Hoarding players from one NFL team to your fantasy squad (1 Viewer)

[Sabertooth]

Ok, here is my situation but this is just the jumping off point for this discussion, I'm not asking what to do here. Just want to talk about this. I am in a two player keeper auction league. My best keeper options right now are Maroney $3, Brady $11, Chester Taylor $11, and DeAngelo $2.

I am seriously considering not only keeping Brady and Maroney, but then going after some combination of Stallworth, Moss, and Watson. By basically hitching my wagon to the Patriots I minimizw weak weeks by having most of my key players on bye (week 10) at once. Obviously I will take it in the shorts that one week, but I'm ok with that.

One owner in a different league I was in last season had Peyton, Wayne, Addai, and Dallas Clark. Worked out pretty good for him as he won the top prize even though I lost to him with LT2 and Gore.

They way I see it, a team like the Pats, Chargers, or Colts might be a goldmine of fantasy points. I'd say the Pats could easily average a touchdown more per game. But even if they only raise their PPG by say 3.5, it still puts them at 27 PPG. They scored 385 last season, I think 430 is a reasonable amount to project for them this season. And that's a very conservative estimate considering the upgrades they've made at wideout, the continued maturation of Watson and having watched Peyton Manning win the super bowl.

Thoughts? Pros? Cons? Am I crazy in this thinking? Would the Colts or Chargers be a better team to load up on?

 

[Ron_Mexico]

In one of my leagues I have Brady, Maroney, Gostkowski and

the Patriots defense.

I don't normally do this, but I see the Patriots leading the NFL

in total offense next year.

Brady should be the main beneficiary, the passing game

should still be spread out so I stayed away from WRs or TEs for NE.

I think having 4 from NE is enough.

 

[perry147]

I did it last year with Payton, Harrison, and Clark on the Colts. It worked out for me also since I won the league. The only downside is the off week and the occasional clunker.

 

[lions327]

for the most part, I stick to my rankings regardless of team.

 

[humphrp]

Some years it can work out great like last year and the Colts, but putting your eggs all in one basket is a risky proposition. For example if Brady gets hurt your season is down the drain. If you had diversified across teams an injury to one player will be minimized over the rest of the players. This is the same theory applyed in financial investements. For example if you only invest in one stock you live or die with that stocks performance. However if you invest in a portfolio of stocks you will maximize your return while minimizing your risk. The key difference though is our financial objective is long term growth which translates better to a dynasty or keeper type league. If you are day trading you are looking at todays hot stock and exploiting the temporary extraordinary gain. This translates better to redraft.

Answer in short is it can work well in redraft, but beware of this strategy in dynasty or keeper leagues with large number of keepers (+5).

 

[Mystery Achiever]

for the most part, I stick to my rankings regardless of team.

agree. if you end up with several from one team because they're best availalable, i wouldn't pass on one just because of the team; but i wouldn't consider "same team" an advantage on its own. even the patriots can have a bad game or two. diversification has its own merits, also.

 

[Blackhawk 69]

for the most part, I stick to my rankings regardless of team.

agree. if you end up with several from one team because they're best availalable, i wouldn't pass on one just because of the team; but i wouldn't consider "same team" an advantage on its own. even the patriots can have a bad game or two. diversification has its own merits, also.

Well put. I agree.Now in Sabertooth's case I would keep Brady and Maroney. However, in my sos I have N Eng with the toughest passing schedule #32. But, they do have a great QB w/ new weapons, still I would look to a TE off this team. Their rushing sos is nice tied fir 6th easiest, so that will help too.

 

[mbuehner]

Real short answer- depends on the team. I would definately not hitch my wagon to the Patriots with the possible exception of the combo of Brady, Maroney, and Moss. But that would be the equivalent of taking Maroney in the 1st, Brady in the 2nd, and Moss in the 3rd, which is taking the latter two at least a round two early each. You badly need another good RB, i'd concentrate on that (depending on the scoring).

13 different Patriots scored TDs last year rushing or recieving. Only 8 Charges and 10 Colts did the same.

