"Neutralizing" players (1 Viewer)

[Bolebuns]

Is it wise, or better, to try to neutralize an opponent's receiver by playing that receiver's QB (assuming you have QB options), or is it better to try to neutralize an opponent's QB by playing one of his receivers? Or, does it matter?

My guess is that it doesn't matter. But, if an opponent has a receiver you are worried about, it would be nice to make sure that if he goes off that your QB keeps him in check. How bout the other way round?

I will be playing against Stafford in the first round of the playoffs, and wonder if it is worth grabbing Burleson off the WW or replace a comparable WR. Or, would that be giving my opponent the advantage?

Any thoughts on this?

(not sure if this belongs in AC)

 

[SlevinKelevra]

I usually play my best players

 

[Bolebuns]

I usually play my best players

of course. but assuming two comparable WR's....

 

[BassNBrew]

I usually play my best players

of course. but assuming two comparable WR's....

Assuming comparable players....If your are the favorite, then hedge and try to counter him. If you are the underdog, stay away from players that are potential compliments.

 

[kinghill]

I started Wallace tonight to neutralize opponent starting Mendenhall.

It worked well, they both got 7 points.

 

[ScottyDog]

Wallace played some good defense tonight.

I started Wallace tonight to neutralize opponent starting Mendenhall.It worked well, they both got 7 points.

 

[Tony Reali]

i thought this meant like hiring a guy to injure a player

 

[Jersey35]

I usually play my best players

of course. but assuming two comparable WR's....

Assuming comparable players....If your are the favorite, then hedge and try to counter him. If you are the underdog, stay away from players that are potential compliments.

100% spot on.

 

[glumpy]

I usually play my best players

of course. but assuming two comparable WR's....

Assuming comparable players....If your are the favorite, then hedge and try to counter him. If you are the underdog, stay away from players that are potential compliments.

 

[FUBAR]

I usually play my best players

of course. but assuming two comparable WR's....

Assuming comparable players....If your are the favorite, then hedge and try to counter him. If you are the underdog, stay away from players that are potential compliments.

I agree, but may also start the complimentary player for a high risk/reward player if that other player is on the other team. For example, while I might tend to bench Rivers for Eli or Matt Ryan, if my opponent has VJax, I'm probably starting Rivers. If he had Rivers going, I might start VJax over Dez Bryant or Percy Harvin.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Isn't neutralizing a two way street? Always just play your best players, period !!

 

[Hoosier16]

My guess is that it doesn't matter. But, if an opponent has a receiver you are worried about, it would be nice to make sure that if he goes off that your QB keeps him in check. How bout the other way round? I will be playing against Stafford in the first round of the playoffs, and wonder if it is worth grabbing Burleson off the WW or replace a comparable WR. Or, would that be giving my opponent the advantage?

I don't see how playing a WR is going to neutralize a QB. There are too many players that can be the recipients of the passes. Certainly playing someone like Burleson doesn't guarantee you anything.I can see how it might work the other way around, but it seems like it would be more a matter of luck than strategy. The chance of you having two comparable QBs and having one of them match up with an opponents' WR seems unlikely.

 

[jackdubl]

Neutralizing is only useful when you have a lead that you are trying to protect.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

i thought this meant like hiring a guy to injure a player

only in really big money leagues does this come into play

 

[BassNBrew]

Isn't neutralizing a two way street? Always just play your best players, period !!

The original poster stated comparable players.Baseball teams don't play their best players, they play the ones that given them the best chance to win.Taking it to an extreme...Roster A Newton/StaffordRice/FosterNicks/Cruz/WallaceBallard/DanielsRosters BE. ManningThomas/WillaimsBurleson/Young/CJPettigrewEven though Newton is a better player based on the ff stats to date, starting Stafford gives owner A a better chance to win. Nicks/Cruz/Ballard would be better comparable players to start. Owner A has his best chance of winning heads up by trying to neutralize the only stars on roster B and letting his huge RB advantage take care of providing the margin of victory.Start 1/2/2/1

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Of course you want to start the guys you think are going to score the most points. But that’s too simplistic. If you know you carry an advantage, you should try to neutralize your opponent’s top players, if possible. This essentially shortens the lineups, and reduces the game from a 9-on-9 or 10-on-10 matchup to a 7-on 7 or 8-on-8 match. If you feel confident that your remaining players are better than your opponent’s remaining players, you shorten the game. It’s no different than a team with a wounded QB that is trying to hold on by running the ball and shortening the game. It may be a boring way to win, but I think in some cases it can help you hold a strategic advantage and cancel some of your opponents upside. If this cancels out your upside, then so be it. You have achieved your goal of “shortening” the game. You hold advantage based on the remaining schedule of players.

