ready5
Footballguy
given the almost certainty of a win, i'd just start my studs and continue building up my PF (for tie-breakers).
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Countering your Opponents QB with your WR start... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter stp-d
- Start date
stp-d
Footballguy
ready5
Footballguy
but you have absolutely no clue what your players will score. all you have is a guess.if you're desperate, you should consider offsetting for the exact same reason why you'd consider starting a boom/bust player with a good matchup. a QB sneak for a first down is not impressive when what you really needed was an 80-yard hail mary.
PahtyTom
Footballguy
what have you contributed to this thread besides admitting you are terrible at projections and then thinking that by tracking 20 of someone elses projections you can draw some plausible conclusion? lol
Code:
Team A is startingQB: Warner 22RB: CJ 20, Rice 19WR: AJ 15, Welker 13, Moss 13TE: Davis 12D: BAL 11Team B has the following choices.QB: Brady 22, Schuab 22, Romo 22RB: Moroney 11, Forte 10, Hightower 9WR: Boldin 12, Austin 11, Rice 10, Crabtree 10TE: Watson 4, Scheffler 4D: SD 7, SF 6Start 1/2/3/1. Who does Team B start???As the underdog with Moroney/Forte/Watson/SD v. Rice/CJ/Davis/Baltimore I would likely be crushed whether I started Boldin or not. By sitting him in your example, I'd just be crushed by a bigger margin.
Team A is starting
QB: Warner 22
RB: CJ 20, Rice 19
WR: AJ 15, Welker 13, Moss 13
TE: Davis 12
D: BAL 11
My Team B will be in bold
QB: Brady 22, Schuab 22, Romo 22
RB: Moroney 11, Forte 10, Hightower 9
WR: Boldin 12, Austin 11, Rice 10, Crabtree 10
TE: Watson 4, Scheffler 4
D: SD 7, SF 6
QB: Warner 22
RB: CJ 20, Rice 19
WR: AJ 15, Welker 13, Moss 13
TE: Davis 12
D: BAL 11
My Team B will be in bold
QB: Brady 22, Schuab 22, Romo 22
RB: Moroney 11, Forte 10, Hightower 9
WR: Boldin 12, Austin 11, Rice 10, Crabtree 10
TE: Watson 4, Scheffler 4
D: SD 7, SF 6
I got a good example for you which is exactly the decision I need to make this week: My opponent has Rogers for a QB. I have the choice of playing Tony Gozalez or Jermichael Finley at TE. I honestly have no idea which player has the probability of scoring more points. Hence, I am going to put in Finley as I think there is a small correlation between Rogers performance and the performance of his TE. What do you guys think about that?
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
well, without looking back over my posts in the thread, I'd have to imagine it was at least as good as 'OMG THIS IS DUMB!!1LOL'maybe not tremendously greater, but I doubt it could possibly be any less.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
well, as mentioned by another poster, I'd probably be influenced by your status as favorite or underdog, but just looking at this in isolation, I'd lean finley.I'm really not on top of the current state of the falcons, but it seems like gonzo blowing up for a 2 td 100+ yd game aren't all that great right now ---- so, let's go on the assumption that he's about on par with finley, or maybe a couple points better.if rodgers has a horrible game, maybe you don't get a td from finley, but you might not've gotten much better from gonzo, and you can probably take the hit at that spot, as he takes a bigger hit at qb.on the other hand, if rodgers has a 3+ td game, it's possible 1 or 2 of those are going to finley, so you mitigate the damage, somewhat.
Exactly Larry.....I think this is what the OP was trying to get at, at the beginning. It is a little bit of a hedging your bet type of thing. The key thing here is that each player is equal in regards to expectations for scoring points.
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
Well, since you already had the answer you wanted, why bother posting a thread? Either you want opinions or you don't. Your "I want to try my hand at
" sign is waiting for you. So just so I got have this clear, you want to know, in an impossible situation where you absolutely know two WR's are going to score the same amount, should you start the one where the opponent has the QB?Even if you knew they would score the same amount, you still wouldn't have control of the situation as you don't know if you'll be down by 30, or up by 30 at the time. The only time this might help is if they are both playing on Monday night and you know going in how many points you are up or down. And even then, it's a crap-shoot since you wouldn't know if your receiver is going to go off for 200 and three, or held to 35 total yards.
