Do you Go for the Big Game or Consistency? (1 Viewer)

[yinzer]

I've always played it close to the vest when going against a good opponent in FF, but for some reason this week I'm thinking that maybe taking a risk or 2 is the way to go.

In this week where 6 teams have a bye (6?!, I never heard of more than 4 getting a bye the same week) I feel like taking the risk may be the difference between a win or loss. Perhaps a dud leads to a loss, but a big game = a win

my personal quandaries are:

Romo vs Mcnabb

LJ vs Jacobs/McGahee/ADP

With all the teams on a bye this week, I think this could be more key than ever..

So who usually goes with the proven player, the matchup, or the posible big play/big dud, due to bye considerations or not. This week, or in general, when facing a tough opponent

 

[Sylira21]

I usually go with consistency. I go for the home run when I think my opponent has MUCH better match-ups or players than I do.

 

[Kub]

Generally speaking, I go with consistency. I try not to look too much into matchups. In the end, I will usually go with the more talented player with the bad matchup. If the talent level is comparable, that is where I take the opponent into play.

For example, I'll always start ADP(vs. CHI) over Jason Wright(vs. MIA), even though Wright is obviously facing a softer rush defense. In the matchup you presented, I would start McNabb over Romo because, in my opinion at least, they are at similar talent levels and the NE pass defense is significantly better than the Jets'.

 

[yinzer]

Generally speaking, I go with consistency. I try not to look too much into matchups. In the end, I will usually go with the more talented player with the bad matchup. If the talent level is comparable, that is where I take the opponent into play.For example, I'll always start ADP(vs. CHI) over Jason Wright(vs. MIA), even though Wright is obviously facing a softer rush defense. In the matchup you presented, I would start McNabb over Romo because, in my opinion at least, they are at similar talent levels and the NE pass defense is significantly better than the Jets'.

Pretty much what you said is what I normally do. And comparing ADP and Wright I think is a little overboard. IDK anyone ponders that one. Im talking about overperformers/underperformers vs their week 6 opponent.Basically, its always start you studs, but with so many on byes this week and interesting matchups and at a KEY junction, week 6 looms large.Mostly, I'm interested in seeing how many people take (calculated) chances on guys who haven't necessarily produced up to par vs guys with tough matchups who have been consistent.

 

[Kub]

Pretty much what you said is what I normally do. And comparing ADP and Wright I think is a little overboard. IDK anyone ponders that one. Im talking about overperformers/underperformers vs their week 6 opponent.

You think that. I think that. Yet, certain websites(hmmm....hmmm.... ) have Jason Wright rated above ADP this week. I only know for sure because I checked cheatsheets to find an example prior to my post.

 

[yinzer]

any more thoughts on this?

i thought it was a good question

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I like the consistence out of my RBs, TE and #1 WR. (high catch totals for the WR/TE regrardless of ppr)

I like QBs and my second and/or third WRs to be of the "blow up" mechanism.

Sure its nice to have those players that consistently blow up. But not usually a realistic expectation beyond a couple top tier players.

example: Its why this year I didnt go after Shockey at TE as much as Cooley, Heap or Witten.

 

[The Jerk]

I think consistency is mostly an illusion anyway. For the most part, consistency correlates higher with lower-scoring players. Check out this study as it is much better than anything I can say.

One caveat: individual leagues with certain unusual scoring arrangements, like distance bonuses TDs, might make certain players even more inconsistent, hit or miss types. Santana Moss is the standard bearer for inconsistency in these types of leagues, with only 1 TD in each of the past few seasons from 10 yards or fewer, but several long TDs each year.

 

[BeachBums]

For me it has more to do with the head-to-head matchup. If I'm heavily favored I might bench a stud to play a guy with a good matchup because there's little risk in it. If the score projects out pretty evenly I'll start my most consistent team. If the other team projects to win by a large margin I would probably play the matchups the most and bench one or more studs for guys with the most potential to blow up that week.

I'm projected to win by 18 this week in a league where scores average in the 50-60 range and I'm probably going to bench Torry Holt (bad matchup) for Dwayne Bowe (good matchup) because there's not much risk in it and it gives me a better shot at the $50 for weekly high score.

In the event that the other guy was heavily favored I might start Ben Watson over another stud WR (WRs and TEs are combined in the league) because I think Dallas will probably play Moss a lot like Cleveland did and leave Watson open over the middle with the potential for multiple TDs like last week. But there's less risk in Bowe over Holt than Bowe over Holt AND Watson over Fitz or Edwards.

 

[JAK Straw]

There was a study done by one of the FBGs a while back on a similar topic. I believe the conclusion was that, if your team scores more points on average than your opponent, that you go for consistency; but if your team averages fewer points, you go for the highest risk/return. I think the reasoning is that you need a better than average performance to beat the other guy, so you should play for it.