Now, the only way I’d employ this strategy is if I have a nice lead coming up the upcoming Thursday and Saturday games and am hedging my advantage. Strategically at this point, it’s like stepping down on the throat of your opponent.

 

[Shutout]

I saw a game last year in a league where a guy plugged in VJAX just because he played Rivers and it was the difference. I think its just highly situational. THe advice above seems right. If you have big time players, it probably works, but nt a great idea to scrape waiver wires for a guy that might help.

 

[Area51Inhabitant]

This strategy can easily backfire and the one you wind up neutralizing is yourself. You can sometimes hedge your bet by playing a defense which is going up against some of your offensive players so that if the offense that has some of your players lays an egg you can at least get some points from the defense playing against that offense. Other than that, I'm not sure I understand the benefit of a "neutralizing" strategy.

 

[Shutout]

This strategy can easily backfire and the one you wind up neutralizing is yourself. You can sometimes hedge your bet by playing a defense which is going up against some of your offensive players so that if the offense that has some of your players lays an egg you can at least get some points from the defense playing against that offense. Other than that, I'm not sure I understand the benefit of a "neutralizing" strategy.

I agree, you can definitely shoot yourself in the foot but the one area I think you can (at least I seem to have seen it over the years) is with the other guys' QB; especially when the league rules give more points for catching the TD than throwing it or more yards for reception yards than throwing yards.If you are facing guys like Rivers or Romo or Big Ben or some of those types, you can slide in their WR2 and eat into his production with little risk. Even a guy like Rodgers, you can gamble just a bit and pan out well with a Jordy Nelson a lot of the time.

 

[ready5]

it's called covariance.

only works in certain situations, but always worth considering.

 

[ready5]

Isn't neutralizing a two way street? Always just play your best players, period !!

and how do you know who your best players are that week?

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Isn't neutralizing a two way street? Always just play your best players, period !!

and how do you know who your best players are that week?

In 12 team or greater leagues that's usually not hard to distinguish. In 10 team or fewer leagues it's a nightmare deciding on which stud to play. I have no interest in those types of leagues.

 

[Jaysports]

Ok, so I had this situation come up this week as a matter of fact. I had Roethe and Palmer who I believed were comparable this week based on matchups. My oponent had Wallace, Brown and the Pitt Def last night. I went back and forth on the neutralizing decision, but ultimately took the gamble that Roethe's stats would be hurt due to the running game in the 2nd half after building a lead. If that would've happened then Roethe, Brown and Wallace all have below average games and it then increases my odds dramatically. But, I didn't take into account how bad Mendy really is along with that horrible o-line compared to Rice and the Raven's o-line. Roethe had 18-points which is pretty good based on our scoring system. Palmer will be lucky to top that, but he has a chance playing catchup vs GB. As of right now though, I think I lost the gamble in this case since Roethe had a good game and Wallace had 11 while Brown had 26 which is almost a 15 point average between the two. I guess my point is that you just never know how it's going to turn out which way or the other, it's always a gamble.

 

[Hoosier16]

Isn't neutralizing a two way street? Always just play your best players, period !!

The original poster stated comparable players.Baseball teams don't play their best players, they play the ones that given them the best chance to win.Taking it to an extreme...Roster A Newton/StaffordRice/FosterNicks/Cruz/WallaceBallard/DanielsRosters BE. ManningThomas/WillaimsBurleson/Young/CJPettigrewEven though Newton is a better player based on the ff stats to date, starting Stafford gives owner A a better chance to win. Nicks/Cruz/Ballard would be better comparable players to start. Owner A has his best chance of winning heads up by trying to neutralize the only stars on roster B and letting his huge RB advantage take care of providing the margin of victory.Start 1/2/2/1

The problem with formulating a strategy based upon the extreme is that it won't apply to the norm.

