How do you decide what wide receiver to start? (1 Viewer)

[jeffngold]

OK, I am well aware that this is not the forum to post a question like, do I start Player X or Player Y. My question and hopeful discussion is more centered around what criteria you use to start a WR. Assuming you are deciding between two similar receivers that are not studs, how do you pick? An example of this is Manningham or Braylon Edwards this week. Please don't even answer it, I am not trying to hide my Assistant Coach thread here.

I saw the early cheatsheets and Braylon is ahead of MM in the rankings. It surprised me as Braylon plays the Ravens and MM plays the Bucs. So I am thinking, how did they come to this?

Anyway, to sum it up, if you have two #3 WRs or thereabouts and are a looking for reasons to start/sit, what methods do you use? The corenerbacks they will be facing? Targets? Previous weeks? Possibility of the score in the game dictating? I am assuming some will say take all of the information available, but sometimes they contradict each other.

This seems to be my biggest problem as I always start the wrong WR. Just trying to start a conversation as to maybe help/enlighten myself as well as others.

TIA.

(Again, let me stress, I don't even want an answer of Braylon vs. MM, just an example).

 

[prgromek]

1) Targets - it's hard to put up numbers if you're not getting the ball. My #1 decider by far.

2) matchup - which WR is on a team that will likely be in a position where they have to throw (either coming from behind or because they can't run it)

 

[jeffngold]

1) Targets - it's hard to put up numbers if you're not getting the ball. My #1 decider by far.2) matchup - which WR is on a team that will likely be in a position where they have to throw (either coming from behind or because they can't run it)

Not disagreeing, just discussing. I thought about Point #2, but then sometimes the opposition is so bad, that they just throw and throw and murder them. I've seen both happen, you know?Do you take into account the coverage they will be facing? Like this week the Broncos play the Raiders. Does that downgrade Marshall since he will be going against Nmamdi (sp?), and upgrade Royal?

 

[prgromek]

1) Targets - it's hard to put up numbers if you're not getting the ball. My #1 decider by far.2) matchup - which WR is on a team that will likely be in a position where they have to throw (either coming from behind or because they can't run it)

Not disagreeing, just discussing. I thought about Point #2, but then sometimes the opposition is so bad, that they just throw and throw and murder them. I've seen both happen, you know?Do you take into account the coverage they will be facing? Like this week the Broncos play the Raiders. Does that downgrade Marshall since he will be going against Nmamdi (sp?), and upgrade Royal?

Right, if a team has a shut-down corner you should definitely take that into consideration. Making decisions about WR2s and WR3s are the toughest calls you have to make in this game.

 

[Resident A]

Targets is the biggest factor for me. I've been rotating WR3s each week & this week I'm leaning toward Burleson over other decent options due to the insane amount of targets he's getting.

 

[moleculo]

I think you are thinking too much. Go with your gut.

 

[theplayer11]

go with your gut makes zero sense..you need some facts to form an opinion. Saying going with your gut is the same as having a monkey pick for you.

 

[Chaka]

1) Targets - it's hard to put up numbers if you're not getting the ball. My #1 decider by far.2) matchup - which WR is on a team that will likely be in a position where they have to throw (either coming from behind or because they can't run it)

Not disagreeing, just discussing. I thought about Point #2, but then sometimes the opposition is so bad, that they just throw and throw and murder them. I've seen both happen, you know?Do you take into account the coverage they will be facing? Like this week the Broncos play the Raiders. Does that downgrade Marshall since he will be going against Nmamdi (sp?), and upgrade Royal?

Right, if a team has a shut-down corner you should definitely take that into consideration. Making decisions about WR2s and WR3s are the toughest calls you have to make in this game.

This depends a bit on how the shutdown corner is typically deployed. Does the DC always put him on the opposing team's #1 WR or is he deployed to shut down one side of the field regardless of where the WRs are deployed.I am pretty sure Nnamdi is the latter, but I am not certain.

