Do Fantasy Teams win with Explosive Players or Lunchpail Guys? (1 Viewer)

[Black]

With all the discussion about the 'Seattle way' and types of players they prefer, it got me to thinking about how it is best to construct a Fantasy team to improve your chances for winning.

Are you looking for the homerun, the 'big-steal' in the guy returning from injury who's ready for a rebound?

I realize that these are not mutually exclusive, but wondering if people have 'tendencies' to lean one way or the other. I also realize people might build different types of teams in redraft and dynasty formats.

I think my teams tend towards the Lunchpail types. Rather than swing for the fences, I seem to get young-ish guys, less likely to succumb to injury (that's a whole other thread on its own, I'm sure), who I think will get a steady dose of work...lots of targets, etc. Another way to explain is that in an auction, I might prefer to get a bunch of mid-tier guys (4th-8th rounders) rather than a studs and duds theory.

When I look at my team each week, I am hoping for a high floor from each player, and the possibility that 1-2 will have a big game and put me over the top for the win.

Anyways...any comments/inputs welcome.

 

[lod01]

With all the discussion about the 'Seattle way' and types of players they prefer, it got me to thinking about how it is best to construct a Fantasy team to improve your chances for winning.

Are you looking for the homerun, the 'big-steal' in the guy returning from injury who's ready for a rebound?

I realize that these are not mutually exclusive, but wondering if people have 'tendencies' to lean one way or the other. I also realize people might build different types of teams in redraft and dynasty formats.

I think my teams tend towards the Lunchpail types. Rather than swing for the fences, I seem to get young-ish guys, less likely to succumb to injury (that's a whole other thread on its own, I'm sure), who I think will get a steady dose of work...lots of targets, etc. Another way to explain is that in an auction, I might prefer to get a bunch of mid-tier guys (4th-8th rounders) rather than a studs and duds theory.

When I look at my team each week, I am hoping for a high floor from each player, and the possibility that 1-2 will have a big game and put me over the top for the win.

Anyways...any comments/inputs welcome.

The bold above and playing for well coached teams. Basically, I ignore Buffalo, NYJets, Jax and Tennessee currently. This list changes as the bad coaches are removed over time. If Jax can hit on a QB, then they are in play.

I don't like guys that get low targets, a lot of weak games but can produce big games out of nowhere. Guys like Torrey Smith and Mike Wallace for instance. I kept Greg Jennings until he became just that.

 

[Sabertooth]

Lunchpail guys. I won with a corps of Antonio Brown, Jordy Nelson, and Vincent Jackson. Steady producers

 

[Shutout]

Lunchpail guys. I won with a corps of Antonio Brown, Jordy Nelson, and Vincent Jackson. Steady producers

I'll take the opposite and say stars and lots of them. I rolled a title with offensive starpower such as AJ Green, Shady, Lacy, etc.

Have to comment on VJAX being a steady producer. Sure couldn't say that a few years ago. The ultimate feast or famine, aside from Chris Johnson.

 

[ghostguy123]

Good players who score at the right time.

 

[ghostguy123]

High points per game. Doesn't matter how they get them.

Yep, pretty much that. It doesnt matter if players score inconsistently. I am fine with one stud scoring 3 one week while another scores 35 the same week.

 

[pizzatyme]

High points per game. Doesn't matter how they get them.

Yep, pretty much that. It doesnt matter if players score inconsistently. I am fine with one stud scoring 3 one week while another scores 35 the same week.

Not if you're in a H2H league.

 

[mr roboto]

It's all about value relative to draft position. If your team consists of guys who outperform their draft position, and you make trades that grade out higher in the end on your side, you will win consistently.

SF and Sea have cheap QBs. They got value and can spend money elsewhere.

 

[dcgangstas]

I look for home-run hitters, the sort of guys that can single-handedly carry you to a win. Peyton Manning (the regular season version) and Jamaal Charles are those sort of players that you look for. You should seek to balance star power with a solid supporting cast of producers with hopefully a break-out player with high upside (e.g, Eddie Lacy, Keenan Allen, Julius Thomas).

If you took a poll of FF Champions this year, more than likely Peyton or Jamaal (lucky for me I had both) was on that roster.

 

[Sweet Love]

I kind of look at it by position, though I will say, if value is on the board, I take it and make up for my "plan" somewhere else:

QB - Given a 12 team league, I typically never select a QB before about 12 or so are off the board (sometimes more). I then try to grab two in that 12-16 range (again depends on the year) as it is pretty typical one person from that next tier will sneak into the top 10. So, I would say lunch pail on QBs.