 

[ready5]

Isn't neutralizing a two way street? Always just play your best players, period !!

and how do you know who your best players are that week?

In 12 team or greater leagues that's usually not hard to distinguish. In 10 team or fewer leagues it's a nightmare deciding on which stud to play. I have no interest in those types of leagues.

lol, you counter with some my-league-is-manlier-than-your-league shtick? here i thought we were going to talk about inferential statistics or risk/uncertainty/forecasting, but what do i know.and btw, in dynasty leagues (even really big ones), lots of teams have lopsided rosters, especially at QB -- and if you're facing several WRs of a QB you've got rostered, then guess what.

or, you know, it's not "which stud" but rather 'which scrub'. you really have a stud at each position? luxury.

 

[BassNBrew]

Ok, so I had this situation come up this week as a matter of fact. I had Roethe and Palmer who I believed were comparable this week based on matchups. My oponent had Wallace, Brown and the Pitt Def last night. I went back and forth on the neutralizing decision, but ultimately took the gamble that Roethe's stats would be hurt due to the running game in the 2nd half after building a lead. If that would've happened then Roethe, Brown and Wallace all have below average games and it then increases my odds dramatically. But, I didn't take into account how bad Mendy really is along with that horrible o-line compared to Rice and the Raven's o-line. Roethe had 18-points which is pretty good based on our scoring system. Palmer will be lucky to top that, but he has a chance playing catchup vs GB. As of right now though, I think I lost the gamble in this case since Roethe had a good game and Wallace had 11 while Brown had 26 which is almost a 15 point average between the two. I guess my point is that you just never know how it's going to turn out which way or the other, it's always a gamble.

Were you the favorite or the underdog?

 

[AmosMoses]

I try to neutralize players, but I have found it difficult bringing this into stadiums.

 

[BassNBrew]

Isn't neutralizing a two way street? Always just play your best players, period !!

The original poster stated comparable players.Baseball teams don't play their best players, they play the ones that given them the best chance to win.Taking it to an extreme...Roster A Newton/StaffordRice/FosterNicks/Cruz/WallaceBallard/DanielsRosters BE. ManningThomas/WillaimsBurleson/Young/CJPettigrewEven though Newton is a better player based on the ff stats to date, starting Stafford gives owner A a better chance to win. Nicks/Cruz/Ballard would be better comparable players to start. Owner A has his best chance of winning heads up by trying to neutralize the only stars on roster B and letting his huge RB advantage take care of providing the margin of victory.Start 1/2/2/1

The problem with formulating a strategy based upon the extreme is that it won't apply to the norm.

Later in the year things get skewed when injuries mount. A guy riding Jackson/Forte/McFadden to a playoff spot might be scrambling for RBs at at a huge disadvantage at that position.

 

[Jaysports]

Ok, so I had this situation come up this week as a matter of fact. I had Roethe and Palmer who I believed were comparable this week based on matchups. My oponent had Wallace, Brown and the Pitt Def last night. I went back and forth on the neutralizing decision, but ultimately took the gamble that Roethe's stats would be hurt due to the running game in the 2nd half after building a lead. If that would've happened then Roethe, Brown and Wallace all have below average games and it then increases my odds dramatically. But, I didn't take into account how bad Mendy really is along with that horrible o-line compared to Rice and the Raven's o-line. Roethe had 18-points which is pretty good based on our scoring system. Palmer will be lucky to top that, but he has a chance playing catchup vs GB. As of right now though, I think I lost the gamble in this case since Roethe had a good game and Wallace had 11 while Brown had 26 which is almost a 15 point average between the two. I guess my point is that you just never know how it's going to turn out which way or the other, it's always a gamble.

Were you the favorite or the underdog?

I am the favorite, so I didn't follow the above advice where you want to neutralize when favored or bet against if the underdog.

 

[Isotopes]

I've been struggling with this situation in my playoff game. I am a pretty good sized underdog in this one, so following the logic of this thread, I should avoid a wr playing on the same team as my opponents qb. I had myself talked into the opposite. He has Romo and I am considering starting Austin. He is probably comparable to other options (Bowe, S. Moss, Floyd) if not better, but health is an issue for Miles.

I thought I would limit the impact of Romo by starting Austin....now, I am thinking I should stay away.

