Any of you have trouble starting a player... (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

Curious about the theories on this. I really, REALLY want to play my Chiefs defense this week. I can easily see a scenario where the Vikings don't score an offensive touchdown, and I see K.C. getting some sacks and picks as well. The problem is that I also have A-Pete, and taking Minnesota's opponent out of the equation for a moment, he would probably be my RB2 this week (just ahead of Edge, who has a brutal matchup in Baltimore.)

This is not a disguised WSIS, I assure you. I simply want to know if it gives you reason for pause when a player you are considering is going up against your defense? I want to root for the Chiefs to completely shut down the Vikings, and I will be conflicted if I also start Peterson. I've been playing FF for 20 years now, and this has always made me uncomfortable.



Thoughts?

 

[Sheriff66]

Curious about the theories on this. I really, REALLY want to play my Chiefs defense this week. I can easily see a scenario where the Vikings don't score an offensive touchdown, and I see K.C. getting some sacks and picks as well. The problem is that I also have A-Pete, and taking Minnesota's opponent out of the equation for a moment, he would probably be my RB2 this week (just ahead of Edge, who has a brutal matchup in Baltimore.)This is not a disguised WSIS, I assure you. I simply want to know if it gives you reason for pause when a player you are considering is going up against your defense? I want to root for the Chiefs to completely shut down the Vikings, and I will be conflicted if I also start Peterson. I've been playing FF for 20 years now, and this has always made me uncomfortable. Thoughts?

I don't like rooting for my players when they are playing the Steelers, I just hope for a shootout with the Steelers winning by 3 at the end, but I don't play RBs against the Steelers 99.9% of the time anyway.

 

[hellz_fireflies]

Curious about the theories on this. I really, REALLY want to play my Chiefs defense this week. I can easily see a scenario where the Vikings don't score an offensive touchdown, and I see K.C. getting some sacks and picks as well. The problem is that I also have A-Pete, and taking Minnesota's opponent out of the equation for a moment, he would probably be my RB2 this week (just ahead of Edge, who has a brutal matchup in Baltimore.)This is not a disguised WSIS, I assure you. I simply want to know if it gives you reason for pause when a player you are considering is going up against your defense? I want to root for the Chiefs to completely shut down the Vikings, and I will be conflicted if I also start Peterson. I've been playing FF for 20 years now, and this has always made me uncomfortable. Thoughts?

I average 7 leagues a season, and trust me if I cheer for a player on one of those leagues, no doubt a owner who I challenge has him that week also..I just play my best and let it go.

 

[packersfan]

Curious about the theories on this. I really, REALLY want to play my Chiefs defense this week. I can easily see a scenario where the Vikings don't score an offensive touchdown, and I see K.C. getting some sacks and picks as well. The problem is that I also have A-Pete, and taking Minnesota's opponent out of the equation for a moment, he would probably be my RB2 this week (just ahead of Edge, who has a brutal matchup in Baltimore.)This is not a disguised WSIS, I assure you. I simply want to know if it gives you reason for pause when a player you are considering is going up against your defense? I want to root for the Chiefs to completely shut down the Vikings, and I will be conflicted if I also start Peterson. I've been playing FF for 20 years now, and this has always made me uncomfortable. Thoughts?

I'm in the exact same boat. I have Peterson and am strongly contemplating picking up the Chiefs D this week. My league awards bonus points for team victories and the Chiefs - in my opinion - are looking good at home against the Vikings. So if they win, that's a big plus for my defense in my league. But while I like the Chiefs I also want to see Peterson do well. So then it comes down to other possibilities. For example:1. Is there another defense available on the WW that could get me the production I want this week?2. What is the floor for Peterson that will be acceptable should I start the Chiefs' defense?3. Is there another RB option you're more comfortable with (may be unlikely unless you're stacked given how good Peterson has been thus far).With regard to No. 2, this really boils down to the strength of your team and the type of scoring you're in. If you're in a PPR league, I think Peterson can (and will) put up solid RB2 numbers even if he doesn't score - which is what he did last week. So if the Chiefs do step up defensively, can Peterson at least get you 65+ rushing yards, 3-4 receptions and 30+ receiving yards? I think he can. I typically don't like playing my defenses against my top players but if they are the best option you have, then you have to go with them and hope your offensive players can at least put up decent numbers and the rest of your starting lineup can pick things up for anything those other players may not give you. I don't like starting inferior players so I wouldn't want to start the Jets defense, for example, over the Chiefs just to avoid the Peterson matchup.So I think it really comes down to the offensive player and what you think is the worst he can give you if he goes up against a good defense. If that "worst" is good enough then go with the defense that you think is the best and see what happens.For what it's worth, I'm 99.9% certain I'm starting the Chiefs this week. I think their matchup at home against a one-dimensional Minnesota offense is just too good to pass up.

 

[FFdork]

I think you have to start the best player you have at each position. There might be a situation once in a blue moon where I feel like I will need big points out of every position to get a W when I might worry about something like this.

 

[mad sweeney]

I used to adjust my lineups for this, but then couple of times where a benched player scored on my D changed my mind. My D lost points and I got nothing to offset it. Your players are going to score (or not) regardless of whether you have them in or out. Your D is going to lose points (or not) if your players score whether you have them in or out. So play your best players/matchups. If you bench a guy and he scores on your D, it's a double hit basically, and usually the O guy gets more points than a D loses, it's not a point for point loss. If you expect your D to shut down your guy then he's not the guy you want to play anyway.

