Pairing QB + WR1 (1 Viewer)

[karmarooster]

I know this is a more volatile strategy, but I find myself aiming for this in a few cash leagues I've done lately. If you hit this pair big, and have a decent team around them, you are playoff bound, and if you have a good team around them, perhaps the championship. A nice 2 TD game by the WR1 basically wins you the week, because your QB and WR are likely to combine for over 50 points. Of course, there are added risks, not just for a difficult matchup, but it basically doubles (or 1.5x) your exposure to risk: if either player gets hurt, you lose him AND the other player will likely be less effective.

What is the Sharkpool opinion on this strategy? Does anyone actively seek it out?

If you want to do it, you must have a flexible strategy in the early and mid rounds, and adjust on the fly.

To evaluate, I added up these combos based on the round both players are selected. (ADP round of QB + ADP round of WR/TE. All ADP data is PPR). From most expensive to least (lower number = more expensive), thus QB (round drafted) + WR (round drafted) = total price by round.

[*]Rodgers (1) + Jennings (2) = 3. (i.e. a late first on Rodgers, early 2nd on Jennings). A pretty solid combo, but VERY expensive. Could also be done with Finley in the 4th or 5th, but I don't usually like to draft a QB in the first, and if I do, don't usually draft a top TE.

[*]Vick (1) + DeSean (2 or 3) = 3 or 4. (seen Desean fall into the third lately). Not worth it in my opinion because DeSean won't catch more than 60 passes. The better value is to pair Vick with Maclin if he falls to good value.

[*]Rivers (3) + VJax (2)/Gates (4) = 5 or 7. This is really ideal, because both WR and TE appear to be huge TD threats. When Rivers throws 3 TDs, 2 of them to your guy, you can probably count that week as a W if you can draft a competent team around them.

[*]Brady (3) + Welker (3)/Ocho (5) = 7 or 8 - Pairing Brady with Welker is hard and makes little sense. both tend to go late 3rd, early 4th, and Welker's value is from catching 100 passes, not from scoring TDs, so there's no "combo" benefit. I REALLY liked the pair with Ochocino earlier this offseason, but given the recent reports, I feel that Ocho is overvalued now in the 5th with guys like Harvin and Manningham there.

[*]Brees - Doesn't have any targets worth it. Colston is a huge risk, Jimmy Graham looks nice as do Moore and Meachem, but this isn't the situation that you'd want to base your draft strategy around.

[*]Romo (4 or 5) + Austin (2)/Dez (4) = 6 to 9. Another GREAT option, but Romo's ADP is steadily creeping up (as it should be, he's really undervalued and there's no way I would take Manning before him). Dez is maxing out his value, going in the 3rd round in two PPR cash leagues I've drafted in the last week. Either combo probably won't produce as many TDs as Rivers could with his options, but Dez MIGHT. (I recently swung a trade to pair Romo with Dez as my WR4 after Jennings, Marshall, and Lloyd in a PPR league that I can start 4 WRs. RBs are only .5PPR and I only need to start one, so I sacrificed the position by having only PThomas, Stewart, and some other junk at RB.)

[*]Manning - I'm not really targeting him in any cash leagues unless he becomes a great value, but I still typically see him as the QB6 off the board before Romo, and I wouldn't consider him unless I was debating him vs. Schaub. Could be a huge value and a major steal if you pair him with Austin Collie, and both players turn out to be healthy and play 14 or 15 games together. Both players have major healthy concerns though.

[*]Schaub (6 or 7) + AJ (1) = 7 or 8. Schaub is getting no love, and I don't know why. He's been healthy, and has top 5 QB history and potential. Daniels is back, Foster is dinged, and AJ looks ready to rage. If you draft AJ in the mid first, I would be MUCH more likely to target Schaub than I would be otherwise. What everyone has lost in the Foster hoopla, while talking about Tate, is that this is an obvious bump for Schaub. They will throw more than last year. I have this pair in a dynasty league and it won me a few games at the end of the season to push me into the playoffs, despite the fact that AJ was hurt a lot and the Texans ran more.