 

[Jaysports]

Still not sure how I feel about this whole neutralize thing when you are the underdog. I personally think it's over thinking if it's just one WR/TE against the QB on your oponents roster. But, if you have two of say Austin/Dez/Robinson/Witten then you may want to consider other options if you are a huge underdog. If it's close or you're up or favored then I can definitely see neutralizing Romo or playing it safe.

 

[footballnerd]

works better for QB decisions, but really its your WR vs their WR, and your QB vs their QB.

 

[jackdubl]

Of course you want to start the guys you think are going to score the most points. But that’s too simplistic. If you know you carry an advantage, you should try to neutralize your opponent’s top players, if possible. This essentially shortens the lineups, and reduces the game from a 9-on-9 or 10-on-10 matchup to a 7-on 7 or 8-on-8 match. If you feel confident that your remaining players are better than your opponent’s remaining players, you shorten the game. It’s no different than a team with a wounded QB that is trying to hold on by running the ball and shortening the game. It may be a boring way to win, but I think in some cases it can help you hold a strategic advantage and cancel some of your opponents upside. If this cancels out your upside, then so be it. You have achieved your goal of “shortening” the game. You hold advantage based on the remaining schedule of players.Now, the only way I’d employ this strategy is if I have a nice lead coming up the upcoming Thursday and Saturday games and am hedging my advantage. Strategically at this point, it’s like stepping down on the throat of your opponent.

This pretty much goes with what I was saying about protecting a lead. Can help protect a lead or an advantage.

 

[ready5]

I've been struggling with this situation in my playoff game. I am a pretty good sized underdog in this one, so following the logic of this thread, I should avoid a wr playing on the same team as my opponents qb. I had myself talked into the opposite. He has Romo and I am considering starting Austin. He is probably comparable to other options (Bowe, S. Moss, Floyd) if not better, but health is an issue for Miles.

I thought I would limit the impact of Romo by starting Austin....now, I am thinking I should stay away.

not necessarily. if you're facing an upside QB in a good matchup, you might want to play that WR defensively. on the other hand, a low-floor QB will tank any WR depending on him (although TDs can save the day, like with wallace last week).so how do you feel about romo vs nyg? i'd say he has a high floor, so austin should be at least serviceable barring injury. i'd also say he has a high ceiling, so now you have to ask to what degree it's probable that austin has a good day if romo has a good day.

trying to align positive covariance from QB:WR is tricky this way, since QBs can always throw to someone else. way easier to do WR:QB... or to do negative covariance (QB:RB, RB:WR/TE, stud:K, etc)

 

[Isotopes]

I've been struggling with this situation in my playoff game. I am a pretty good sized underdog in this one, so following the logic of this thread, I should avoid a wr playing on the same team as my opponents qb. I had myself talked into the opposite. He has Romo and I am considering starting Austin. He is probably comparable to other options (Bowe, S. Moss, Floyd) if not better, but health is an issue for Miles.

I thought I would limit the impact of Romo by starting Austin....now, I am thinking I should stay away.

not necessarily. if you're facing an upside QB in a good matchup, you might want to play that WR defensively. on the other hand, a low-floor QB will tank any WR depending on him (although TDs can save the day, like with wallace last week).so how do you feel about romo vs nyg? i'd say he has a high floor, so austin should be at least serviceable barring injury. i'd also say he has a high ceiling, so now you have to ask to what degree it's probable that austin has a good day if romo has a good day.

trying to align positive covariance from QB:WR is tricky this way, since QBs can always throw to someone else. way easier to do WR:QB... or to do negative covariance (QB:RB, RB:WR/TE, stud:K, etc)

Thanks, this is good advice.

 

[BassNBrew]

I've been struggling with this situation in my playoff game. I am a pretty good sized underdog in this one, so following the logic of this thread, I should avoid a wr playing on the same team as my opponents qb. I had myself talked into the opposite. He has Romo and I am considering starting Austin. He is probably comparable to other options (Bowe, S. Moss, Floyd) if not better, but health is an issue for Miles.

