Better to get a "poor" #1, or a high upside #2 (1 Viewer)

[davidwb]

Wade appears to be the #1 guy in Minnesota, but it's team that probably won't throw much or have much success in the air.

Crayton is the #2 guy in Dallas (at least while Glen is out -- 2 weeks + or the season?), but he has good upside prospects.

Would you go for the #1 guy on a poor passing team, or the #2 guy with an upside? (Or will TO and Witten get all of the looks?)

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

I'm not sure what the heck your question is, but I'm sure it belongs in the AC forum...

 

[jagermeisters]

I think that this is a strategy question rather than a wdis. I have almost the same decision to make, so this thread is what I came looking for. I feel like I should play a starter, but a guy like crayton who is a number two in a great situation (strong offense, dbl-team TO, etc) is looking really good right now. Plus, if I don't play him now, when will he get a chance to start this year. Especially week one when things aren't really clear, this kind of situation is tough. Go with the upside or the safer pick?

I'm leaning hard towards the upside, but i guess it depends a lot on your lineup...if you can take the hit from missing on a gamble, why not go for it.

 

[MOAT]

This is (or can be) a strategy question. Who do I drop to pick up Crayton? I think you need to look at Crayton's numbers for the next couple of weeks being similar to what Glenn would have gotten. If you would have started Glenn then you can start Crayton. You also have to account for the fact that in 3 weeks Crayton's production may become very volatile. I consider a short-term solution right now that might pay off later. If you think that if you need to drop Crayton in 3 weeks and won't have anyone to pick up then it is risky.

The ideal team to consider Crayton is one that has 2 solid WR and can afford a flier and will mix Crayton into the weekly grab bag of WRs.

What I'd really like to see this get added to the "Players In The News" emails is who you should consider drop in favor of a player (given std scoring). Where seasons are often won/lost is on the hesitation to pick up that replacement player. Some jump too soon and others wait too long. It is all about risk / reward.

In this case, I'd take Crayton over Wade because Wade might not be the #1 in 3 weeks. Now you go to the AC forum for "Do I start Crayton?"

 

[Rushmore]

This is (or can be) a strategy question. Who do I drop to pick up Clayton? I think you need to look at Clayton's numbers for the next couple of weeks being similar to what Glenn would have gotten. If you would have started Glenn then you can start Clayton. You also have to account for the fact that in 3 weeks Clayton's production may become very volatile. I consider a short-term solution right now that might pay off later. If you think that if you need to drop Clayton in 3 weeks and won't have anyone to pick up then it is risky.

The ideal team to consider Clayton is one that has 2 solid WR and can afford a flier and will mix Clayton into the weekly grab bag of WRs.

What I'd really like to see this get added to the "Players In The News" emails is who you should consider drop in favor of a player (given std scoring). Where seasons are often won/lost is on the hesitation to pick up that replacement player. Some jump too soon and others wait too long. It is all about risk / reward.

In this case, I'd take Clayton over Wade because Wade might not be the #1 in 3 weeks. Now you go to the AC forum for "Do I start Clayton?"

It's CRayton btw.

 

[MOAT]

This is (or can be) a strategy question. Who do I drop to pick up Clayton? I think you need to look at Clayton's numbers for the next couple of weeks being similar to what Glenn would have gotten. If you would have started Glenn then you can start Clayton. You also have to account for the fact that in 3 weeks Clayton's production may become very volatile. I consider a short-term solution right now that might pay off later. If you think that if you need to drop Clayton in 3 weeks and won't have anyone to pick up then it is risky.

The ideal team to consider Clayton is one that has 2 solid WR and can afford a flier and will mix Clayton into the weekly grab bag of WRs.

What I'd really like to see this get added to the "Players In The News" emails is who you should consider drop in favor of a player (given std scoring). Where seasons are often won/lost is on the hesitation to pick up that replacement player. Some jump too soon and others wait too long. It is all about risk / reward.

In this case, I'd take Clayton over Wade because Wade might not be the #1 in 3 weeks. Now you go to the AC forum for "Do I start Clayton?"

It's CRayton btw.

Oops! Thanks.

 

[[icon]]

I am all over Crayton in every league this year... I think he's got a decent shot at 1000 yards this year given Glenn's injury issues and the Proficiency of the dallas passing attack.

 

[Marc Levin]

I think this is a strategy question.

In deciding on a bench receiver, would you prefer a poor passing team's #1 receiver (ala Wade, or Moulds, or Joe Horn) or a decent passing team's upside #2 receiver (ala Crayton, or Stovall, or Marty Booker, or maybe Kevin Curtis).

 

[Resident A]

If you are talking about a Crayton/Curtis/Henderson/Marshall type of WR2 over a Kennsion/Mason/Horn/Williamson type of WR1, the answer is a resounding YES.

You would have to either be a fool. or in dire straits to start any of those crappy WR1s.

 

[davidwb]

Thanks everyone.

And, thanks especially to Mark -- it is supposed to be a strategy question (I could have used many names, but Crayton is on everyone's mind todaty). Is it better to get an upside #2 or a poor #1, generically.