 

[theJCdude]

I wouldn't do it. Because either way your losing points. If A-Pete has a great game your screwed, and if KC's D has a great game your screwed. During the draft I try to keep this from happening, but it's actually happening to me this weekend. I have Denver's D, but I also MJD for JAX. I was lucky enough to pick up Carolina's D of the wire, so I am starting them against a suckie beat up Altanta O.

Why? Because I believe JAX can't throw on Denver (Bly & Bailey), so JAXs is finally going (going to have to) to get their running game going, which is good for me (because I am starting MJD, because I can get the most points from him).

So try not too if you can. Start the most points possible, whether it be KC' D or A-Pete. I would start A-Pete, because KC is really messed up right now. I think this makes sense...

That's my 2 cents worth, anyway. peace...

 

[gurp13]

I have the opposite situation. I have, on the same team, the Minnesota D and Larry Johnson.

Sigh.

You can't sit your studs. So, I can't put in MLynch (he's the only other real option, unless I would consider putting in CBenson and even though Dallas' D sucks, I'm not feeling that desperate).

So, yeah, I know what you mean. How do you root in that game? I guess I could start the Titan D against NO. That might not be a bad play after all... Hmmmm...

:Off to go do some more research:

 

[prosopis]

none

 

[timoleander]

I was faced with this decision last week when I was trying to decide whether to start Galloway or Roy Williams as my WR2. I was also starting the MINN Defense, so I opted out of starting Williams and went with Galloway instead. It turned out to be a good decision, but Roy showed that he would have been a good start anyway (7/111 1TD).

However, had I not picked up Galloway off waivers earlier in the week, I would have started Roy over Lee Evans , that's for sure!

 

[madd futher]

Well, let's see...................in one of my leagues last week I picked up CIN D for a situational start against the disorganized Browns. I left Edwards AND Lewis on my bench!

Sure wrecks THAT theory!

 

[supersecretid]

Yes. I also feel obligated to eat a cheeseburger that I don't want just because I don't want to "waste" my money.

And if a new machine at my factory will save me more money than it costs to purchase, I won't purchase it because I just bought a machine a few months ago and I don't want to replace it so soon.

And if I'm at the casino and I see red come up 5 times in a row at the roulette table, you better believe I'm about to buy some large denomination chips to hop on black.

 

[SKribbles]

Completely depends on you defense scoring.

Our league only gives points for shutouts, sacks, picks, fumbles, safeties and kick returns. Since yardage and points allowed don't matter, starting a player against your D is non factor.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

Playing Schaub against the Colts D this week myself.

 

[radballs]

Curious about the theories on this. I really, REALLY want to play my Chiefs defense this week. I can easily see a scenario where the Vikings don't score an offensive touchdown, and I see K.C. getting some sacks and picks as well. The problem is that I also have A-Pete, and taking Minnesota's opponent out of the equation for a moment, he would probably be my RB2 this week (just ahead of Edge, who has a brutal matchup in Baltimore.)This is not a disguised WSIS, I assure you. I simply want to know if it gives you reason for pause when a player you are considering is going up against your defense? I want to root for the Chiefs to completely shut down the Vikings, and I will be conflicted if I also start Peterson. I've been playing FF for 20 years now, and this has always made me uncomfortable. Thoughts?

I average 7 leagues a season, and trust me if I cheer for a player on one of those leagues, no doubt a owner who I challenge has him that week also..I just play my best and let it go.

Always start your best players. Besides, why not look at it as though it's a slight hedge? And at the same time, why are you so high on KC's D? GL RN.

 

[Raider Nation]

Curious about the theories on this. I really, REALLY want to play my Chiefs defense this week. I can easily see a scenario where the Vikings don't score an offensive touchdown, and I see K.C. getting some sacks and picks as well. The problem is that I also have A-Pete, and taking Minnesota's opponent out of the equation for a moment, he would probably be my RB2 this week (just ahead of Edge, who has a brutal matchup in Baltimore.)This is not a disguised WSIS, I assure you. I simply want to know if it gives you reason for pause when a player you are considering is going up against your defense? I want to root for the Chiefs to completely shut down the Vikings, and I will be conflicted if I also start Peterson. I've been playing FF for 20 years now, and this has always made me uncomfortable. Thoughts?

I average 7 leagues a season, and trust me if I cheer for a player on one of those leagues, no doubt a owner who I challenge has him that week also..I just play my best and let it go.

Always start your best players. Besides, why not look at it as though it's a slight hedge? And at the same time, why are you so high on KC's D? GL RN.

In my league, defenses get BIG points for holding scoring down. Each defense starts the game with 20 points. If the other team scores 13, the defense now has 7, plus 1 point each for sacks and turnovers. If they give up only three, then they get 17, plus 1 for each sack/TO. So you can see why I'd be rooting for Peterson to not do much. Why I'm so high on them? I think they are very fast and vastly underrated. If Minnesota scored 7 or fewer points this week, I would not be shocked in the least.

 

[Raider Nation]

Yes. I also feel obligated to eat a cheeseburger that I don't want just because I don't want to "waste" my money.And if a new machine at my factory will save me more money than it costs to purchase, I won't purchase it because I just bought a machine a few months ago and I don't want to replace it so soon.And if I'm at the casino and I see red come up 5 times in a row at the roulette table, you better believe I'm about to buy some large denomination chips to hop on black.

I don't get it. If you could use a little more sarcasm, it might help to clear things up a bit.