 

[JMJ]

If I'm trying to decide between 2 WRs (or 2 QBs) who I like equally and have similar matchups, I always check to see if one is home and the other away.

Offenses simply score more points at home and QBs and WRs can communicate better and etc. I don't usually let it factor in too much with RBs, but I do with QBs and WRs.

 

[moleculo]

go with your gut makes zero sense..you need some facts to form an opinion. Saying going with your gut is the same as having a monkey pick for you.

if you spend enough time here and at other web pages, you will have more than enough facts to develop a gut feel. I can't say "pay attention to this specific set of facts" or "analyze the opposing DB" - all of these things need to be taken in context, but there is no silver bullet.

 

[Chaka]

You also need to see how much the team passes in general, the status of the QB and the offensive philosophy in general.

Lots of targets are nice but when the QB has a noodle arm (e.g. Pennington or Orton) a lot of targets equates to 7 receptions for 63 yards. Conversely in Cinci, where they want to run as much as possible to control the game, 4 receptions from a guy with a cannon, like Palmer who will challenge opposing secondaries deep, can easily turn into 90+ yards and a big score.

In my estimation with two equally talented WRs like Marshall and Ochocinco I go with Ochocinco every time (even this week Cin v Pitt & Den @ Oak) because of the QB situation.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

I think you are thinking too much. Go with your gut.

But my gut keeps telling me to start Santana Moss.Sometimes, I hate my guts.

 

[jeffngold]

I think you are thinking too much. Go with your gut.

But my gut keeps telling me to start Santana Moss.Sometimes, I hate my guts.

Good discussion.Last week I lost because I chose Michael Clayton over Laurent Robinson. So I don't want to make that type of mistake again. Maybe some of you say it was clear that Robinson was the better call. I just want to know why, so to speak. Again, doesn't need to be specifically about these two, just an example.

 

[The Jerk]

Good discussion.

Last week I lost because I chose Michael Clayton over Laurent Robinson. So I don't want to make that type of mistake again. Maybe some of you say it was clear that Robinson was the better call. I just want to know why, so to speak. Again, doesn't need to be specifically about these two, just an example.

If anyone can produce a successful mathematical model for predicting the correct WR to start among several similarly ranked WRs week to week, they will become the new kings of the FF world. Given how the difference between who should have been played and who should have been benched often comes down to a single throw (TD or not TD, as Shakespeare would have said had he played fantasy football), it's not a surprise.If you have developed a deep team, you will often "play the wrong guy" and if you have two or more receivers on your bench, the odds are very good that one of your bench receivers outscores the starter that week. But that's only true based on hindsight. When I have a good team, I almost always lead the league in bench points because my bench is the best in the league.

There are too many variables to choose just one, and the weight of each variable is hard to determine. In no particular order:

WR status on own team (WR1, 2, 3, etc.)
matchup with defense in general (good run defense, good pass defense, both)
matchup with specific defensive player, if applicable
overall strength of teams (teams pass more when they're behind)
weather conditions (more later in the season)
targets and trends (is a player improving/declining)
know which of your receivers are on run-first, pass-first, or balanced offenses
where each receiver ranks as overall playmaker/red zone threat within the offenseA classic example from the past is the mid-1990s Cowboys. When they could control a game, they would run Emmitt Smith early and often. When the Cowboys played a tougher opponent (not necessarily a better defense), then they would pass more all game and especially if they were behind. So that made Alvin Harper and Jay Novacek a better play those weeks. (Irvin was almost always a starter, of course.)

The San Diego Chargers were once that way. It's possible they will pass all game long now that they have better receivers, a weaker run-blocking offensive line, an aging Tomlinson and a diminutive Sproles. But from 2004-2007, they fit a similar profile to the mid-1990s Cowboys.

