Owning an entire team (1 Viewer)

[mr roboto]

So I'm basically full of Ravens. Drafted Rice at 3, Smith in the 6th and Flacco in the 8th.

Needed a TE so grabbed Pitta off the WW.

Of course their offensive output has been phenomenal, but I'm starting 4 players from the same team. Is this insane?

This isn't WDIS or anything. Just wanted some discussion about eggs and baskets.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I spread my players out; it just seemed like good hedging. You'll have a time with bye weeks though.

 

[DoubleG]

So I'm basically full of Ravens. Drafted Rice at 3, Smith in the 6th and Flacco in the 8th. Needed a TE so grabbed Pitta off the WW. Of course their offensive output has been phenomenal, but I'm starting 4 players from the same team. Is this insane?This isn't WDIS or anything. Just wanted some discussion about eggs and baskets.

While this has been discussed quite a bit, we can always take it for another ride...Having all of one team, in general, limits your players' ceilings in a given week. The reason being is, let's say the Ravens are going to score X number of offensive TDs per week (for the sake of simplicity we will assign X a number - let's say 3). Here's the problem: if Flacco throws 2 of those, unless both of those go to your guys AND Rice runs in the other one, you missed out on something. Put another way, for every TD that Pitta catches, that's one that Torrey Smith or Ray Rice did NOT score. The other concern, obviously, is bye weeks. Some of have sugeested that actually lining up a team who all share the same bye week and just being content to "automatically" lose the one game is fine. That's up to you.The other issue is that sometimes a team simply has a bad week. Green Bay for example - if you had started Benson, Rodgers, J. Nelson and Finley this past week, that wouldn't have worked out to well. And that is, by many, considered to be one of the more potent offenses in the league.Related to that, late in the season teams can run into severe weather. I am reminded of the Patriots "blizzard" game (Randy Moss and Tom Brady) - which hit during most FF playoffs a few years back. I played against the owner that had Brady and Moss - he lost. Bad weather, windy weather, etc. can limit a passing game. If you are starting a QB, TE and WR who are all playing in crappy weather, odds are you aint scoring much through the air. You can sometimes avoid this situation if you have players spread out (some of whom might be playing in a warm weather climate or dome that day), thus giving you the option to sit one player who might be playing in a blizzard or monsoon.A final factor is injury. What happens to the value of the Ravens you mentioned if Flacco gets hurt? Or Rice? In the case of Flacco, his receivers' value all takes a hit. If Rice goes down, not only have you lost Rice, but teams will likely worry less about the run, allowing safeties to play back and better defend the pass - hurting the production of the QB and receivers.

 

[football_genus]

As others have said, it increases variance due to weekly variation in the team's overall offensive performance, but it also decreases variance due to variation in the players' roles in the offense (gameplan, redzone looks, etc).

Personally I think it's mostly a wash. I prefer to just pick the players who I think will perform best on average, without regard to other factors. If I end up with a lot of players from one team, that just means I think it's a good offense. If I'm right, my team will do fine.

 

[MIMN]

As others have said, it increases variance due to weekly variation in the team's overall offensive performance, but it also decreases variance due to variation in the players' roles in the offense (gameplan, redzone looks, etc).Personally I think it's mostly a wash. I prefer to just pick the players who I think will perform best on average, without regard to other factors. If I end up with a lot of players from one team, that just means I think it's a good offense. If I'm right, my team will do fine.

I love this response. Poke, poke...It increases variance and decreases variance...LOL.I think the point is my same feeling though...If you have several players on a high scoring team you have the advantage to start them all. Someone has to get those points and odds are someone on your team will be that person. I was in a league the the first year that the Saints offense blew up and one team drafted a team full of Saints because he was a fan. He crushed us all. To be here, I think you need an elite quarterback on the team.If you are heavily invested in a mid to low scoring team then you would want to only start some of them depending on match-up. If you can play match-ups during the regular season and make it to the playoffs and they have a very good schedule in the playoffs then there is reason to keep them intact. I think more teams fall into this category than the first.You should make the call where you think the Ravens fall.

 

[chinawildman]

I just don't think the Ravens are a good team to do this with. It seems the TDs tend to spread around a bit on that team (i.e. Jones, Leach, Dickson etc...) This isn't like the Eagles where you know every TD is going to either Vick, Maclin, djax or Celek. Gotta think what your upside is in all this.

 

[mr roboto]

I just don't think the Ravens are a good team to do this with. It seems the TDs tend to spread around a bit on that team (i.e. Jones, Leach, Dickson etc...) This isn't like the Eagles where you know every TD is going to either Vick, Maclin, djax or Celek. Gotta think what your upside is in all this.

When I drafted I felt they were the value guys. Clearly Flacco is. Their offense is pretty impressive but I should have been more careful. We'll see I suppose.

 

[Sweet Love]

I am in the boat that it likely evens out, but I think there are a couple of points to consider to see whether it is worth it.

The first is, is/was there a core from an NFL team that could take you all the way?

For example, the 1999 Rams had the #1 QB (47TDs), Faulk was at least a top 2 RB in PPR (if not the best), and Bruce had 1165/12 to go with Hakim 677/8, and Holt with 677/6. If you started that entire lineup (considering that scoring was not what it is today), you likely could have won. You would lose the bye, but would be in good shape every week (they only scored under 27 points once the entire season).

But even then, you start a TE and a second RB, and maybe a flex player (and that does not count the bye). So that gets to my second question, who are you starting around those guys? Roland Williams was the TE for the Rams, and he had 226/6, which I guess was good back then, but you are still down to a flex player and a 2nd RB. My guess is that those two guys are what would separate a team from being a playoff team to winning it all.

ETA: While I think it can be done, you really need a team that is record breaking...to the OP, you are somewhat in-deep, but if you have one or even two flex roles, you should be fine. I just don't see Balt scoring over 25 points a game, every game.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I like to diversify if possible. Last week I rolled with Dalton/Green/Nugent and it worked well. This week I switched to a different kicker to spread the variance a bit. In the past I haven't found QB/RB to be a particularly gratifying combo to have (except that one time Boomer passed to Harold Green and getting both scores won me the game )

-QG

 

[Not Sleeping]

The only problem I see is that you're missing Justin Tucker.

 

[Major]

I like doing the QB to WR thing but rarely do RB + WR. The lone exception was this year when I got Arian Foster and AJ80. I'll take my chances on the Houston offense but not something like Baltimore.