Big Ben: Week 16 (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

Deciding between Ben and Hasslebeck. Very tempting to play Ben since he's indoors. And my opponent has Hines Ward, so I can neutralize a big game out of him. But it seems like every time I play Ben when there is a good matchup, he underperforms.

Please don't start with the 'cancel out theory'. Play who you think will get the most points. Ben's 25+ points vs Warner's 25+ points are the same IN ANY MATCHUP. Lemme repeat that......Ben's 25+ points vs Warner's 25+ points are the same IN ANY MATCHUP.

I'm sorry; I'll never, ever, ever suggest such an asinine theory again.

Fixed

Nothing wrong with the theory. For an extreme example, imagine you play in a league that starts 1QB, 1WR, and 1RB. Your opponent has Kyle Orton, Chris Brown, and Andre Johnson. You have Tom Brady, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Randy Moss. Your backup QB is Matt Schaub. In this case, the "shark move" would be to bench Brady for Schaub on the assumption that the only way you can lose is if NE's passing game falls apart again and Andre Johnson goes bonkers (because, let's face it- Orton and Brown aren't beating anyone). Starting Schaub would clearly violate the "start who you think will get the most points" theory in order to satisfy the so-called asinine "don't put all your eggs in one basket" theory and the "cancel the opposing team's best player" theory... but it's still the right play.Good fantasy football owners project how their players are going to do, but great fantasy football owners understand that sometimes their projections are wrong and prepare accordingly.

 

[Filthy]

Deciding between Ben and Hasslebeck. Very tempting to play Ben since he's indoors. And my opponent has Hines Ward, so I can neutralize a big game out of him. But it seems like every time I play Ben when there is a good matchup, he underperforms.

Please don't start with the 'cancel out theory'. Play who you think will get the most points. Ben's 25+ points vs Warner's 25+ points are the same IN ANY MATCHUP. Lemme repeat that......Ben's 25+ points vs Warner's 25+ points are the same IN ANY MATCHUP.

I'm sorry; I'll never, ever, ever suggest such an asinine theory again.

Fixed

Nothing wrong with the theory. For an extreme example, imagine you play in a league that starts 1QB, 1WR, and 1RB. Your opponent has Kyle Orton, Chris Brown, and Andre Johnson. You have Tom Brady, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Randy Moss. Your backup QB is Matt Schaub. In this case, the "shark move" would be to bench Brady for Schaub on the assumption that the only way you can lose is if NE's passing game falls apart again and Andre Johnson goes bonkers (because, let's face it- Orton and Brown aren't beating anyone). Starting Schaub would clearly violate the "start who you think will get the most points" theory in order to satisfy the so-called asinine "don't put all your eggs in one basket" theory and the "cancel the opposing team's best player" theory... but it's still the right play.Good fantasy football owners project how their players are going to do, but great fantasy football owners understand that sometimes their projections are wrong and prepare accordingly.

I understand the 'play not to lose' theory and frankly I don't agree with your example of it. You can overthink those things and it all comes down to percentages. In your example, you play Schaub thinking that you've eliminated the possibility of a loss if Johnson goes off and bench Brady. Well, you pull this move and just like in week #13, Schaub gets injured but Andre Johnson gets 9 receptions for 116 yds and 1 TD or Brady connects for 5 TDs to everyone BUT Moss. You just screwed yourself by benching the better 'on paper' option. Play whoever you think will get the most points......doesn't get much simpler than that. At the end of the matchup, it's points vs points.Again, I understand sometimes this works but sometimes it won't. If you said you're up 2 points and still have a player playing, go ahead and bench that player then I agree. You can assure you won't lose.

 

[gheemony]

Deciding between Ben and Hasslebeck. Very tempting to play Ben since he's indoors. And my opponent has Hines Ward, so I can neutralize a big game out of him. But it seems like every time I play Ben when there is a good matchup, he underperforms.

Please don't start with the 'cancel out theory'. Play who you think will get the most points. Ben's 25+ points vs Warner's 25+ points are the same IN ANY MATCHUP. Lemme repeat that......Ben's 25+ points vs Warner's 25+ points are the same IN ANY MATCHUP.

I'm sorry; I'll never, ever, ever suggest such an asinine theory again.