Other options worth considering:

If you draft Roddy or Calvin in the first, you might be more interested to wait on QB and take Ryan or Stafford later on. Both look poised to become elite, and I wouldn't be surprised if either pushes Manning or Brees out of the top tier. Same goes for Wallace + Big Ben or Mike Williams + Freeman. These 4 players are much riskier, because you are counting on the QBs making a jump into the top 6-12 range to be competitive.

What pairs jump out to you as most ideal? Thoughts in general on this strategy?

 

[Run It Up]

Couldnt think of a worse idea than drafting Vick and DJax in the first 4 rounds, would have to be a standard league with return yards and bonuses for 40+ yd receiving TDs for me to even consider it.

Eli + Nicks

Brady + Welker

Rivers + Gates/VJax

Manning + Clark

The only ones I would consider.

 

[Captain Hook]

Totally disagree that doing so successfully puts you into the playoffs - BUT it is a good strategy to have a combo when there are weekly prizes for the high score

 

[benm3218]

I have Rivers, VJ, and Gates... I am mildly concerned with this, but I wouldn't want any other TE over Gates and I can't sit VJ. So I'm rolling with it and gonna see how it flies.

 

[karmarooster]

Couldnt think of a worse idea than drafting Vick and DJax in the first 4 rounds, would have to be a standard league with return yards and bonuses for 40+ yd receiving TDs for me to even consider it. Eli + NicksBrady + WelkerRivers + Gates/VJaxManning + ClarkThe only ones I would consider.

Eli continues to regress as a passer and I don't want anything to do with him when there are much more intriguing options in that range.Manning + Clark is probably not a great option because both players have injury concerns.Brady + Welker is hard to get because both typically go around the same time, and like I said above, I don't see the benefit. Welker's value comes from hauling in a boat-load of underneath passes in PPR, and not from TDs. So the connection doesn't really give you anything, other than having a great QB1 and a solid WR2, who just happen to play on the same team. What I'm saying is that I'm looking for multiple-TD potential in any given game, and that's why I think Rivers and Romo are the best options.

 

[LittlePhatty]

The statistical term for this is "covariance" - when two values share something in common that cause both of them to rise or fall at the same time. A Quarterback and Receiver on the same team is the easiest example of positive covariance. If the WR puts up a lot of FF points, the QB probably will too. If the QB has a bad game, the WR probably will too. It's not a given fact, but it increases the probability.

Positive covariance - this will have more erratic results - more peaks and valleys in your team scoring, so in general it should be minimized.

Negative covariance - it isn't necessarily bad, and it may even provide you with more "steady" FF points over the long haul of a season.

If you have access to Subscriber content there is an article on it from last year (I think, maybe the year before?).

There is also evidence that having a stud WR and RB from the same team exhibits negative covariance. These stats are probably nudged by the playcalling for the day, i.e. was the team behind and did they have to air it out? Or were they ahead and they pounded the ground all day? Again, it's not a given fact that their values will rise and fall opposite of each other, it's just that the stats show it has an increased chance of happening.

As for my thoughts on using it as a strategy, I think it depends on your league.

In most leagues the point is to win as many games during the regular season in order to make the playoffs. It doesn't matter if you win your weekly matchup by 1 point or 50 points, it just matters if you win. So consistency is important, and you should avoid positive covariance if possible. Also, these formats usually have single-elimination playoffs, so one bad game from your QB probably also means your #1 WR has a down week and you're knocked out. If you had a #1 WR from a different team you increase your chances of recovering from the bad day your QB had.

If your league has weekly payouts for the highest score, positive covariance might increase your chances of winning a couple of weeks. But unless these payouts are huge, I wouldn't sacrifice a shot a the title just to use this strategy.

 

[Run It Up]

Couldnt think of a worse idea than drafting Vick and DJax in the first 4 rounds, would have to be a standard league with return yards and bonuses for 40+ yd receiving TDs for me to even consider it. Eli + NicksBrady + WelkerRivers + Gates/VJaxManning + ClarkThe only ones I would consider.

Eli continues to regress as a passer and I don't want anything to do with him when there are much more intriguing options in that range.Manning + Clark is probably not a great option because both players have injury concerns.Brady + Welker is hard to get because both typically go around the same time, and like I said above, I don't see the benefit. Welker's value comes from hauling in a boat-load of underneath passes in PPR, and not from TDs. So the connection doesn't really give you anything, other than having a great QB1 and a solid WR2, who just happen to play on the same team. What I'm saying is that I'm looking for multiple-TD potential in any given game, and that's why I think Rivers and Romo are the best options.