RB: By waiting on QB, it give me an opportunity to grab another RB/WR early. I play a lot of PPR, so I try to get one workhorse back, and then will grab a 3rd down back as my number two. The workhorse may not be a top tier guy, but just someone who I know will get the ball a lot. Guys like Sproles/Woodhead as a number two tend to be boom or bust, so I would say an even split there.

WR: In Round 1, I tend to take a WR unless a top 3-4 back is there for me, so I usually walk away with a top 5 guy at the position (boom). Then I look for a guy who is a steady Eddie PPR producer (think Jordy Nelson or Garcon), a game breaker (Torrey Smith), and then another PPR producer (say a Kendall Wright). I have a mix at WR and usually have about 4 in the top 6 rounds (especially if there is a flex).

TE: I rarely get a top flight guy and think that this year if you do not get a top 3-4 guy, you can wait until TE10-12. Here I just try to get a guy who will give me 50-550-5 or something in that range...again, someone who will get about 8-10 points per game and a low of 4-5 points.

 

[NattyDread]

Interesting topic. Over the past 9 years of dynasty play, my philosophy has definitely changed on this topic. During my first half-dozen years, I was firmly in the lunchpail camp. It served me well, as I was consistently in playoff contention, even winning one league and losing the title game in another. But a far more often occurence was that these squads would bow out in the 1st round of the playoffs or semifinals, brought down by a team with a stud who went off.

The last few years, I've instead gone for studs and shed depth. I'm not sure if it's this strategy or just overall improvement in my skills, but I've been much more successful. In each of the past two years, I've led the league in scoring in my two leagues, and in one just brought home back to back titles. I'll take the high ceiling guys over the high floor most of the time. Of course, you can't have a squad with all high ceiling guys, but I definitely lean that direction.

 

[solorca]

A healthy mix of both for me. In the first round or two, you're grabbing guys that offer both. In the 3-8 round range, I tend to prefer the high upside guys. After that, I'll still take high upside guys when they are around, but I also love to grab the kind of players who are going to consistently produce at a lesser level. I call it the Stevie Johnson factor. He's always available later than he should be, but he's almost always outperform his ADP (last year he battled injuries, but I'm willing to bet he returns to his same level of consistency this season).

These types of guys are also great trade targets during the draft fever time. Offer up the 2.08 for Stevie Johnson when the pick is on the clock, and you might be able to get him.

 

[fightingillini]

Say you start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR

My preference would be

1) the steady hand at QB.......in PPR leagues where the QBs score 4 pts per TD pass, it's hard for the QB to score a ton of points, unless it's Peyton. Give me a guy that conistently puts up 250-300 and 2 scores every week. Now if your scoring is more QB friendly, I could change my thinking here.

2) at RB, I want one lunchpail guy at RB1 and a homerun hitter at RB2.

3) at WR, I want my WR1 to have a high floor and be able to explode, my WR2 to be more of lunchpail type of guy, and my WR3 to explode.

4) at TE, I can go either way. Hard to draft the explosive TE without sacrificing at RB/WR. So I usually would like a 3-5 catch guy that scores 6-7 TDs......someone like Greg Olsen works.

You need a mix of both IMO.

 

[ghostguy123]

High points per game. Doesn't matter how they get them.

Yep, pretty much that. It doesnt matter if players score inconsistently. I am fine with one stud scoring 3 one week while another scores 35 the same week.

Not if you're in a H2H league.

Uh, yes, I am perfectly fine with it in any league or format. Last i checked that is 38 points out of two players. 19 per player. That's gonna best the lunchpail guys most weeks.

 

[Niles Standish]

I used to be of the boring camp.

Draft guys that get consistent work and score consistent numbers weekly. Go for guys that don't have injury history. And get a lot of depth at RB/WR at the risk of other spots.

But lately I've changed up strategy and had more success. 2 years ago in a start 1 TE + 1 Flex (RB/WR/TE) league with buddies from school I went Gronk and then came back and took Graham more as a screw you than anything resembling strategy. I figured if people were going to let him fall I'd keep them from getting the big TE points. This last year I drafted Seattle early even though I've always been of the take a Baltimore or Pitt type who cares about D late and people don't have ranked high in the current year and you'll do fine. I find erratic works well for me because there's always talent on waivers if you're in a 12 team league. 16+ you still need to play safer though I think.

 

[False Start]

I do not care if you are a nobody or a superstar. I want steady consistency with tons of opportunity and the chance to blow up. I think that is the pretty basic answer from ost, but I could be wrong.

 

[MattFancy]

SF and Sea have cheap QBs. They got value and can spend money elsewhere.

Interesting thought. Does the success have guys like Wilson and Kaep maybe persuade teams to wait a little longer on QBs? They're usually the big money guys, so the longer you have a good, cheap QB, the better.