 

[shredhead]

go with your gut makes zero sense..you need some facts to form an opinion. Saying going with your gut is the same as having a monkey pick for you.

if you spend enough time here and at other web pages, you will have more than enough facts to develop a gut feel. I can't say "pay attention to this specific set of facts" or "analyze the opposing DB" - all of these things need to be taken in context, but there is no silver bullet.

My problem is my gut is wrong too often, and the monkey could probably do a better job of setting my lineups.

 

[dirty_martini]

If it's a WR3 - I often go with the hot hand.

If no one looks to have a hot hand, I usually go with SOS if nothing else jumps out at me. I read the opinions of those I trust regarding matchups and if all of my various sources agree, I'd probably start that person. If they don't agree, I also look at the likelihood that a WR will be on a team that's playing behind. That works really well for QBs but it's only marginal for WRs.

I personally don't find targets to be all that useful for lineup decisions. It's great tool for deciding who to get on my team, just not very helpful in picking the third starter.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

go with your gut makes zero sense..you need some facts to form an opinion. Saying going with your gut is the same as having a monkey pick for you.

Are you calling my gut a monkey?I look at opposition the WR will be facing, the WR's talent and the # of targets he has seen in previous weeks. Then there's things like what has changed (i.e. opposite WR or QB injured?) There's little else to go on - sometimes its obvious sometimes not so much.Bottom line is its not an exact science which is why the "gut" factor does come into play.

 

[FavreCo]

1) Targets - it's hard to put up numbers if you're not getting the ball. My #1 decider by far.2) matchup - which WR is on a team that will likely be in a position where they have to throw (either coming from behind or because they can't run it)

There you have it with the weather being a 3rd factor.

 

[renesauz]

There is something to be said with being in that predicament to start with. When you have multiple options with similar outlooks, and they are all legit candidates (not desperation end of bench players), then you're going to pick wrong much of the time. Deal with it, or try to package your depth for a better starter.

That said, when faced with this dilemma, my choice will often be dictated by what else is going on with my team. Usually, the players you're considering are similar only in ranking, but not in ceiling/floor (which could be dictated by their opponent that week.) Am I facing the best fantasy team in the league? If so, I will choose based on upside. Do my studs have easy or hard matchups? If my studs look iffy, I'll generally choose the safer option, the higher floor.

There is no definitive answer to the question. Sometimes, you really do have to go with your gut.

ETA: A lot of posts in here talk about evaluating matchups, but the truth is that the player rankings have already done that, so I consider that answer to be nothng but a restatement of the problem.

 

[pollardsvision]

In trying to answer this question, it demonstrates, even more, the need for stud WRs.

From my experience, it's next to impossible to play matchups with WRs. You need to know who your best guys are and leave them in there.

Playing matchups with RBs is fairly straightforward. Impossible to predict as well, but at least you have a shot and can make an educated guess.

Although I do try to keep the same guys in week-to-week, I do, of course, switch it up from time-to-time. To this point, I haven't ever been good at it though.

 

[David Yudkin]

In my personal situation, I coach football on Sundays and most weeks have to decide by 7 am who is in my lineup for that week. So I basically have to guess who will play and who won't. Most of the time, I go with whoever is healthiest even if he's not the highest scoring option for fear of having to eat a goose egg.

 

[FavreCo]

I think you are thinking too much. Go with your gut.

But my gut keeps telling me to start Santana Moss.Sometimes, I hate my guts.

Good discussion.Last week I lost because I chose Michael Clayton over Laurent Robinson. So I don't want to make that type of mistake again. Maybe some of you say it was clear that Robinson was the better call. I just want to know why, so to speak. Again, doesn't need to be specifically about these two, just an example.

Clayton/Robinson shouldn't even be a tough decision. 'No use' Clayton vs a WR on a team that has to throw, is throwing and Robinson is getting many targets weekly. Clayton blows.