I thought I would limit the impact of Romo by starting Austin....now, I am thinking I should stay away.

not necessarily. if you're facing an upside QB in a good matchup, you might want to play that WR defensively. on the other hand, a low-floor QB will tank any WR depending on him (although TDs can save the day, like with wallace last week).so how do you feel about romo vs nyg? i'd say he has a high floor, so austin should be at least serviceable barring injury. i'd also say he has a high ceiling, so now you have to ask to what degree it's probable that austin has a good day if romo has a good day.

trying to align positive covariance from QB:WR is tricky this way, since QBs can always throw to someone else. way easier to do WR:QB... or to do negative covariance (QB:RB, RB:WR/TE, stud:K, etc)

Thanks, this is good advice.

I'm going to disagree. He's an underdog so he can't play defensively. Here are the potential scenarios (let's assume he's a 15 point dog)1. Romo has great day and Austin has a great day - basically a push and 15 points down with less positions to go.

2. Romo has a great day and the production goes to Bryant/Witten - now he's in a huge hole.

3. Romo has a stinker and Austin has a stinker - he's missed a chance to gain ground by starting another WR and is still 15 points down.

4. Romo has a stinker and Austin has a great day - not very likely unless Romo gets hurt or Austin rush one in.

He's got to put together a combination of players that can make up a 15 pt deficit. Tying players together who's stats are associated is a poor way to do this. He needs to de-couple outcomes as much as possible.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Isn't neutralizing a two way street? Always just play your best players, period !!

and how do you know who your best players are that week?

In 12 team or greater leagues that's usually not hard to distinguish. In 10 team or fewer leagues it's a nightmare deciding on which stud to play. I have no interest in those types of leagues.

lol, you counter with some my-league-is-manlier-than-your-league shtick? here i thought we were going to talk about inferential statistics or risk/uncertainty/forecasting, but what do i know.and btw, in dynasty leagues (even really big ones), lots of teams have lopsided rosters, especially at QB -- and if you're facing several WRs of a QB you've got rostered, then guess what.

or, you know, it's not "which stud" but rather 'which scrub'. you really have a stud at each position? luxury.

Neutralizing players has been talked to death on this forum (we get at least two threads every season) and I'm still convinced there is no strategy worth talking about. You play the players you think will get you the most fantasy points, period. There isn't a science to starting lineups.

 

[Isotopes]

I've been struggling with this situation in my playoff game. I am a pretty good sized underdog in this one, so following the logic of this thread, I should avoid a wr playing on the same team as my opponents qb. I had myself talked into the opposite. He has Romo and I am considering starting Austin. He is probably comparable to other options (Bowe, S. Moss, Floyd) if not better, but health is an issue for Miles.

I thought I would limit the impact of Romo by starting Austin....now, I am thinking I should stay away.

not necessarily. if you're facing an upside QB in a good matchup, you might want to play that WR defensively. on the other hand, a low-floor QB will tank any WR depending on him (although TDs can save the day, like with wallace last week).so how do you feel about romo vs nyg? i'd say he has a high floor, so austin should be at least serviceable barring injury. i'd also say he has a high ceiling, so now you have to ask to what degree it's probable that austin has a good day if romo has a good day.

trying to align positive covariance from QB:WR is tricky this way, since QBs can always throw to someone else. way easier to do WR:QB... or to do negative covariance (QB:RB, RB:WR/TE, stud:K, etc)

Thanks, this is good advice.

I'm going to disagree. He's an underdog so he can't play defensively. Here are the potential scenarios (let's assume he's a 15 point dog)1. Romo has great day and Austin has a great day - basically a push and 15 points down with less positions to go.

2. Romo has a great day and the production goes to Bryant/Witten - now he's in a huge hole.

3. Romo has a stinker and Austin has a stinker - he's missed a chance to gain ground by starting another WR and is still 15 points down.

4. Romo has a stinker and Austin has a great day - not very likely unless Romo gets hurt or Austin rush one in.

He's got to put together a combination of players that can make up a 15 pt deficit. Tying players together who's stats are associated is a poor way to do this. He needs to de-couple outcomes as much as possible.

Not sure I follow this. Look at your #1....if Austin has a great day, that would mean someone on my bench would have to have an even greater day for me to benefit by sitting him.

