How much does the team being good matter?? (1 Viewer)

[packer_junkie]

This is something I way every year and I am curious what others think.

Does your players being on contending teams matter? Especially down the stretch.

I have had alot of success in the past decade trying to move for guys who are on teams fighting for a bye or fighting for a playoff spot.

My roster this year has me worried: Key players like Achane, Gwilson, Nabors, etc seem to be on BAD teams that are going nowhere.

Any of you have thoughts on this??

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I do like or tend to draft players on good teams. Especially at WR, i prefer a WR paired with a good QB or a strong arm QB.
Chase is a great WR but it doesn't hurt that he is typically paired with one of the top 4-5 QBs in the NFL

That's just an example and I do like players that I know will gobble up touches even on so so teams.
I prefer players who star on good offenses or teams likely to be in the playoff hunt

Once teams turn into a dumpster fire or know the season is over, not just cashing it in but sometimes these Vets get traded to other teams they are unfamiliar with the playbook and it just leads to an overall unhealthy season at whatever you had them slotted to do

 

[Snotbubbles]

This is something I way every year and I am curious what others think.

Does your players being on contending teams matter? Especially down the stretch.

I have had alot of success in the past decade trying to move for guys who are on teams fighting for a bye or fighting for a playoff spot.

My roster this year has me worried: Key players like Achane, Gwilson, Nabors, etc seem to be on BAD teams that are going nowhere.

Any of you have thoughts on this??

My perception is if a player has a minor injury and the team is fighting for a playoff spot, he plays (or continues to play if the injury occurs mid-game) and if the team is out of it, he doesn't.

 

[Judge Smails]

I want running backs on good teams. Less so with wide receivers and quarterbacks. All about volume.

 

[RaidersAreOne]

I want running backs on good teams.

It's funny that I tend to agree however my starting RBs are Achane and JT. Both elite fantasy guys but on bad O's (Still producing at least).

 

[FreeBaGeL]

This is something I way every year and I am curious what others think.

Does your players being on contending teams matter? Especially down the stretch.

I have had alot of success in the past decade trying to move for guys who are on teams fighting for a bye or fighting for a playoff spot.

My roster this year has me worried: Key players like Achane, Gwilson, Nabors, etc seem to be on BAD teams that are going nowhere.

Any of you have thoughts on this??

My perception is if a player has a minor injury and the team is fighting for a playoff spot, he plays (or continues to play if the injury occurs mid-game) and if the team is out of it, he doesn't.

This is definitely a common perception but I'm not sure if it's actually true or not. It seems like every year in the player threads there are people panicking about it, yet the guys seem to always play. Bad teams totally out of it bring guys back at less than full health repeatedly.

 

[GPS]

I want running backs on good teams.

It's funny that I tend to agree however my starting RBs are Achane and JT. Both elite fantasy guys but on bad O's (Still producing at least).

That begs the question if Miami's offense is good or bad? Has been one of the league's most productive, but took a nose-dive with Tua out. I drafted too many Dolphins this year and took a beating. I remember thinking after Tua's prior head injuries he was just one away from being on an extended out. Not listening to my own advice came back to haunt me this season. That said the Dolphin skill players could be money ROS.

 

[Gally]

Depending on when your league has it's Super Bowl or if it just plays through the end some of the last weeks get wonky with teams clinching and not being able to improve/lose seeding and sit keys guys. In most of my leagues we play straight through with no playoffs. Best record for the season wins the title. There are some strange starters in lineups for key games the last couple weeks.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Breece Hall was money for me last year down the stretch - they were awful & playing for nothing.

Most of my championship squad was on good teams or at least good offenses. I suppose occasionally there is a risk someone gets shut down early in a lost year but generally competitors want to compete.

 

[Gold Fox]

I'm worried what Chase decides to do once the Bengals are out of it. Currently 3-5 and one game out of playoff contention. I expect them to beat the Raiders and improve to 4-5, but if they don't you might not see Chase play again until he gets a new contract.

 

[wlwiles]

I tend to shy away from RBs (especially if they're not known for their pass catching prowess) on terrible offenses because of negative game script. Avoided all Raiders and Panthers because of this.

And there's always the kicker dilemma:

1. Go for one on a great offense, so tons of PAT's?
2. Go for one on a middling offense, so lots of FG attempts but few PAT's?

 

[BassNBrew]

I tend to shy away from RBs (especially if they're not known for their pass catching prowess) on terrible offenses because of negative game script. Avoided all Raiders and Panthers because of this.

And there's always the kicker dilemma:

1. Go for one on a great offense, so tons of PAT's?
2. Go for one on a middling offense, so lots of FG attempts but few PAT's?

Regarding kickers, I like to try and obtain my QBs kicker if i have a solid team at RB/WR/TE. It helps smooth on the scoring on those days the QB just can't quite punch it in. If I missed out on the 4 pt passing TD, at least I get the 3 pt FG.

 

[jm192]

I think it's just another factor to consider when ranking them. Maybe it's a tie breaker for 2 close players.

But we've seen plenty of good fantasy players from bad teams. Look at Nabers this year. Amari Cooper is on a better offense, but certainly, you're not trading Nabers for Cooper.

I'll typically hold a bad offense against a running back. But we all need RB's and opportunity still counts for a lot. So while I may rank them lower, I'd still welcome them on my roster. Rhamondre Stevenson is a great example. Sure, I'd love to trade him for an offense with more TD opportunity. But other owners are thinking about that TD upside as well.

 

[wgoldsph]

I want running backs on good teams.

It's funny that I tend to agree however my starting RBs are Achane and JT. Both elite fantasy guys but on bad O's (Still producing at least).

That begs the question if Miami's offense is good or bad? Has been one of the league's most productive, but took a nose-dive with Tua out. I drafted too many Dolphins this year and took a beating. I remember thinking after Tua's prior head injuries he was just one away from being on an extended out. Not listening to my own advice came back to haunt me this season. That said the Dolphin skill players could be money ROS.

Miami's offense is built specifically for a qb with Tua's skill set - throwing pinpoint to windows the wr isn't in yet. Timing is paramount. Can't get that with a backup.

 

[Dickies]

I want running backs on good teams. Less so with wide receivers and quarterbacks. All about volume.

I look at all of these being volume plays. I don't care if the RB teams are bad as long as they get the touches. Being a pass catching RB can obviously help if the team is bad. I had Stevenson a couple seasons ago and he piled up receptions on a regular basis in garbage time,

 

[titusbramble]

I think it's mostly a tie breaker. If the Giants are out of playoff contention, then in a marginal spot down the stretch where, say, Nabers is working through a mild muscle strain, they might be more likely to protect their asset and go inactive or snap count than they would do otherwise if in a must win situation. That said I really doubt that this is something that can be avoided at the point of the draft without giving up a ton of value, or something that can be realistically abused in trades. I guess the only spot where it might matter is in waiver pickups - all things being equal between a backup RB on a winning team and one who's 2-6 right now, I think there's an obvious play there most of the time

 

[Leroy Hoard]

A really good question when you have to decide between the #1 guy on a crummy offense vs the #2 guy on a good one. I give the tiebreaker to the #2 on the better offense because there may be more upside in case the #1 guy on his team goes down. imo the already #1 guy on a bad team doesn't get quite as much of a bump if one of his other guys gets injured.