hoo moment.  

 But it doesn’t add any value in real terms. It merely creates an exciting moment during a game. 

 Let me put it another way: do you have Patrick Mahomes and you have the Kansas City kicker.  You might speculate that with such a high scoring quarterback you’re going to stack a kicker with him so that every one of the touchdowns Mahomes passes for is now seven points instead of six. 

 You might also speculate that was such a high scoring offense that will be the number one kicker. 

And you might be right. Or, that kicker might be less valuable than many others due to the fact they’re kicking PAT instead of FG. 

It is also not a guarantee they make every PAT. So you’ve stacked your kicker to get those seven point touchdowns but you only get six From time to time.

Meanwhile, another kicker on a lower scoring team may go five for five on field goals and have a monster day compared to your kicker who had one field goal and two PAT‘s. 

And in the rare event the Kansas City gets shut out by another team’s defense, you might get zero from that kicker AND  below average day  from your quarterback 

 The point is, you can speculate all day on what might happen.  But speculation does not add real world value to fantasy players.  Combining them on your team only consolidates risk. 
Click to expand...
You are arguing a case that I am not debating.  I do not purposely go for stacks and don't sacrifice to get it.

My only argument was a game specific argument for a game where you are a heavy underdog and need everything to maximize.  In that case you need your QB to have a huge game so by going with a stack you increase the probability of your WR also having a good game (assuming your QB has the big game that you need).  It is one specific situation for a one week game.

 
Gally said:
You are arguing a case that I am not debating.  I do not purposely go for stacks and don't sacrifice to get it.

My only argument was a game specific argument for a game where you are a heavy underdog and need everything to maximize.  In that case you need your QB to have a huge game so by going with a stack you increase the probability of your WR also having a good game (assuming your QB has the big game that you need).  It is one specific situation for a one week game.
Click to expand...
Right.

thats why it’s a viable DFS strategy. 

I’ve acknowledged that, and was even the first to bring it up. 

But the topic at hand is “redraft stacks & stacking”.

That’s what the debate has been about, so if you’re debating a different thing that the topic you’re posting on, that’s probably why we’re not seeing eye to eye. :lol:  

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
As a defense of @kutta‘s  hypothetical, that’s perfectly sensible. 

As defense of the concept of “stacking“ as a season long strategy? Not  convincing. 

Obviously I agree, have agreed, and will continue to agree with the fact that if someone like Mahomes has a huge day, there is a probability the Tyreek Hill will also have a huge day.  But it’s just that… A probability. You even acknowledge that it is not a guarantee. So how can this perceived value be created from something it is merely a possibility, or even a probability? 

 You specifically state that it creates a  “greater” probability.

How do you quantify the probability as greater than if you have two players on separate teams having big days  independent of each other within the context of an NFL game? e.g. why would your Hill/Mahomes “stack”  be more valuable than say my Mahomes/Hopkins duo? 

 Just because Hill “might“ have the occasional monster game with Mahomes doesn’t mean you should take Tyreek Hill over DeAndre Hopkins because you have Patrick Mahomes as your quarterback. 

By suggesting that Hill has more value to the Mahomes owner  to achieve the stack , that seems to be the implication. That somehow this magical value created from hypothetical situations is going to change the real world value of either DeAndre Hopkins or Tyreek hill so that they flip-flop in our preseason projections for them. 

 And I’m still not seeing how that’s possible.  I’m not seeing why having Mahomes/hill would be more valuable in any way, shape, or form, then having Mahomes/Hopkins. 

The only thing that changes their value on a weekly basis would be the matchups they are facing. That’s why people stack in DFS. But for season long fantasy leagues, there will theoretically be an averaging out across the schedule of favorable matchups and unfavorable matchups.  

Over the course of the year, you want to have the players that scored the most points at each position.  Whether they are stacked or not they’re going to score what they are going to score.  But stacking them  in your lineup doesn’t give them more points. 

 I’m not saying stacking players can’t be exciting. Getting a long double touchdown is one of the holy Grails of fantasy football.  I have had  many such combinations of players over the last 20 years of playing this game. It is definitely a woo hoo moment.  

 But it doesn’t add any value in real terms. It merely creates an exciting moment during a game. 

 Let me put it another way: do you have Patrick Mahomes and you have the Kansas City kicker.  You might speculate that with such a high scoring quarterback you’re going to stack a kicker with him so that every one of the touchdowns Mahomes passes for is now seven points instead of six. 