 

[scothawk]

i thought this meant like hiring a guy to injure a player

only in really big money leagues does this come into play

You could neutralize Cedric Benson by taking him to the boating lake and giving him a six pack

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

i thought this meant like hiring a guy to injure a player

only in really big money leagues does this come into play

You could neutralize Cedric Benson by taking him to the boating lake and giving him a six pack

 

[DoubleG]

Isn't neutralizing a two way street? Always just play your best players, period !!

and how do you know who your best players are that week?

In 12 team or greater leagues that's usually not hard to distinguish. In 10 team or fewer leagues it's a nightmare deciding on which stud to play. I have no interest in those types of leagues.

lol, you counter with some my-league-is-manlier-than-your-league shtick? here i thought we were going to talk about inferential statistics or risk/uncertainty/forecasting, but what do i know.and btw, in dynasty leagues (even really big ones), lots of teams have lopsided rosters, especially at QB -- and if you're facing several WRs of a QB you've got rostered, then guess what.

or, you know, it's not "which stud" but rather 'which scrub'. you really have a stud at each position? luxury.

Neutralizing players has been talked to death on this forum (we get at least two threads every season) and I'm still convinced there is no strategy worth talking about. You play the players you think will get you the most fantasy points, period. There isn't a science to starting lineups.

Sorry, but I have to disagree - but only in very specific situations. First off, if it's a QB/WR situation, you have to have the WR (if your QB throws for 242 yards 2 TDs and 2 INTs, your QB might not score a ton, but a WR who caught both of those TDs and had 122 of the receiving yards did). So you're basically talking about whether or not to start WR A over WR B.

If you have a player who is clearly the QB's favorite (or virtually, only) receiving target, you're probably good. But for the point to be valid, it would have to be a WR you wouldn't be starting anyway. For example, if Julio Jones is out - Roddy White is obviously a good WR to start in ATL - but when would you ever NOT be starting R. White?

There are cases though, when deciding between two comparable WRs (let's say for this week it's Santonio Holmes, M. Crabtree and L. Robinson - many sites have these 3 close in rankings) - if my opponent is starting Romo, I may lean toward Robinson. If his QB situation is so dire that he's starting Alex Smith - definately Crabtree though. If my opponent were starting Vick, I'd probably go with DJax ahead of some of these guys if I had him.

But again, it is extremely limited in it's application, as your opponent has to have the QB for which you have to have a couple of WRs around the same expectation - one of which has to be the primary target in the passing game of your opponent's QB AND someone you wouldn't necessarily be starting automatically anyway.

 

[LittlePhatty]

4. Romo has a stinker and Austin has a great day - not very likely unless Romo gets hurt or Austin rush one in.

Eh, in standard scoring it probably happens more often than you might think.A WR can put up a good fantasy game on just one long play. A QB usually needs an entire game to put in a solid performance.WR - 4 catches for 100 total yards and a TD = good game for a WRQB - 170 yards, 1 TD, 3 INTs, 2 fumbles = bad game for a QB

 

[da_budman]

Isn't neutralizing a two way street? Always just play your best players, period !!

The original poster stated comparable players.Baseball teams don't play their best players, they play the ones that given them the best chance to win.Taking it to an extreme...Roster A Newton/StaffordRice/FosterNicks/Cruz/WallaceBallard/DanielsRosters BE. ManningThomas/WillaimsBurleson/Young/CJPettigrewEven though Newton is a better player based on the ff stats to date, starting Stafford gives owner A a better chance to win. Nicks/Cruz/Ballard would be better comparable players to start. Owner A has his best chance of winning heads up by trying to neutralize the only stars on roster B and letting his huge RB advantage take care of providing the margin of victory.Start 1/2/2/1

The problem with formulating a strategy based upon the extreme is that it won't apply to the norm.

Which is why the strategy is very limited. Not going to help you much but every once in a great while starting the guys who you think give you a better chance to beat the other guy trumps your rankings for that week. In general though, you want more variance and risk/reward if your team looks to be the underdog and less if you are the favorite.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

But again, it is extremely limited in it's application, as your opponent has to have the QB for which you have to have a couple of WRs around the same expectation - one of which has to be the primary target in the passing game of your opponent's QB AND someone you wouldn't necessarily be starting automatically anyway.

Sorry, but I just don't see that it matters as long as you think you have someone that will score more points than the others. I guess if you truly don't know who to start then knock yourself out with the over analysis of the neutralization process.