Fixed

Nothing wrong with the theory. For an extreme example, imagine you play in a league that starts 1QB, 1WR, and 1RB. Your opponent has Kyle Orton, Chris Brown, and Andre Johnson. You have Tom Brady, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Randy Moss. Your backup QB is Matt Schaub. In this case, the "shark move" would be to bench Brady for Schaub on the assumption that the only way you can lose is if NE's passing game falls apart again and Andre Johnson goes bonkers (because, let's face it- Orton and Brown aren't beating anyone). Starting Schaub would clearly violate the "start who you think will get the most points" theory in order to satisfy the so-called asinine "don't put all your eggs in one basket" theory and the "cancel the opposing team's best player" theory... but it's still the right play.Good fantasy football owners project how their players are going to do, but great fantasy football owners understand that sometimes their projections are wrong and prepare accordingly.

I understand the 'play not to lose' theory and frankly I don't agree with your example of it. You can overthink those things and it all comes down to percentages. In your example, you play Schaub thinking that you've eliminated the possibility of a loss if Johnson goes off and bench Brady. Well, you pull this move and just like in week #13, Schaub gets injured but Andre Johnson gets 9 receptions for 116 yds and 1 TD or Brady connects for 5 TDs to everyone BUT Moss. You just screwed yourself by benching the better 'on paper' option. Play whoever you think will get the most points......doesn't get much simpler than that. At the end of the matchup, it's points vs points.Again, I understand sometimes this works but sometimes it won't. If you said you're up 2 points and still have a player playing, go ahead and bench that player then I agree. You can assure you won't lose.

SSOG said he was making an extreme example. But consider my real situation: Ben vs. Hass. That's no Schaub v. Brady. I am projected as a 20 point favorite. My opponent has Ward. He can only catch me if he has a great week and I have a bad week (compared to projections). This could happen if Ward has another 2 TD game and Hass has a stinker game.

Sure, I understand your very valid point that the same could happen in reverse. That is, Ben gets hurt and Batch throws 2 TDs for Ward. But that's unlikely. The only thing I can project is that is more likely than not that any TDs that Ward gets will be thrown by Ben.

Now I should definitely start Hass if he is the clear choice over Ben. But that's not so clear to me. Dodds has Matt as the better start but Bloom has them nearly even. So the tiebreaker for me MIGHT be cancelling out Ward. On the other hand, it could also be the desire to half a fast start on Thursday night. Or it could be that I start the QB for my hometown team.

Under an hour to a game time and still undecided.

What do you recommend?

 

[Filthy]

Game underway; I'm hoping (for your sake) that you started Ben.

I agree with your assessment there. Ben = Hass so yes I would start Ben and pray that Ward got no love.

 

[joffer]

after last week's weather debacle, i'm starting the guy with guaranteed good weather.

 

[cittigirl1]

I'm in the Brees/Big Ben dilemma as well. I'm looking more at Brees because A) He's at home, B) He throws for more yardage, C) The Steelers offense hasn't been rolling as much lately as it was earlier in the year. Big Ben has had 3 huge games this year and hasn't really been all that super in other games. Bress on the other hand has had 9 of his last 10 with 2+TD's, and 4 300 yard games in that time. It's championship week, go for the gusto!

I hung onto Big Ben so nobody else could grab him and now I'm wishing I wouldn't have. I can't decide to start him or Brady! I'm afraid Bill's going to pull a fast one.Anybody else deciding between Ben & Brady?

 

[Filthy]

I'm in the Brees/Big Ben dilemma as well. I'm looking more at Brees because A) He's at home, B) He throws for more yardage, C) The Steelers offense hasn't been rolling as much lately as it was earlier in the year. Big Ben has had 3 huge games this year and hasn't really been all that super in other games. Bress on the other hand has had 9 of his last 10 with 2+TD's, and 4 300 yard games in that time. It's championship week, go for the gusto!

I hung onto Big Ben so nobody else could grab him and now I'm wishing I wouldn't have. I can't decide to start him or Brady! I'm afraid Bill's going to pull a fast one.Anybody else deciding between Ben & Brady?

Start Ben; the Rams rush DEF hasn't allowed 100 yd rusher this season. Ben will have to throw in a must win situation. Dunno what the weather is for New England this weekend so you're rolling the dice there.

 

[cittigirl1]

I'm in the Brees/Big Ben dilemma as well. I'm looking more at Brees because A) He's at home, B) He throws for more yardage, C) The Steelers offense hasn't been rolling as much lately as it was earlier in the year. Big Ben has had 3 huge games this year and hasn't really been all that super in other games. Bress on the other hand has had 9 of his last 10 with 2+TD's, and 4 300 yard games in that time. It's championship week, go for the gusto!