For San Diego, the QB/RB1/TE1 combo accounted for 40 out of 56 rushing and receiving TDS 71%

For the Colts QB/RB1/WR1 24 TDS out of 47 for 51%

For the Patriots QB/RB1/WR1 17 TDS out of 45 for 38%

Patriots spread the ball around a lot. Granted Randy Moss may well step up to be the first true WR1 the Patriots have had in the Brady era, and Maroney is looking like the man as a true featured back, but both those guys have sizeable risks.

I'd be very cautious. Brady and Maroney would be a pretty cool combo, and if you can get a WR for great value or Watson, cool- but overpaying for them seems like a recipe of kicking the dog when Kevin Faulk or Dave Thomas stroll into the endzone.

 

[trollmonger]

A few years back I had Alexander, Hasselbeck, Stevens, Seahawk D/ST and K. Robinson.

It wasn't intentional. It just worked out that way. Alexander was a keeper and I just drafted the best player available after that. It wasn't until I already had SA, Hass and K-Rob that I even noticed it.

But for the most part, only Alexander and Hasselbeck were starters although I was forced to start K-Rob for several weeks due to injuries.

IIRC, I lost in the final that year. Seahawks were among the top offenses. If Alexander didn't find the end zone in a given week, Hass probably threw for 3. Having QB and RB can compliment each other.

I'd be a little more worried if I had the QB and two starting WRs. If the running game has a big game, the passing game may have struggled (at least TD-wise). And suddenly you have 3 players with poor stats.

 

[Carnifex]

One possible issue with this strategy is injuries. Injuries not only affect the injured player's numbers but also usually have an affect on their teammates. In theory, injuries to a FF squad with many players from one team are worse than injuries to a diverse squad.

 

[bigfishboy]

I have Palmer, Rudi and Chad in one league and I am in postion to get TJ Houshmanzadeh. Is that nuts? Absolutely. Am I going to have the greatest weekly deviation ever? yes. But here is my reasoning:

In my conference I have a team that is just sick, He has Peyton, Tomlinson, Alexander, Steve Smith, and Torry Holt. (Please hold the "can I play in your league" jokes, this is a long term league where this owner has consistently drafted and traded like a genius). Because I expect both of us will make the playoffs, the season is going to boil down to beating him in the playoffs. I will play him in either week 14 where the Bengals are at home against the Rams or in week 15 where the Bengals go to the 49'ers.

Yes, I am putting all my eggs into one basket, but I like the matchups when I will be playing him for the right to go to the superbowl.

BTW, the Bengals play at home against Cleveland in week 16 if I make the Superbowl.

 

[JayMan]

Not a bad idea... at all... if you pick the right team

Obviously there are some pros (explose weeks, above average scoring team) and cons (injury to key player, bye week, tough weeks)... but, with most league rewarding only the few elite teams (and/or the occasional weekly top score) - the idea behind FF is not to diversify like for your investment portfolio... the idea is to hit-it big when Peyton toss the bomb to Marvin or Carson launches a missile to Chad or Tom lobs it in the corner for Randy...

The only good argument against this is injury... if Palmer goes down, well - Ocho Cinco won't be top10, Housh won't give you a championship and Rudi will see LBs lining alot closer...

The other arguments - 'bye week' or 'occasional stinker' are irrelevant here... don't tell me that if you have McNabb and Driver that does guys will obvisouly and evidently have a good week or a bad week depending on the other and vice versa?!... their scores are 'independant' and thus, have no relation with one another...

On the other hand, Peyton and Wayne scores are 'dependant' and thus, have everything to do with one another... is that a bad thing?... obviously not, if they score more than the average starting tandem in your league!

---

To see this, I have looked at the 'offensive starting FFers' from every team last year (1QB, 1RB, 2WRs, 1TE)... and averaged the results... if that team averaged under 22.4 - it was an above average NFL team for FF production...

Example, The Cowboys: Romo-QB19, Barber-RB14, Owens-WR2, Glenn-WR20, Witten-TE12... 13.4 average were one of the better teams last year...

Hence, it's a good strategy... only if you pick the correct team - and they are rare...

