Eye for and Eye Strategy (1 Viewer)

[T-Bone976]

What are you thoughts on starting players are teammates of your fantasy opponent (assuming 6pts per TD)?

there are some scenarios that are nicer than others like my WR vs his QB

ie my Chambers vs his Culpepper*****

on the other hand, WR vs his RB is not so appealing

Eddie Kennison vs Larry Johnson

lastly, a RB vs a TE

are there any of these teammate scenarios to avoid

ie Dillon vs Watson

****note - I think the WR vs QB matchup would lean toward the WR owner since a QB needs > 20 yds/point while a receiver only needs 10/point.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

You should start the players who will score you the most points.

 

[-jb-]

the cancel-out theory is most effective on wednesdays.

 

[IM666]

You should start the players who will score you the most points.

Also, I believe it is "Eye for an eye"

 

[CA_7]

An eye for an eye makes both teams blind.

 

[Texican]

Yes, the eye for and eye method works well. I try to start at least 2 WRs of my opponent's QB. It sucks the week I play against Vick, but works well when I play against Palmer.

 

[dgreen]

You should start the players who will score you the most points.

But, did you see the assumption that TDs are 6 points? Consider that before you answer too quickly.

 

[Archie Bunker]

What are you thoughts on starting players are teammates of your fantasy opponent (assuming 6pts per TD)?there are some scenarios that are nicer than others like my WR vs his QBie my Chambers vs his Culpepper*****on the other hand, WR vs his RB is not so appealingEddie Kennison vs Larry Johnson lastly, a RB vs a TEare there any of these teammate scenarios to avoid ie Dillon vs Watson****note - I think the WR vs QB matchup would lean toward the WR owner since a QB needs > 20 yds/point while a receiver only needs 10/point.

The only time I would recommend this strategy over playing your best players is if you have a huge advantage over your oppponent and are trying to protect against 1 player carrying the opposing team.For example, this week, my opponent, between being a huge Steeler fan and not paying attention to bye weeks during the draft, has most of his team on a bye. The only way he has a realistic shot at beating me is if Larry Fitzgerald has an enormous week and all my players stink it up. In this case, if I had Warner, I would probably start him over a Palmer or Brady.

 

[baronson]

basically, i think this is a pretty crappy strategy. if i'm deciding between Matt Jones and Troy Williamson, and my nemesis is starting Leftwich against the Browns or something, then i might lean Jones.

the only time i'd give this more serious consideration is if i have my top QB against a tough opponent and my nemesis (which all my opponents eventually become) has his stud WR, who just happens to be on the same NFL team as my #2 QB is up against a creampuff. example:

my QBs: Eli, Bulger

his stud WR: Holt

Eli up against Jax, Bulger/Holt up against Cleveland.

in this situation i'd probably start Bulger. but basically, i don't care. i know i will dominate.

 

[nightshift]

Guppies. It's all fun & games 'til someone loses an eye.

You should always start your best players to give the best chance for a win. Regardless of who your opponent starts.

 

[Archie Bunker]

Guppies. It's all fun & games 'til someone loses an eye.You should always start your best players to give the best chance for a win. Regardless of who your opponent starts.

Never say never (or always). It's all about giving your team the highest probability of winning. Most of the time you are right. Under some rare and very specific circumstances, your best players may not give you the highest probability of winning.

 

[Bankerguy]

I use it from time to time.

It's definately something to think about.

 

[RRaptors]

Guppies. It's all fun & games 'til someone loses an eye.You should always start your best players to give the best chance for a win. Regardless of who your opponent starts.

I never understood the cancel effect. Consider this: You try to cancel out your opponent who has a QB that ends up with 0 Td's and minimal yards and you played a WR from the same team. Not only do you not get any TDs from the WR you played, but your yards could be minimal too. OR, even worse, that QB throws 2 Td's, but none of them go to the WR you chose to play. Meanwhile, on your bench there is a WR that went off that you WOULD have played (better player and/or better matchup) only you were caught up in trying to do a sneaky cancellation tactic. I just think it doesn't pay off. The bottom line is to activate the players you think have the best chance to score points for your team.

 

[AnonymousBob]

If you're deciding between two players that are expected to perform equally, I'd go with the one that could screw your opponent.

Eye for an eye isn't a bad strategy imo.

 

[nightshift]

Guppies. It's all fun & games 'til someone loses an eye.You should always start your best players to give the best chance for a win. Regardless of who your opponent starts.

Never say never (or always). It's all about giving your team the highest probability of winning. Most of the time you are right. Under some rare and very specific circumstances, your best players may not give you the highest probability of winning.