I hung onto Big Ben so nobody else could grab him and now I'm wishing I wouldn't have. I can't decide to start him or Brady! I'm afraid Bill's going to pull a fast one.Anybody else deciding between Ben & Brady?

Start Ben; the Rams rush DEF hasn't allowed 100 yd rusher this season. Ben will have to throw in a must win situation. Dunno what the weather is for New England this weekend so you're rolling the dice there.

Thank you for your advice - I really appreciate it! Good luck this week!

 

[jpeace121]

 

[thecardiackid]

100 and a score in the first 4 minutes.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[gheemony]

Game underway; I'm hoping (for your sake) that you started Ben.I agree with your assessment there. Ben = Hass so yes I would start Ben and pray that Ward got no love.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!You tipped the scales and I went with Ben at the last minute. Looks good so far.

 

[Routilla]

I love the early TD from Ben and then my opponent goes ahead on the SJAX TD. This is gonna be one hairy night at this pace. Come on BEN!!!

 

[Filthy]

Well the guy I kind of wanted to play in the championship played Pitt's DEF. Too bad.

My wish for a shootout is coming true. Come on St. Louis, score again. Keep the pressure on!

See Ben throw. See Ben Rush. See Ben get 30+ tonight!

 

[Whizzinator]

I guess this one is ready to be closed after only one half of football---200+ yards and 3 TDs already.

 

[RavensUNFL]

Yeah, he filled my request in the first half. I love when a plan comes together.

 

[Filthy]

wait til I finish this box o' popcorn please.

 

[chocolate bomber]

I have no regrets about my decision. I hope you all came along for the ride.

 

[CrossEyed]

I have no regrets about my decision. I hope you all came along for the ride.

Glad I stuck with Ben.

 

[The Ref]

I have no regrets about my decision. I hope you all came along for the ride.

Glad I stuck with Ben.

It's nice to know you have 200 and 3 wraped up by halftime. It's all gravy now, and I'm hungry.

 

[3nOut]

Pros and cons of starting Roethlisberger this week:

PROS

1) Good match-up vs. Rams, who don't have a very good pass rush.

2) Pittsburgh offense has created a lot of red zone passing opportunities.

3) Pittsburgh has a division title on the line the next two weeks--no lack of motivation.

CONS

1) Bum shoulder. Looked to me last week like he was going a bit sidearm on his release last week.

2) And he got hit hard a number of times by the Jaguars team. Short week for recovery with the Thursday night game.

3) Santonio Holmes has yet to produce since injuring his hamstring. 5 catches for 47 yards over the last two weeks.

4) Pittsburgh has played poorly on the road: 2-4.

What are other people's thoughts? I'm leaning against playing him (going with Garrard instead).

Regarding the CONS:1) Shoulder should not be an issue.

2) If what you say about the Rams' pass rush is true, getting hit shouldn't matter during the game.

3) This may be true but I think as long as he's on the field, it may be enough to keep Ward and Miller open.

4) Of those four road games, Big Ben had 4, 2, 4, 2, 1, and 1 TDs. Not bad for on the road.

[patsselfonback]I told you guys not to worry...

[/patsselfonback]

 

[CrossEyed]

I have no regrets about my decision. I hope you all came along for the ride.

Glad I stuck with Ben.

It's nice to know you have 200 and 3 wraped up by halftime. It's all gravy now, and I'm hungry.

Would like to have had a few more 2nd half points, but I'll take it.

 

[chocolate bomber]

I have no regrets about my decision. I hope you all came along for the ride.

Glad I stuck with Ben.

It's nice to know you have 200 and 3 wraped up by halftime. It's all gravy now, and I'm hungry.

Would like to have had a few more 2nd half points, but I'll take it.

Man, it's tough to complain. He was good for 32 in my league...I can't ask for anything more.

 

[SKribbles]

Wow... does everyone that has Ben have Garrard too?

I'm gotta pick between Warner, Ben and Garrard (start 2!). Right now I leaning towards using Ben (and Warner) because of the 3 matchups, OAK has the best pass D.

I'd expect about 250 2TDs from Ben with maybe 10-20 yards rushing.

Outperformed my expectations! Only by a little but it is a great start especially since my opponent started Miller.

 

[Filthy]

He got 6 more points than projected so I'm happy. As a Steeler fan I want them to punch it in for a TD when they sniff the redzone and as a Ben owner it has to be a pass.