 You might also speculate that was such a high scoring offense that will be the number one kicker. 

And you might be right. Or, that kicker might be less valuable than many others due to the fact they’re kicking PAT instead of FG. 

It is also not a guarantee they make every PAT. So you’ve stacked your kicker to get those seven point touchdowns but you only get six From time to time.

Meanwhile, another kicker on a lower scoring team may go five for five on field goals and have a monster day compared to your kicker who had one field goal and two PAT‘s. 

And in the rare event the Kansas City gets shut out by another team’s defense, you might get zero from that kicker AND  below average day  from your quarterback 

 The point is, you can speculate all day on what might happen.  But speculation does not add real world value to fantasy players.  Combining them on your team only consolidates risk. 
Click to expand...
OK. We are close enough. 

The kicker argument is kind of silly and non-applicable to this discussion.

I'm willing to agree to disagree at this point.

Thanks for the discussion.

 
This entire thread has been fascinating to read.  

As to the more recent conversation, I think you both made great points.  Your season-long point total potential is unaffected by stacks given equally talented players. Your probable weekly variance is more likely to be higher with a stack than without, similar to portfolio diversification.

Even the stories early in the thread of the legendary stacks dominating leagues until a single bad game in the playoffs shows you where high variance can get you. The Brady moss or Manning broncos stacks seemed like for sure wins. 

So, I’m gathering that consistency is more important than variance assuming you have an above average team.

So I won’t worry about it too much this weekend.  As someone pointed out, going after a stack for the purpose of stacking at the cost of VBD isn’t smart especially since it seems stacking isn’t a viable season long strategy. 

 
TimmyG said:
This entire thread has been fascinating to read.  

As to the more recent conversation, I think you both made great points.  Your season-long point total potential is unaffected by stacks given equally talented players. Your probable weekly variance is more likely to be higher with a stack than without, similar to portfolio diversification.

Even the stories early in the thread of the legendary stacks dominating leagues until a single bad game in the playoffs shows you where high variance can get you. The Brady moss or Manning broncos stacks seemed like for sure wins. 

So, I’m gathering that consistency is more important than variance assuming you have an above average team.

So I won’t worry about it too much this weekend.  As someone pointed out, going after a stack for the purpose of stacking at the cost of VBD isn’t smart especially since it seems stacking isn’t a viable season long strategy. 
Click to expand...
Perfectly summarized. 

We all have our draft strategy - and for DFS I get stacking.

but for season-long redraft I cant imagine why anyone would want to increase risk for the possibility of a few feel-good moments over the course of the year. 

Each to their own I guess. I’ve given more than my $.02 on the matter. I won’t say I told ya so to stackers. 

The worst thing that can happen to a fantasy manager is that they do it & have success. Because they’ll automatically believe it was the stack that was responsible, and not having an overall good team that won those games / season for them. ;)  

 
TimmyG said:
This entire thread has been fascinating to read.  

As to the more recent conversation, I think you both made great points.  Your season-long point total potential is unaffected by stacks given equally talented players. Your probable weekly variance is more likely to be higher with a stack than without, similar to portfolio diversification.

Even the stories early in the thread of the legendary stacks dominating leagues until a single bad game in the playoffs shows you where high variance can get you. The Brady moss or Manning broncos stacks seemed like for sure wins. 

So, I’m gathering that consistency is more important than variance assuming you have an above average team.

So I won’t worry about it too much this weekend.  As someone pointed out, going after a stack for the purpose of stacking at the cost of VBD isn’t smart especially since it seems stacking isn’t a viable season long strategy. 
Click to expand...
And now I'm dragged back in...

That's quite a leap to the bolded statements, and just simply not true.

Why can't good games in the playoffs also show where variance gets you? Again, it's granting the negative but not the positive. 

Maybe it's mindset. I truly am an all or nothing kind of player. I'll take the highs and lows instead of the middle ground, and I'll hope those highs come at the right time.

And I don't quite get your Manning/Thomas analogy. They had two amazing games in weeks 14 and 16, and Manning was decent in 15, and Thomas wasn't so great. But still, you are almost guaranteed wins in weeks 14 and in the championship game with those guys. If you make it through 15, it's a championship. I'll take those chances every day.

 
Might have been quite a leap to say consistency is better than variance with an above average team, but it’s worth considering. I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.  my view now seems if you have a below average team, seeking out a high variance combo like a stack could help you swing for the fences a little more (being consistently below average vs the variance of peaking during certain weeks. Also why I mentioned if your team is above average perhaps consistently is better) I don’t know enough about it to know if that’s true or not.