I didn't say start your best players. I said, "always start your best players to give the best chance for a win." Big difference.

 

[Bankerguy]

If you're deciding between two players that are expected to perform equally, I'd go with the one that could screw your opponent. Eye for an eye isn't a bad strategy imo.

I'd gladly sacrifice a poor WR performance for their QB to stink it up.

 

[RRaptors]

Guppies. It's all fun & games 'til someone loses an eye.

You should always start your best players to give the best chance for a win. Regardless of who your opponent starts.

Never say never (or always). It's all about giving your team the highest probability of winning. Most of the time you are right. Under some rare and very specific circumstances, your best players may not give you the highest probability of winning.

I just don't see it. How exactly does this makes sense over using your best players to score points. Not trying to argue, I just don't understand. It seems there is a greater chance of it backfiring on you than it working for you (scenario I proposed above). What are some scenarios where it would make sense that the chance of it workig is GREATER than activating the players with the best chance of getting you points.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

 

[videoguy505]

I've never seen this thread before with 5 ?'s in the subhead. Made me think about it a little more. But, my answer is the same as always.

Do a search for the other half-dozen threads on this topic since the season opened and you'll find my opinion in there.

 

[Archie Bunker]

Guppies. It's all fun & games 'til someone loses an eye.You should always start your best players to give the best chance for a win. Regardless of who your opponent starts.

I never understood the cancel effect. Consider this: You try to cancel out your opponent who has a QB that ends up with 0 Td's and minimal yards and you played a WR from the same team. Not only do you not get any TDs from the WR you played, but your yards could be minimal too. OR, even worse, that QB throws 2 Td's, but none of them go to the WR you chose to play. Meanwhile, on your bench there is a WR that went off that you WOULD have played (better player and/or better matchup) only you were caught up in trying to do a sneaky cancellation tactic. I just think it doesn't pay off. The bottom line is to activate the players you think have the best chance to score points for your team.

Your "what if" scenario could just as easily work in the opposite direction. His QB throws 2 TDs to your WR that you benched while the WR you started gets stopped (like Chad Johnson last week).It's all about probability of winning. The fact that you are missing is that all variables (points by the players) are not independent.Let's look at an example. You play in a very simple league where you start 1 QB, 1 RB, and 1 WR. Your opponent is starting Huard because T. Green is hurt and E. Manning is on a bye. He is starting Ron dayne because Willie Parker is on a bye and he is starting Larry Fitzgerald.You start Tomlinson, Chad Johnson and have to decide between Kurt Warner and Carson Palmer. Typically, you would start Palmer. In this particular case, any rational person would probably start Warner.You assume Huard and Dayne will produce minimal numbers. Therefore, the only possible way he wins is if Fitzgerald goes nuts AND your QB, LT, and Johnson all stink. If Palmer stinks, it is likely Johnson stinks. Likewise, if Fitzgerald has a good game, Warner likely has a good game. I would rather go in knowing Warner will cancel out Fitzgerald and take my chances of CJ & LT vs. Dayne and Huard than risking Palmer & CJ stinking it up, LT getting stopped by Balt, and Fitz getting a couple of scores.

 

[Archie Bunker]

Guppies. It's all fun & games 'til someone loses an eye.

You should always start your best players to give the best chance for a win. Regardless of who your opponent starts.

Never say never (or always). It's all about giving your team the highest probability of winning. Most of the time you are right. Under some rare and very specific circumstances, your best players may not give you the highest probability of winning.

I just don't see it. How exactly does this makes sense over using your best players to score points. Not trying to argue, I just don't understand. It seems there is a greater chance of it backfiring on you than it working for you (scenario I proposed above). What are some scenarios where it would make sense that the chance of it workig is GREATER than activating the players with the best chance of getting you points.

See my other post. In head-to-head, the objective is to outscore your opponent. My situation this week is a good example. My opponent is a huge Steelers fan. He has Big Ben, Willie Parker, Hines Ward, the Steelers def. To top it, Eli Manning is his starting QB and on a bye and T.O. is questionable to play. His only star is Fitzgerald.

My league gives 6 pts/td and points for rushing/receiving only if the player hits 100 yards.

The only feasible way I get beat is if Fitzgerald gets 150 yards and 3 tds and I score next ot nothing (LJ and Gore are my RBs, Holt and S. Smith are my WRs). If I had Warner on my roster and had to choose between him and McNabb, I would choose Warner because his scoring and Fitzgerald's scoring are likely going to track one another. If I can get Warner to negate anything Fitzgerald might do, I like my chances of my RBs & Wrs against his.