My opponent picked up Holmes yesterday (scared me) and he benched him. I need Plax and Branch to come up way short to complete my opponent's misery.

 

[maestro]

Wow... does everyone that has Ben have Garrard too?

I'm gotta pick between Warner, Ben and Garrard (start 2!). Right now I leaning towards using Ben (and Warner) because of the 3 matchups, OAK has the best pass D.

I'd expect about 250 2TDs from Ben with maybe 10-20 yards rushing.

Outperformed my expectations! Only by a little but it is a great start especially since my opponent started Miller.

Way to go Ben!!! my opponent started T. Holt

 

[jagbag]

Started Ben and the Pit. "D", it was nice to get the pick right before half and the late pick 6.

My opponent had Parker. I feel bad for Willie but like the idea he got 0 tonight.

It's nice to be up over forty after a Thursday game. There's a long way to go though. By no means is the game over.

 

[Dennis]

The 49 yards in the second half bothered me a little. Up 7 and running clock?

 

[smcindoe]

The 49 yards in the second half bothered me a little. Up 7 and running clock?

Davenport was getting big gains on each run, and Ben was getting hit each time he dropped back to pass. The strategy shhift hurt fantasy owners but was the right football call.

 

[-jb-]

 

[Routilla]

 

[mistersmith]

The 49 yards in the second half bothered me a little. Up 7 and running clock?

Davenport was getting big gains on each run, and Ben was getting hit each time he dropped back to pass. The strategy shhift hurt fantasy owners but was the right football call.

Of course you always want more, but I can't argue with what I got from Big Ben last night. And their play in the 2nd half made sense and they won the game. No complaints here.

 

[SSOG]

Deciding between Ben and Hasslebeck. Very tempting to play Ben since he's indoors. And my opponent has Hines Ward, so I can neutralize a big game out of him. But it seems like every time I play Ben when there is a good matchup, he underperforms.

Please don't start with the 'cancel out theory'. Play who you think will get the most points. Ben's 25+ points vs Warner's 25+ points are the same IN ANY MATCHUP. Lemme repeat that......Ben's 25+ points vs Warner's 25+ points are the same IN ANY MATCHUP.

I'm sorry; I'll never, ever, ever suggest such an asinine theory again.

Fixed

Nothing wrong with the theory. For an extreme example, imagine you play in a league that starts 1QB, 1WR, and 1RB. Your opponent has Kyle Orton, Chris Brown, and Andre Johnson. You have Tom Brady, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Randy Moss. Your backup QB is Matt Schaub. In this case, the "shark move" would be to bench Brady for Schaub on the assumption that the only way you can lose is if NE's passing game falls apart again and Andre Johnson goes bonkers (because, let's face it- Orton and Brown aren't beating anyone). Starting Schaub would clearly violate the "start who you think will get the most points" theory in order to satisfy the so-called asinine "don't put all your eggs in one basket" theory and the "cancel the opposing team's best player" theory... but it's still the right play.Good fantasy football owners project how their players are going to do, but great fantasy football owners understand that sometimes their projections are wrong and prepare accordingly.

I understand the 'play not to lose' theory and frankly I don't agree with your example of it. You can overthink those things and it all comes down to percentages. In your example, you play Schaub thinking that you've eliminated the possibility of a loss if Johnson goes off and bench Brady. Well, you pull this move and just like in week #13, Schaub gets injured but Andre Johnson gets 9 receptions for 116 yds and 1 TD or Brady connects for 5 TDs to everyone BUT Moss. You just screwed yourself by benching the better 'on paper' option. Play whoever you think will get the most points......doesn't get much simpler than that. At the end of the matchup, it's points vs points.Again, I understand sometimes this works but sometimes it won't. If you said you're up 2 points and still have a player playing, go ahead and bench that player then I agree. You can assure you won't lose.

Which do you think is more likely- Andre going nuts but Schaub getting nothing *AND* Brady going nuts but Moss getting nothing, or Moss and Brady not going nuts? Personally, I think the second is more likely, because it only involves one unlikely-to-happen event that will negate both players. A single snowstorm can shut down both Moss and Brady, but it would take a lot more than a single snowstorm to shut down Moss and Schuab while simultaneously NOT shutting down Johnson and Brady.Yes, there is a situation where playing the high-percentage play will fail, which is why it's called a "high-percentage" play and not a "100 percentage" play. With that said, it's still the HIGH percentage play, which beats the lower percentage plays more often than not.