 

[CBower4545]

I have gone more and more to a model of establishing a regular lineup for most key positions. I'll play matchups for defenses and kickers, but in general I stick with my starters. Of course I keep re-evaluating who my starters are as the season goes on. My thinking is I feel I have a better handle on what my players will score over a full season or longer period of time vs any specific game. Therefore if keep my starters in I get all of their points for the year. their good games will cover their bad games. If I play matchups and rotate, I will miss some of the good days and I have just hurt the value of my investment. I just think you have to be really good at predicting matchups because in any given week luck can tilt those numbers dramatically. Over a full season you can somewhat minimize the impact of luck here.

 

[SuperGreen]

I think you are thinking too much. Go with your gut.

But my gut keeps telling me to start Santana Moss.Sometimes, I hate my guts.

if you don't start him this week, you'll never start him. plus he torched them last year. anyway to answer the question at hand: <1> opportunity (targets and either if the team moves the ball a lot or is always down and has to throw, and <2> matchup. and to a lesser extent during the latter part of the season, <3> weather, although i think that's the least reliable way to pick starters unless it's just horrendous.btw, this is only for very close WR3 type decisions and the like, i always start my stud/really good WR no matter what.

 

[Gr00vus]

anyway to answer the question at hand: <1> opportunity (targets and either if the team moves the ball a lot or is always down and has to throw, and <2> matchup. and to a lesser extent during the latter part of the season, <3> weather, although i think that's the least reliable way to pick starters unless it's just horrendous.

 

[Freakin'Farmer]

Is there a site with infromation out there as to which cornerback your WR will be facing with maybe some history as to how WR X has done against cornerback Y? I think this is something thats overlooked. This past week it was mentioned before the game that Moss hasn't done well againnt the Jets and of course we all know he didn't do too well. I realize that its not alwasy the same corner covering but how much do they switch cornerbacks-are there injury considerations in the secondary to exploit?

 

[packersfan]

Do you take into account the coverage they will be facing? Like this week the Broncos play the Raiders. Does that downgrade Marshall since he will be going against Nmamdi (sp?), and upgrade Royal?

It would if Asomugha played against one WR the entire game. However, he does not do that and I see a lot of people fall into this trap. The Raiders line Asomugha up one side of the field and he stays there regardless of which WR lines up against him. Since most teams move their top WR(s) around to create favorable matchups that means a good WR isn't going to go up against Asomugha the entire game. So Marshall wouldn't necessarily be downgraded or Royal upgraded for that reason.

 

[SuperGreen]

Is there a site with infromation out there as to which cornerback your WR will be facing with maybe some history as to how WR X has done against cornerback Y? I think this is something thats overlooked. This past week it was mentioned before the game that Moss hasn't done well againnt the Jets and of course we all know he didn't do too well.

there's only a couple of corners in the league i would even lend that much credence to in that regard...asomugha, revis...bout it. although i'd never bench a stud or WR2 due to that. even the best corners aren't automatic, and to me there's nothing more expensive than regret (i.e. a 2 TD performance from someone you'd normally start every week sitting on the bench because you overthought things).

 

[amnesiac]

start slot recievers vs. the Browns.

they are dying at CB#3 right now.

 

[Chaka]

There is something to be said with being in that predicament to start with. When you have multiple options with similar outlooks, and they are all legit candidates (not desperation end of bench players), then you're going to pick wrong much of the time. Deal with it, or try to package your depth for a better starter.

That said, when faced with this dilemma, my choice will often be dictated by what else is going on with my team. Usually, the players you're considering are similar only in ranking, but not in ceiling/floor (which could be dictated by their opponent that week.) Am I facing the best fantasy team in the league? If so, I will choose based on upside. Do my studs have easy or hard matchups? If my studs look iffy, I'll generally choose the safer option, the higher floor.

There is no definitive answer to the question. Sometimes, you really do have to go with your gut.

ETA: A lot of posts in here talk about evaluating matchups, but the truth is that the player rankings have already done that, so I consider that answer to be nothng but a restatement of the problem.