The Manning and Brady examples I mentioned I thought had been talked about earlier in the thread with other people’s personal experience. They both seemed to dominate in the regular season but had a single weak playoff game. 

I think your your mindset is fine. My league only pays first for regular season and first for playoffs so 2nd is as good as 12th.

ill be honest one of the reasons I started thinking about this is because an auto generated comment after a rate my team in the draft dominator. I was mock drafting and took Beckham and Chubb. It mentioned that combination will make my team more consistent and it got me thinking about all this.

I don’t know the answers to all this which is why I made the topic... to hear different views on it. 

 
kutta said:
And now I'm dragged back in...
Click to expand...
Oh c’mon, dragged? lol - you’re diving in head first. :lol:  

That's quite a leap to the bolded statements, and just simply not true.

Why can't good games in the playoffs also show where variance gets you? Again, it's granting the negative but not the positive. 
Click to expand...
They can. But (for the 20th time) it is no different than any two players on any team or teams. 

That’s the point you seem to keep missing here. 

If you have a QB/WR tandem or a QB & WR from two different teams, they can perform equally. 

By creating a dependency on your team where the QB must do well for the WR to do well, the only predictable factor is that one could harm the other. With diversification, that isn’t the case. 

So no one is dwelling on the negative. It’s just that the positive is a wash. 

And the “stack” is only as good as their matchup that week. So it’s not the stack that’s the viable strategy, it’s playing SOS. 

Which is exactly why “stacking” works in DFS, and why it would be incredibly difficult to employ as a strategy in Redraft.

Maybe it's mindset. I truly am an all or nothing kind of player. I'll take the highs and lows instead of the middle ground, and I'll hope those highs come at the right time.
Click to expand...
But it could be all or nothing with two different players too. 

You create nothing but risk with a stack, because you can’t assume the reward. And the reward could be the same for the stack as with players on two or 3 or 4 different teams. 

And I don't quite get your Manning/Thomas analogy. They had two amazing games in weeks 14 and 16, and Manning was decent in 15, and Thomas wasn't so great. But still, you are almost guaranteed wins in weeks 14 and in the championship game with those guys. If you make it through 15, it's a championship. I'll take those chances every day.
Click to expand...
You can absolutely win by stacking. Just like you can absolutely win with diversification. 

But what you can’t do with stacking it mitigate risk through diversification. You cannot have a bad day from your QB & expect to have a banner day from your TE/WR on the same team. 

So you live by then sword & die by the sword. And that’s fine - but pretending there’s any added benefit from a stack is madness. The only possible benefit is from having several players in a good matchup.

so then the topic isn’t “redraft stacking strategy”, it’s “strength of schedule stacking strategy”. 

If you believe Mahomes, Hill & Kelce have awesome matchups weeks 14-15-16, by all means draft all 3 if you’re able, and good luck making the post season. They're all excellent players so there’s no doubt that can work.

but it ain’t because of stacking. It’s because of matchups. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like a lot of “stacks” chatter this year in early FFPC drafts. Still don’t think it’s a great strategy, but people are into it. 

 
Ilov80s said:
I can’t say for FFPC specifically but I think the math and win rates show you need to be stacking for best ball leagues at least. 
Click to expand...
Wow, blast from the past topic. 

I do like it for best ball - I hadn’t considered that back in 2019 when this topic popped up. 

I still like the idea of diversifying more in standard scoring leagues. The whole “sympathetic injury” caused by losing say, a QB in a QB/WR/RB “stack” could tank a team completely, and the upside of doing it could be limited by facing tough defenses all at once. Bad enough to have a QB facing the Ravens, now you have a stack facing a tough D. 

So for me the risk just isn’t worth the reward as compared to DFS, where you’re deliberately stacking because of a perceived single weak defensive matchup. 

But best ball formats this is a really good way to play though - good call. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I prefer the QB-RB stack from a good offense.  This ensures you get a piece of 90% of TD's for that team.

I also don'tvworry about stacking in a draft unless I am debating two players that I have rated identical.  If that is not the case I prefer the guy I have rated higher even if it puts me in a stack.

 
I also don'tvworry about stacking in a draft unless I am debating two players that I have rated identical.  If that is not the case I prefer the guy I have rated higher even if it puts me in a stack.
Click to expand...
There is a nice psychological boost from “the double” for sure. In terms of leagues where it’s all friends and you’re on group texts with trash talk, there’s something really fun about an 87 yard TD from Mahomes to Hill when you’ve got both. 