 

[DoubleG]

But again, it is extremely limited in it's application, as your opponent has to have the QB for which you have to have a couple of WRs around the same expectation - one of which has to be the primary target in the passing game of your opponent's QB AND someone you wouldn't necessarily be starting automatically anyway.

Sorry, but I just don't see that it matters as long as you think you have someone that will score more points than the others. I guess if you truly don't know who to start then knock yourself out with the over analysis of the neutralization process.

In response (which I happen to agree with):

...the strategy is very limited...but every once in a great while starting the guys who you think give you a better chance to beat the other guy trumps your rankings for that week. In general though, you want more variance and risk/reward if your team looks to be the underdog and less if you are the favorite.

BTW,

 

[da_budman]

Probably was stated but It bears repeating, using this strategy is further limited when the QB has many weapons.... I would never employ it vs Rogers or Brees... too many weapons..... But if a team was stuck starting Alex Smith, Andy dalton, or God forbid Ponder, deciding whether or not to start crabtree, green, or Harvin vs a comparable WR may indeed come down to whether you think you are the favorite or not looking at the matchup.

 

[BassNBrew]

I've been struggling with this situation in my playoff game. I am a pretty good sized underdog in this one, so following the logic of this thread, I should avoid a wr playing on the same team as my opponents qb. I had myself talked into the opposite. He has Romo and I am considering starting Austin. He is probably comparable to other options (Bowe, S. Moss, Floyd) if not better, but health is an issue for Miles.

I thought I would limit the impact of Romo by starting Austin....now, I am thinking I should stay away.

not necessarily. if you're facing an upside QB in a good matchup, you might want to play that WR defensively. on the other hand, a low-floor QB will tank any WR depending on him (although TDs can save the day, like with wallace last week).so how do you feel about romo vs nyg? i'd say he has a high floor, so austin should be at least serviceable barring injury. i'd also say he has a high ceiling, so now you have to ask to what degree it's probable that austin has a good day if romo has a good day.

trying to align positive covariance from QB:WR is tricky this way, since QBs can always throw to someone else. way easier to do WR:QB... or to do negative covariance (QB:RB, RB:WR/TE, stud:K, etc)

Thanks, this is good advice.

I'm going to disagree. He's an underdog so he can't play defensively. Here are the potential scenarios (let's assume he's a 15 point dog)1. Romo has great day and Austin has a great day - basically a push and 15 points down with less positions to go.

2. Romo has a great day and the production goes to Bryant/Witten - now he's in a huge hole.

3. Romo has a stinker and Austin has a stinker - he's missed a chance to gain ground by starting another WR and is still 15 points down.

4. Romo has a stinker and Austin has a great day - not very likely unless Romo gets hurt or Austin rush one in.

He's got to put together a combination of players that can make up a 15 pt deficit. Tying players together who's stats are associated is a poor way to do this. He needs to de-couple outcomes as much as possible.

Not sure I follow this. Look at your #1....if Austin has a great day, that would mean someone on my bench would have to have an even greater day for me to benefit by sitting him.

You're screwed in the event of number one (based on being the underdog). Doesn't matter if you lose by 15 or 30. In the four scenarios I listed, the owner only comes out ahead in case 4. What the underdog is trying to accomplish is to have more bullets in his gun if Romo has a bad day.

 

[BassNBrew]

But again, it is extremely limited in it's application, as your opponent has to have the QB for which you have to have a couple of WRs around the same expectation - one of which has to be the primary target in the passing game of your opponent's QB AND someone you wouldn't necessarily be starting automatically anyway.

Sorry, but I just don't see that it matters as long as you think you have someone that will score more points than the others. I guess if you truly don't know who to start then knock yourself out with the over analysis of the neutralization process.

So why does the manager bring in the lefty from the bullpen to face the lefty when the righty has a better era and strikeout to walk ratio? Why would you go all in wiht a 5 to 1 chip count advantage with KJ after your headsup opponent just went all in?

 

[TimTebow]

First I would like the Lord Jesus Christ for the ability to know the right answer.

Start the players that will score the most.

 

[DoubleG]

First I would like the Lord Jesus Christ for the ability to know the right answer.Start the players that will score the most.

Stop. It wasn't funny the first 11 times.