Presuming you rely on someone else to do your rankings.

 

[Freakin'Farmer]

Is there a site with infromation out there as to which cornerback your WR will be facing with maybe some history as to how WR X has done against cornerback Y? I think this is something thats overlooked. This past week it was mentioned before the game that Moss hasn't done well againnt the Jets and of course we all know he didn't do too well.

there's only a couple of corners in the league i would even lend that much credence to in that regard...asomugha, revis...bout it. although i'd never bench a stud or WR2 due to that. even the best corners aren't automatic, and to me there's nothing more expensive than regret (i.e. a 2 TD performance from someone you'd normally start every week sitting on the bench because you overthought things).

I always start my studs but where it comes into play is when you have WR3 and WR4 that your trying to decide which to start. Or you bascially have 2 WR2s on your team.

 

[Maven]

I battle through this every Sunday down to the last minute. It would be cool to get a list of progressions we should go through before we start a WR.

 

[jeffngold]

I battle through this every Sunday down to the last minute. It would be cool to get a list of progressions we should go through before we start a WR.

I agree...that is what I am looking for. Seems each person has different criteria. My decision this week is Manningham, Laurent, and Sims-Walker. Again, not a WDIS thread, just very similar guys and I have no clue who to pick.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I think you are thinking too much. Go with your gut.

But my gut keeps telling me to start Santana Moss.Sometimes, I hate my guts.

Good discussion.Last week I lost because I chose Michael Clayton over Laurent Robinson. So I don't want to make that type of mistake again. Maybe some of you say it was clear that Robinson was the better call. I just want to know why, so to speak. Again, doesn't need to be specifically about these two, just an example.

Take it from someone who is ashamed of how much time not working and away from my family I spend trying to divine the upcoming week's matchups...there is no discernable "why" that can be relied upon with regularity. There are too many variables involved in a game that are simply unpredictable from several days out.It's tough enough to divine what will be with guys like Moss, Fitz, Jennings and White. Trying to figure out which marginal WR on your roster is going to do better is probably an exercise in futility...especially this early in the season.My experience has been that the passing game is much more difficult to predict relative to the weekly matchups than is the running game. Just look at the QB points and their opponents over the last two weeks. Rivers vs. Oakland and then vs. Baltimore is an example.I'd say using your gut to "summarize" your observations is just fine.

 

[fozzy fosbourne]

What I've always thought would be an interesting study, not limited to Wide Receivers, is to compare a strategy that involved strictly adhering to a site's matchup rankings versus a strategy that strictly adhered to starting the highest ranked players for the season forward for that site. This could even be done for multiple sites.

In other words, say a certain site, like this one, has weekly rankings and then season-forward overall rankings. Make up a bunch of teams based on ADP or whatever that would be suitable approximations of average teams, but with a bias towards good depth at the position since that's where WDIS questions come about, and then compare the results of the team if it adhered strictly to playing the matchups or if it adhered strictly to playing the 'studs' (highest ranked guys at that point in the season).

I think the results could be very interesting. On average, how big of an advantage does playing the matchups dictate? Does it occasionally fail? What's the risk involved?

 

[joetrow]

Matchup Help Found this today, pretty cool, doesnt give you any in depth information, and going on 2 weeks information is a little iffy, but down the strech I could see this helping me picking between player X and Y.

 

[GloryDaze]

I look at the O/U line for the games also.

 

[the rover]

If it's close, I'll look at the defensive stats of their opponents to see if one is giving up significantly more yards in their passing defense.

For a WR3, I'll look to see if the other team has a shutdown corner, with the thought that a second or third option may be getting more looks than normal.

If I have it down to two and I'm going back and forth, I consider whether my opponent's QB is the QB for one of the receivers, thinking I can nullify some yards and TDs.

If it's a coinflip after all of that, I go with whoever is playing on Sunday night or Monday so that I have some interest in those games.