Now, if you are asking about two players projected to score the same amount, as it seems you are, but I have no idea why you would, the situation is convoluted even more, since you know they both wont score the same and you still wouldn't know if you are chasing points or trying to hold onto a lead.
In every scenario, it comes down to which WR scores more points, that's obvious, but there is never any way to know which one will, so eventually you're left looking at your lineup and saying "now, which one do I think will score more points".
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
your I DON'T READ INSTRUCTIONS VERY WELL sign is waiting for you.I don't think you got it very clear.
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
Read his question and then read my answer for it. Then grab your fishing license and go ice fishing with the OP.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
I don't think you're very clear on what fishing is, either.
stp-d
Footballguy
Simply saying to select the guy i think will score more points is out the window as I've already concluded they will probably score the same, as so does every Fantasy projections out there. Its which one of the 2 is the better start considering my Opponents QB. If you don't even look at your opponents team then you're probably of the opinion that it makes no difference who your opponent is starting and you'd start either WR by what new info? Probably your gut!
I've already stated that i prefer to go with the WR that is matched with my opponents QB, i'm trying to figure out why others would do the same, or do the opposite.
buymeagoat
Footballguy
Always start WRs and RBs which compliment your opponent's QB. It ensures they can't outscore you.
Dragon1952
Footballguy
Assuming it's the WR/RB 1's that get the points. What if he starts McNabb, and Celek and Leonard freakin' Weaver get the 2 TD catches. He starts Garrard and Ernest Wilford and Nate Hughes get the 2 TD catches. He starts Brady and Sam Aiken and Kevin Faulk get TD's. He starts Campbell and Devin Thomas and Fred Davis get 3 TD's. He starts Rivers and Tolbert and Sproles get the TD's. He starts Hasselbeck and Forsett and Branch get the 2 TD's. He starts Flacco and Washington and McGahee get the 2 TD's. Those things all happened last week, to name a few.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
it's just a question of probabilities --- I don't think anybody's touting this as some kind of guarantee.we can play that 'what if....' game all day on both sides.some guy used the gonzo vs finley illustration earlier --- I could say 'what if gonzo nabs 4 td's, while rodgers throws for 5, while finley gets none?'we can't rule that out, but you have to weigh the percentages.
GiantsRule
Footballguy
*SIGH* It's another example of making apples to apples comparisons.
Your QB has nothing to do with your opponent's QB. Just like your RBs have nothing to do with his and so on. If you set your roster according to what your opponent plays you'll either lose more often than you'll win because of overthinking, or you'll win when you would have won anyway. And that's the problem with this ridiculous theory. Someone will win 120-85 and brag about "see! I 'cancelled out' his QB's points and I killed him." Um, no. You didn't. Your team outscored his. It really is that simple!
Tomorrow, I start the playoffs with Drew Brees and I go against a team with Robert Meachem? Am I concerned that Meachem will have another big day? No. I hope Meachem goes off. Because Meachem having a big day likely means Brees had a big day. Then I can root for my receiver or flex and root against his QB. Because that's the right comparison, not the fallacy that one impacts the other.
Good luck to everyone tomorrow whether you believe in fairy tales like the cancellation theory, or you just play your best players in an attempt to win!
Your QB has nothing to do with your opponent's QB. Just like your RBs have nothing to do with his and so on. If you set your roster according to what your opponent plays you'll either lose more often than you'll win because of overthinking, or you'll win when you would have won anyway. And that's the problem with this ridiculous theory. Someone will win 120-85 and brag about "see! I 'cancelled out' his QB's points and I killed him." Um, no. You didn't. Your team outscored his. It really is that simple!
Tomorrow, I start the playoffs with Drew Brees and I go against a team with Robert Meachem? Am I concerned that Meachem will have another big day? No. I hope Meachem goes off. Because Meachem having a big day likely means Brees had a big day. Then I can root for my receiver or flex and root against his QB. Because that's the right comparison, not the fallacy that one impacts the other.
Good luck to everyone tomorrow whether you believe in fairy tales like the cancellation theory, or you just play your best players in an attempt to win!