IND--6.4CIN-12.8DAL-13.4STL-14.8DET-15.0PHI-17.4PIT-18.2CHI-21.0NYJ-21.6NO--22.4BAL-22.8NYG-23.2GB--23.4SEA-24.6SD--25.2KC--25.8SF--26.2MIA-26.6WAS-26.6ARI-27.2CAR-27.8NE--27.8BUF-28.8DEN-29.2JAX-29.6CLE-30.4ATL-32.0HOU-32.0TEN-32.0TB--38.4MIN-40.0OAK-44.2

 

[Our Gang]

It would suck when the fins steal the partriots signals and they get shut out 26-

 

[radballs]

Some leagues have weekly bonuses or money won for high weeks or for having the highest score for the season in a given week. If that was the case, I would be much more likely to consider the strategy. Otherwise, I doubt it.

For one thing, by owning a bunch of players from the same team, you accomplish some real potential problems. Even if that team blows up on any given week, your upside is limited because only so many players can score. So, if one guy goes off, that means someone else isn't. This is why I'd rather diversify and hopefully have multiple guys that have a good week. Also, there is no diversification either for the bye week but also because of the "all your eggs in one basket". When the team faces a stout defense (which might be two or three times all year), you're throwing away those weeks as well as the bye week.

Given what you stated as well, I'd probably keep both the RBs (DeAngelo over Brady) just because they're relatively cheap and starting RBs that you can keep who are cheap is very valuable. Brady is not valuable relative to Williams at the price differential. Just my two cents.

 

[The Vision]

We drafted entire teams in one league last season with IDP's included and the top teams were STL, SD, NE and AZ. Believe it or not the team that drafted the Colts ended the season 4-10 and the team that drafted Cin was 5-9. Trades were allowed so not all of the teams players stuck with their original teams but the main fantasy players pretty much remained with the teams they were drafted to.

 

[JayMan]

Some leagues have weekly bonuses or money won for high weeks or for having the highest score for the season in a given week. If that was the case, I would be much more likely to consider the strategy. Otherwise, I doubt it. For one thing, by owning a bunch of players from the same team, you accomplish some real potential problems. Even if that team blows up on any given week, your upside is limited because only so many players can score. So, if one guy goes off, that means someone else isn't. This is why I'd rather diversify and hopefully have multiple guys that have a good week. Also, there is no diversification either for the bye week but also because of the "all your eggs in one basket". When the team faces a stout defense (which might be two or three times all year), you're throwing away those weeks as well as the bye week.Given what you stated as well, I'd probably keep both the RBs (DeAngelo over Brady) just because they're relatively cheap and starting RBs that you can keep who are cheap is very valuable. Brady is not valuable relative to Williams at the price differential. Just my two cents.

Good points you make Radballs (as usual)...Just an hypothetical question... if you had the chance of these two redrat teams - FBG scoring:Manning / Addai / Harrison / Wayne / Clark / Vinatieri / ColtsYoung / Parker / Owens / Burress / Cooley / Rackers / Jaguarswhich one you want?...I obvisouly picked the best scenarios for the 'one teamers'... but the other team is composed of 'median' starter for every position accordin to FBG-ADP...I've said in my post earlier... 'it's a good strategy - if you can choose the right team - and they are rare' (and you can see the arguments for it)... would you agree that if you knew that your overall team would score more FF pts (even if they are all from the same NFL team) you would opt for it? (even if that means that some week Marvin goes for 8/163/3 while Addai only has 63yds)... just asking

 

[lions327]

If you go out of your way to take someone because he is on the same team as someone else, it means you are going away from your rankings and reaching for someone based on the team they play on and not what you think they will do.

I just don't see a reason to skip over the best player on your board and take a lower ranked player just because you have other players on the same team.

 

[crimsonrebel]

In a redraft league, this is pretty much irrelevant, because odds are you wont be able to draft more than 2-3 players on one team. Let us also remember that our draft ranking are not locked onto stone based on the number, but are tiered. In other words, your # 15 WR may be in the same tier as your #20 WR. By taking the #20, you really arent downgrading when trying to draft players from one team. Youre getting a player who is just as likely to finish at the 15 spot as the guy you have ranked 15. In that case, if youre confident about this one team, go for it.