But in reality it’s no different than Mahomes having an 87 yard TD & ARob having an 87 yard TD on your roster. Points are points. 

 
Gally said:
I prefer the QB-RB stack from a good offense.  This ensures you get a piece of 90% of TD's for that team.

I also don'tvworry about stacking in a draft unless I am debating two players that I have rated identical.  If that is not the case I prefer the guy I have rated higher even if it puts me in a stack.
Click to expand...
The negative about that is it limits your upside. If the RB runs for 3 TDs, that’s 3 TDs your QB didn’t get a piece of. If the RB is a highly used pass catcher, it doesn’t matter as much but I would avoid a Tannehill-Henry stack or a Wilson-Carson stack. 

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Wow, blast from the past topic. 

I do like it for best ball - I hadn’t considered that back in 2019 when this roof popped up. 

I still like the idea of diversifying more in standard scoring leagues. The whole “sympathetic injury” caused by losing say, a QB in a QB/WR/RB “stack” could tank a team completely, and the upside of doing it could be limited by facing tough defenses all at once. Bad enough to have a QB facing the Ravens, now you have a stack facing a tough D. 

So for me the risk just isn’t worth the reward as compared to DFS, where you’re deliberately stacking because of a perceived single weak defensive matchup. 

But best ball formats this is a really good way to play though - good call. 
Click to expand...
Yeah injury doesn’t matter as much for large Best Ball tourneys, especially when talking about your top players. If one of them gets hurt for an extended time, you are probably done anyway since your team has to be almost perfect to beat thousands of other entries.

 
Ilov80s said:
The negative about that is it limits your upside. If the RB runs for 3 TDs, that’s 3 TDs your QB didn’t get a piece of. If the RB is a highly used pass catcher, it doesn’t matter as much but I would avoid a Tannehill-Henry stack or a Wilson-Carson stack. 
Click to expand...
I don't avoid necessarily as I stated that I take the highest rated guy when drafting.  Only if two guys are identical do I worry about the stack.  It's also I why I added that they need to be on high scoring offenses as I wouldn't want the QB-RB stack from last years Jets

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gally said:
I don't avoid necessarily asbi stated that I take the highest rated guy when drafting.  Only if two guys are identical do I worry about the stack.  It's also I why I added that they need to be on high scoring offenses as I wouldn't want the QB-RB stack from last years Jets
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was just more of my opinion and less of a direct criticism of your strategy. Also format makes such a big difference in these approaches. 

 
Ilov80s said:
The negative about that is it limits your upside. If the RB runs for 3 TDs, that’s 3 TDs your QB didn’t get a piece of. If the RB is a highly used pass catcher, it doesn’t matter as much but I would avoid a Tannehill-Henry stack or a Wilson-Carson stack. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree that a QB-WR stack makes more sense, unless it’s a highly productive offense. 

I’ve had the QB/RB on a team before with Manning/Edge, and it seemed like every week they’d pass for a few TDs to Wayne/Harrison, then eat clock with Edge.

But IMO that’s more rare than what you used as an example where the RB gets a few 1-2 yard gimmies & your QB has a middling “ticker tease” kinda day where the offense scores 35 but your QB has a 14 point game. 

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Yeah, I agree that a QB-WR stack makes more sense, unless it’s a highly productive offense. 

I’ve had the QB/RB on a team before with Manning/Edge, and it seemed like every week they’d pass for a few TDs to Wayne/Harrison, then eat clock with Edge.

But IMO that’s more rare than what you used as an example where the RB gets a few 1-2 yard gimmies & your QB has a middling “ticker tease” kinda day where the offense scores 35 but your QB has a 14 point game. 
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be upset if I ended up with a Dak-Zeke stack or Rodgers-Jones stack (assuming he AR plays for GB) but I wouldn't go out of my way to get those stacks either where as I would go out of my way to get Dak-Cooper-Gallup or Rodgers-Adams for best ball. 

 
kutta said:
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.
Click to expand...
Moss played with Randall Cunningham and Brad Johnson his rookie year. 2nd season it was Jeff George and Cunningham. The Vikings traded Brad Johnson to Tampa Bay for the pick they used on Culpepper in 1999 but Culpepper didnt play until 2000.

 
ericttspikes said:
Seems like a lot of “stacks” chatter this year in early FFPC drafts. Still don’t think it’s a great strategy, but people are into it. 
Click to expand...
As humans we enjoy noticing patterns of things even if those patterns have no predictive ability the observation of patterns repeating causes us to think they do.