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
If both WR's score the same amount, then how does that counter your opponants QB? You still end up with 12 points at WR1 weather you start VJax or Rice.Simply saying to select the guy i think will score more points is out the window as I've already concluded they will probably score the same, as so does every Fantasy projections out there. Its which one of the 2 is the better start considering my Opponents QB. If you don't even look at your opponents team then you're probably of the opinion that it makes no difference who your opponent is starting and you'd start either WR by what new info? Probably your gut!
I've already stated that i prefer to go with the WR that is matched with my opponents QB, i'm trying to figure out why others would do the same, or do the opposite.
ready5
Footballguy
"you're quite handsome""aw, thanks. here -- have some increased targets"
it does?!?and i suppose it depends on your scoring system, but no... it doesn't. the QB could always be throwing to a different receiver.
ready5
Footballguy
you seem to be getting confused by people who keep trumpeting the "equal projections" line (who are themselves confused).meaning, your brees+meachem example doesn't really work here. we're more talking about scenarios wherein you're facing a strong opponent who (due to matchups/injuries/whatever) is primed for a record-breaking day. what would be the point of a personal best score, only to lose the game? that's like kicking a stat-padding FG as time expires instead of trying for the game-winning TD.*SIGH* It's another example of making apples to apples comparisons.
Your QB has nothing to do with your opponent's QB. Just like your RBs have nothing to do with his and so on. If you set your roster according to what your opponent plays you'll either lose more often than you'll win because of overthinking, or you'll win when you would have won anyway. And that's the problem with this ridiculous theory. Someone will win 120-85 and brag about "see! I 'cancelled out' his QB's points and I killed him." Um, no. You didn't. Your team outscored his. It really is that simple!
Tomorrow, I start the playoffs with Drew Brees and I go against a team with Robert Meachem? Am I concerned that Meachem will have another big day? No. I hope Meachem goes off. Because Meachem having a big day likely means Brees had a big day. Then I can root for my receiver or flex and root against his QB. Because that's the right comparison, not the fallacy that one impacts the other.
Good luck to everyone tomorrow whether you believe in fairy tales like the cancellation theory, or you just play your best players in an attempt to win!
obviously, you want to adjust the aggressiveness of your lineup strategy based on your FF opponent (the only opponent that truly matters). if you don't need to take chances, then don't. but if you do need to take chances, why risk your game based on projections that predict you'll lose?!? it's the same concept as not starting a defense against your key players when you're a bit desperate and need all the stars to align to pull out a win. why bet the farm on a waiver wire wonder only to also bet against him?
frankly, i love it when opponents dismiss lineup strategy as "fairy tales" and "fallacies"... makes them way easier to out-smart.
Well, you definitely go with the more talented player. However, I certainly do look at combos which include my opponent's QB and my WR. One reason is that our 5 point bonuses are easier to attain for most talented WRs (100 yards) than it is for most QBs (300 yards). Plus, it is more common for QBs to have negative plays (INTs, fumbles) than WRs.
Last edited by a moderator:
The cancellation theory seldom work, especially in a league such as mine in which QBs get one point for every 20 yards passing, while receivers get one point for every 10 yards receiving.
One week, I started Schaub at QB and MSW as one of my WRs. He started Garrard at QB and both AJ and Walter as his receivers. (I believe I was a slight favorite).
Both QBs scored in the high teens. Both threw for one TD. But while Garrard's TD was to MSW (thus negating his points), Schaubs's TD was to Moats. So I got 12 points combined for the two TDs. He only got six. Plus he wasted a lineup spot on a receiver.
However, I still think that week we started our best players.
Another week, my opponent started McNabb and I started DJax and Celek. (Again, a case in us starting our best players.) Eagles played on SNF, and I entered the game with a slight lead. I thought I was in trouble, because McNabb could have easily thrown to Maclin or Weaver for the TDs.
But the game was over as soon as DJax ran for that long TD. Six points for me (plus yardage points). No points for my opponent. DJax scored more points than McNabb that week. Another easy victory for me.
One week, I started Schaub at QB and MSW as one of my WRs. He started Garrard at QB and both AJ and Walter as his receivers. (I believe I was a slight favorite).
Both QBs scored in the high teens. Both threw for one TD. But while Garrard's TD was to MSW (thus negating his points), Schaubs's TD was to Moats. So I got 12 points combined for the two TDs. He only got six. Plus he wasted a lineup spot on a receiver.