 

[radballs]

Some leagues have weekly bonuses or money won for high weeks or for having the highest score for the season in a given week. If that was the case, I would be much more likely to consider the strategy. Otherwise, I doubt it. For one thing, by owning a bunch of players from the same team, you accomplish some real potential problems. Even if that team blows up on any given week, your upside is limited because only so many players can score. So, if one guy goes off, that means someone else isn't. This is why I'd rather diversify and hopefully have multiple guys that have a good week. Also, there is no diversification either for the bye week but also because of the "all your eggs in one basket". When the team faces a stout defense (which might be two or three times all year), you're throwing away those weeks as well as the bye week.Given what you stated as well, I'd probably keep both the RBs (DeAngelo over Brady) just because they're relatively cheap and starting RBs that you can keep who are cheap is very valuable. Brady is not valuable relative to Williams at the price differential. Just my two cents.

Good points you make Radballs (as usual)...Just an hypothetical question... if you had the chance of these two redrat teams - FBG scoring:Manning / Addai / Harrison / Wayne / Clark / Vinatieri / ColtsYoung / Parker / Owens / Burress / Cooley / Rackers / Jaguarswhich one you want?...I obvisouly picked the best scenarios for the 'one teamers'... but the other team is composed of 'median' starter for every position accordin to FBG-ADP...I've said in my post earlier... 'it's a good strategy - if you can choose the right team - and they are rare' (and you can see the arguments for it)... would you agree that if you knew that your overall team would score more FF pts (even if they are all from the same NFL team) you would opt for it? (even if that means that some week Marvin goes for 8/163/3 while Addai only has 63yds)... just asking

Well, your team comparisons aren't very fair. First of all, I don't know how you would be able to get all four of Addai, Manning, Harrison, and Wayne on the same team. Addai is going in the first, Manning in the second, but neither Harrison nor Wayne are going to make it to your 4th rounder so this potential team is a moot point. The other team is missing a 3rd rounder so the two teams really aren't comparable.

 

[nygiants56]

I generally try to avoid having too many players from the same team. Years ago, I had Jim Kelly, James Lofton and Andre Reed. When the Bills were stifled on offense, my fantasy team was, too..

and, you need to worry about bye weeks..

Bad matchups against good defenses..etc

 

[JayMan]

Interesting to note that everyone here that is giving an example had a tremendous team... but don't recommend doing so...

 

[Sabertooth]

Interesting to note that everyone here that is giving an example had a tremendous team... but don't recommend doing so...

That is quite interesting. I am seriously leaning toward this strategy. I need an edge in this league anyway. I've never finished in the money. The same owner has won the league 3 of the 4 years. I think that Brady alongside Maroney and Stallworth could be a really nice (and relatively economical) core. One thing I like about it is the bye week thing. I guess I'm in the camp of just getting through the bye and operating at 90-100% for the other 12 weeks. I just don't like having to go at 80% for 3 weeks (or whatever the case may be).

 

[Jayrod]

Interesting to note that everyone here that is giving an example had a tremendous team... but don't recommend doing so...

That is quite interesting. I am seriously leaning toward this strategy. I need an edge in this league anyway. I've never finished in the money. The same owner has won the league 3 of the 4 years. I think that Brady alongside Maroney and Stallworth could be a really nice (and relatively economical) core. One thing I like about it is the bye week thing. I guess I'm in the camp of just getting through the bye and operating at 90-100% for the other 12 weeks. I just don't like having to go at 80% for 3 weeks (or whatever the case may be).

Could there be a correlation between these two statements?

 

[Sabertooth]

Interesting to note that everyone here that is giving an example had a tremendous team... but don't recommend doing so...

That is quite interesting. I am seriously leaning toward this strategy. I need an edge in this league anyway. I've never finished in the money. The same owner has won the league 3 of the 4 years. I think that Brady alongside Maroney and Stallworth could be a really nice (and relatively economical) core. One thing I like about it is the bye week thing. I guess I'm in the camp of just getting through the bye and operating at 90-100% for the other 12 weeks. I just don't like having to go at 80% for 3 weeks (or whatever the case may be).

Could there be a correlation between these two statements?

You might be right. But I am open to all ideas.