If you are listening to the talking heads things like this make for good content I suppose.

 
I don’t consciously draft stacks but Ii definitely tilt toward top offenses. For instance, this year I’ll be comfortable taking any of the Rams five FF viable skill position players if it fits my needs during the draft. In my mocks this summer an overwhelming majority of my players are coming from the same 8-10-12 teams.

 
Biabreakable said:
As humans we enjoy noticing patterns of things even if those patterns have no predictive ability the observation of patterns repeating causes us to think they do.

If you are listening to the talking heads things like this make for good content I suppose.
Click to expand...
Thats basically it. You had a stack with CPep/Moss & it was fun. 

Some might observe that and think, “yes! He had fun because of the stack!”

but really you had fun because you had two incredibly productive players, and the relationship between them was more interesting due to timing of positive events rather than the events themselves. 

Say you had CPep & another highly productive WR on another team who scored something comparable to rookie Moss.

Your team scores roughly the same # of points, just not at the same exact time like CPep to Moss.  But you score lots of points anyway & you have fun regardless. 

It sure does make for great trash talk when you get a double, or a couple doubles in a game.  
 

The year both Jordy Nelson & Randal Cobb went bananas I had all 3 of Rodgers. Cobb & Nelson. I think it was 2014? Yeah. That was extremely lots of fun. I didn’t set out with a plan to have them all - or any, really.  They were collectively BPA for where I drafted at the 12 spot that year in various rounds. RB-RB then 3-4 was Nelson/ARod (we had a crazy 10 point bonus for 300+ PaYd), then 5-6 RB-Cobb. 

One of the whopping 3 ‘ships I've won.

And I still don’t believe in the stack. lol

 
There's actually math on this. Game to game, stacks, esp QB/WR, increase your volatility. Because so many football games exist where one team dominates the other, stacking makes it so that you are less likely to have a diversity of game types across your roster on any given Sunday.

 
Instinctive said:
There's actually math on this. Game to game, stacks, esp QB/WR, increase your volatility. Because so many football games exist where one team dominates the other, stacking makes it so that you are less likely to have a diversity of game types across your roster on any given Sunday.
Click to expand...
Of course. All your eggs in one basket. SOS plays a massive role as compared to diversification. In a game where the goal is to score as many points as possible week to week to beat your randomly scheduled opponent, one bad defensive matchup for a “stack” in week 15 & that team’s likely to get bounced from the playoffs.

My example above of ARod/Cobb/Jordy was flukey as hell, and *only* would have been successful in 2014.  If someone tried that with Mahomes/Kelce/Hill the last 3 seasons, there’s probably only 1 where it would have worked (Mahomes rookie season), and none since.  And in years where Hill or Kelce have been dinged up. Mahomes numbers suffered as a result.

Diversity mitigates all of this & week to week will improve one’s chances of winning. 

The very concept of “stacking” comes from DFS, where you are specifically attempting to exploit favorable matchups for a given day.  I just don’t see any way that can effectively be applied to a full schedule of games. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Instinctive said:
There's actually math on this. Game to game, stacks, esp QB/WR, increase your volatility. Because so many football games exist where one team dominates the other, stacking makes it so that you are less likely to have a diversity of game types across your roster on any given Sunday.
Click to expand...
Yep, the more teams in the league and the more top heavy the payout, the more you should lean stacking. I know people often talk about consistency for their fantasy players/teams but that often just means having an average team that scores average all the time. That usually won't take 1st, you want players and teams that can score a lot of points any given week. Tying a QB and pass catchers together increases the chances of those big week or an outlier high scoring season. 

 
Ilov80s said:
Yep, the more teams in the league and the more top heavy the payout, the more you should lean stacking. I know people often talk about consistency for their fantasy players/teams but that often just means having an average team that scores average all the time. That usually won't take 1st, you want players and teams that can score a lot of points any given week. Tying a QB and pass catchers together increases the chances of those big week or an outlier high scoring season. 
Click to expand...
But it also equally increases the chances of multiple players having a dud.

💡 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ffmail4me
2024 Dynasty Startup Thread
Replies
19
Views
1K
Gally
G
A
2021 Top 50- First Look
2 3 4
Replies
169
Views
11K
travdogg
T
T
Travdogg's Free Agency Predictions and 2 round mock (updated 4/8/22)
2
Replies
73
Views
3K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top