However, I still think that week we started our best players.
Another week, my opponent started McNabb and I started DJax and Celek. (Again, a case in us starting our best players.) Eagles played on SNF, and I entered the game with a slight lead. I thought I was in trouble, because McNabb could have easily thrown to Maclin or Weaver for the TDs.
But the game was over as soon as DJax ran for that long TD. Six points for me (plus yardage points). No points for my opponent. DJax scored more points than McNabb that week. Another easy victory for me.
Mr Two Cents
Footballguy
I started Holmes, he started Roth.Both had mediocre days but Holmes slightly outpointed Roth so my WR beat his QB. My other option was Roy Williams (Dal)With the weather I was going back and forth with this decision and literally decided in the final 5 minutes. I saw it a a defensive move just in case Roth went off crazy and threw for 4 TDs, I figured Holmes would be on the other end of some of them, thereby offsetting a freak great day by Roth.Was it a good strategy? Probably not but my QB is Romo so I would also get some of those points to Roy.Today will tell. Starting Mendy hurt me way more than starting Holmes did, but he was starting no matter what the circumstances.
FUBAR
Footballguy
Just myyou seem to be getting confused by people who keep trumpeting the "equal projections" line (who are themselves confused).meaning, your brees+meachem example doesn't really work here. we're more talking about scenarios wherein you're facing a strong opponent who (due to matchups/injuries/whatever) is primed for a record-breaking day. what would be the point of a personal best score, only to lose the game? that's like kicking a stat-padding FG as time expires instead of trying for the game-winning TD.*SIGH* It's another example of making apples to apples comparisons.
Your QB has nothing to do with your opponent's QB. Just like your RBs have nothing to do with his and so on. If you set your roster according to what your opponent plays you'll either lose more often than you'll win because of overthinking, or you'll win when you would have won anyway. And that's the problem with this ridiculous theory. Someone will win 120-85 and brag about "see! I 'cancelled out' his QB's points and I killed him." Um, no. You didn't. Your team outscored his. It really is that simple!
Tomorrow, I start the playoffs with Drew Brees and I go against a team with Robert Meachem? Am I concerned that Meachem will have another big day? No. I hope Meachem goes off. Because Meachem having a big day likely means Brees had a big day. Then I can root for my receiver or flex and root against his QB. Because that's the right comparison, not the fallacy that one impacts the other.
Good luck to everyone tomorrow whether you believe in fairy tales like the cancellation theory, or you just play your best players in an attempt to win!
obviously, you want to adjust the aggressiveness of your lineup strategy based on your FF opponent (the only opponent that truly matters). if you don't need to take chances, then don't. but if you do need to take chances, why risk your game based on projections that predict you'll lose?!? it's the same concept as not starting a defense against your key players when you're a bit desperate and need all the stars to align to pull out a win. why bet the farm on a waiver wire wonder only to also bet against him?
frankly, i love it when opponents dismiss lineup strategy as "fairy tales" and "fallacies"... makes them way easier to out-smart.
I'll use lineup strategy when facing a superior opponent. If I can go head to head with my usual starters and have a good (meaning around 50% or better) chance to win, that's what I do. If I've got guys like Lawrence Maroney, Lendale White and Devone Bess going against Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson and Randy Moss I'll look deeper and swing for the fences.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
I don't think you understand what that means.
GiantsRule
Footballguy
Sorry Mr. Smarmy.Apples to Apples = QBs vs. QBs or WRs vs. WRsApples to Oranges = QBs vs. WRsIf you still don't get it, I can find out how to draw a diagram for you. :IBTL:Kool-Aid Larry said:
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
just making the observation --- don't get all sensitive about it.
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
You've tried and failed with that three times in this thread alone. But keep fightin' the good fight.
GiantsRule
Footballguy
It's not an observation - you were trying to point out that I use an expression the wrong way when I didn't.
cdwood
Footballguy
I subscribe to the theory that you start your best players who you think will score the most points. Given that Team B is projected to lose this game given the Team A RB's, TE, and Def are superior, why not start the best players? Team B should start Boldin because he's the best WR on the team. If you subscribe to the theory of trying to neutralize the other teams players, you have to start Brady because Team A has both Welker and Moss (assuming Randy, not Sinorice.)
