I have noted in the opening paragraphs that the scoring for a DL is largely dependant on them getting a sack. They are the hardest to pick on a start/sit basis by far compared to other positions. If a DL gets a sack in FBG scoring, he gets 4 points for the sack, and 1.5 for the tackle. That is 5.5 points. The cutoff point is 7 points for a DL. If they get so much as one more tackle in the game, they hit the cutoff. I bet 95% of DL who get a sack hit the cutoff. With no sacks, a DL need 5 solo tackles to make it. I am betting about 15-20% of DL get 5 solos in a game. The sack makes the difference between hitting and missing in 90% of the picks.
Mario Williams had 3 tackles, no sacks. That is 4.5 points. I can only speak for myself, but if I start a DL and he does not get a sack, I'll gladly take 3 solos. Now lets take a close look at the reasons I picked Williams as a strong play. You can judge for yourself if it was a good pick or not.
He played against Harrington, who had been among the league leaders in getting sacked.
Did Williams sack him? No.
Did I think he would? Of course I did, and I bet the high majority of IDP players would play him against Atlanta.
Did he make enough points to hit the cutoff? No.
Would I make the same pick again? Damn right I would. I think it was a great pick. It just didn't work out. It doesn't mean the pick was bad, or not thought out, or made on bad analysis; it just didn't pan out. That is part of the game.
That example goes to show how you can make a good pick, and just not have it work out.
Here is another pick that didn't pan out. I picked Bears safety Danieal Manning. Safeties have put up solid numbers against the Lions. the Lions throw over 40 times a game, and often throw downfield. Manning had been playing safety, and I thought he would have a bunch of tackles and an odd coverage play or 2. But right before the game, the Bears decided to play him at CB, and specifically have him cover Roy Williams. My article went out Wednesday. The Bears made the decision to play him at CB Sunday. Too late for change. Had I known this, I would not have had Manning as a strong play. That is why I note the things that happen. If I make what I think is a bad pick, I say so. Manning was not a bad pick at the time I posted the article because I thought he was going to play safety.
As was noted, Sanders was injured during the game. I don't know how much he played. I would pick him again if I had to do it over. They played a team (Denver) that runs the ball a lot, and normally Sanders has solid fantasy numbers against running teams.
Brooking missed by 1 point. I would pick him again.
Cooper had 3 solos and 4 assists. The Chiefs threw the ball a lot more than I thought they would, and a lot of deep passes. I was not expecting that.
I am not making excuses. Regarding those 5 strong play misses, if I had to pick them again, I would pick all 5 again (assuming Manning was playing safety).
By the way, I hit on 5 of 6 of my weak plays. My comment about the one I missed on stated that it was a bad pick by me.
These middle of the level players are very hard to pick consistently. I do not take the easy way out and pick studs to start. I don't take the easy way out and pick scrubs as weak plays. I try to use the players that are borderline starts. I also try to find struggling players who I think can break out, and good players who I think should not play. If you do that, you aren't picking 80% or anything, sorry to say. There is a reason these players are hard to pick on a weekly basis.
I feel 50% is the middle. If I hit 60% of these players, I would feel pretty damn good. That is my goal.