Marauder
Footballguy
In general, I'm a believer in starting your best players regardless of your opponents lineup but there are rare occasions where the projections are close enough that it can make a difference and it is valid to start a QB to cancel out your opponents star WR however, IMO, it's never valid to start a WR to cancel out your opponent's QB.
It's always the team with the QB who has the advantage in these situations simply because, barring injury, all of the WR's scores will also count for the QB but it is very possible that the QB could have a big day without the WR doing much.
It's always the team with the QB who has the advantage in these situations simply because, barring injury, all of the WR's scores will also count for the QB but it is very possible that the QB could have a big day without the WR doing much.
In this situation, I don't want to neutralize, I want to decouple. Drinnan's article earlier explains this.
stp-d
Footballguy
Hoss_Cartwright
Footballguy
Wow!! This has never come up before. I can't believe no one has ever thought of it before
Yet people still don't grasp it.By the way, the uncoupled lineup I submitted in the prior example made a good run at it.Wow!! This has never come up before. I can't believe no one has ever thought of it before
Why do people arrogantly (and stupidly) say "GUYS! The only thing that matters is the mean!" When the question already stated "The mean is the same, but there is variance and certain players have positive correlation with each other." People are stupid. And this thread is pretty silly. People who understand the relevant concepts also understand how to apply them to this situation. And most people don't understand the relevant concepts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Without reading every post... this all depends on your scoring system. My WR/RB's get more points then my QB's for yards/TD's... This strategy won me a game last week. It just so happened that I had both top receiving options of my opponents QB's... needless to say it was a cakewalk victory... both WR's outscored their passer.
ready5
Footballguy
you can also offset the other direction.
for example, this week i was facing CJ and normally would start britt. but needing to be conservative, i reasoned that starting britt would give me too much probabilistic acceleration -- if britt was getting the TDs, it would most likely be at the expense of CJ having a big day... and if CJ went off (which he did), it would be at the expense of the passing game. starting anyone from STL@TEN would stack my gambles, so i needed to look elsewhere.
further, i knew that if CJ did have a big day, i would need to match that with a high upside player. by not playing britt at flex, i was able to take a decent gamble on bush, which paid off just enough to get me my win. yes, britt was projected higher than bush on virtually every website i looked at, but it was a bad way to stack my gambles. by employing good lineup strategy, i was able to bracket that risk by shifting it elsewhere (to NO), much like someone would do in any futures market.
despite the fact that britt was more likely than bush to see his upside, britt's upside profile just didn't match CJ's. so it's not just in shifting the risk (because bush was even less likely to see his upside), but in matching the upside profiles of your insurance policies. even if gambling on bush hadn't panned out, it was still the best move to start him, because doing so put my team in the best position to win. again, FF is essentially a futures market, so all of these basic concepts apply directly... especially in leagues starting D/ST.
for example, this week i was facing CJ and normally would start britt. but needing to be conservative, i reasoned that starting britt would give me too much probabilistic acceleration -- if britt was getting the TDs, it would most likely be at the expense of CJ having a big day... and if CJ went off (which he did), it would be at the expense of the passing game. starting anyone from STL@TEN would stack my gambles, so i needed to look elsewhere.
further, i knew that if CJ did have a big day, i would need to match that with a high upside player. by not playing britt at flex, i was able to take a decent gamble on bush, which paid off just enough to get me my win. yes, britt was projected higher than bush on virtually every website i looked at, but it was a bad way to stack my gambles. by employing good lineup strategy, i was able to bracket that risk by shifting it elsewhere (to NO), much like someone would do in any futures market.
despite the fact that britt was more likely than bush to see his upside, britt's upside profile just didn't match CJ's. so it's not just in shifting the risk (because bush was even less likely to see his upside), but in matching the upside profiles of your insurance policies. even if gambling on bush hadn't panned out, it was still the best move to start him, because doing so put my team in the best position to win. again, FF is essentially a futures market, so all of these basic concepts apply directly... especially in leagues starting D/ST.
Impossible. Start the guy will will score the most.
Duh...the one with the combination of the most yards and TDs.Now just keep your advance ff strategy mumbo-jumbo to yourself and don't disturb those of us with our heads buried in the sand.
This is a great post, but I'm sure it will be lost on many... (and please keep it to yourself!)
Similar threads
- Poll