Eli Manning hasnt regressed in any regards except for peoples opinion of him. He isnt exactly an elite QB, but he is top 10 and can be had in the 8th round almost religiously.

 

[karmarooster]

I have Rivers, VJ, and Gates... I am mildly concerned with this, but I wouldn't want any other TE over Gates and I can't sit VJ. So I'm rolling with it and gonna see how it flies.

If all three are healthy for the season, you appear to be playoff and championship bound. Rivers will chuck 30 TDs, 10+ to each of those guys, with each having the potential of 15 or more. It may be a minute benefit, but you are actually insulated against some risk if either Vince or Gates misses a game or two with injury (assuming you have competent backups), because with one of them out of the lineup, the other is a near lock for a monster. You've really put all your eggs in one basket, but it seems fairly tolerable because Rivers is consistent and has played 16 games a year for a while (and is the anti-Cutler who played through a torn MCL in the playoffs).

 

[karmarooster]

Couldnt think of a worse idea than drafting Vick and DJax in the first 4 rounds, would have to be a standard league with return yards and bonuses for 40+ yd receiving TDs for me to even consider it. Eli + NicksBrady + WelkerRivers + Gates/VJaxManning + ClarkThe only ones I would consider.

Eli continues to regress as a passer and I don't want anything to do with him when there are much more intriguing options in that range.Manning + Clark is probably not a great option because both players have injury concerns.Brady + Welker is hard to get because both typically go around the same time, and like I said above, I don't see the benefit. Welker's value comes from hauling in a boat-load of underneath passes in PPR, and not from TDs. So the connection doesn't really give you anything, other than having a great QB1 and a solid WR2, who just happen to play on the same team. What I'm saying is that I'm looking for multiple-TD potential in any given game, and that's why I think Rivers and Romo are the best options.

Eli Manning hasnt regressed in any regards except for peoples opinion of him. He isnt exactly an elite QB, but he is top 10 and can be had in the 8th round almost religiously.

Including my opinion. Regression: 2007=20 INTs. 2008=10 INTs. 2009=14 INTs. 2010=25 INTs. Have you watched him in the preseason? He's awful, and as likely to throw the ball into the turf as he is to put it in a catchable spot. I prefer Stafford, Freeman, and Bradford to him in that 7-8-9th round range, not the least of which because I won't have to spend every Sunday cheering for that turd when he makes his "Manning Face" after his 2nd INT of the game.

 

[gotexansgo]

Eli Manning hasnt regressed in any regards except for peoples opinion of him. He isnt exactly an elite QB, but he is top 10 and can be had in the 8th round almost religiously.

Not to hijack this thread but since when is Eli top 10? Back to the topic...I have Matt Ryan and Roddy White in my league, and it worked out fine last season...then again Im in a dynasty so things are a bit different.

 

[Run It Up]

Eli Manning hasnt regressed in any regards except for peoples opinion of him. He isnt exactly an elite QB, but he is top 10 and can be had in the 8th round almost religiously.

Not to hijack this thread but since when is Eli top 10? Back to the topic...I have Matt Ryan and Roddy White in my league, and it worked out fine last season...then again Im in a dynasty so things are a bit different.

The last 2 years...

Including my opinion. Regression: 2008=10 INTs. 2009=14 INTs. 2010=25 INTs. Have you watched him in the preseason? He's awful, and as likely to throw the ball into the turf as he is to put it in a catchable spot. I prefer Stafford, Freeman, and Bradford to him in that 7-8-9th round range, not the least of which because I won't have to spend every Sunday cheering for that turd when he makes his "Manning Face" after his 2nd INT of the game.

I thought it was common knowledge by now, that even though Eli threw those balls, he was not responsible for more than half of those interceptions, almost all of those were caused by the WRs not making impossibly easy catches. There was an interesting article recently, dont remember where, that compared the Eagles and the Giants. Last year more than 50% of the possible interceptions throw by Eli were in fact intercepted (this is a freakishly outlandish statistic), vice versa, less than 10% of Vick's possible interceptions were intercepted. The end result being it hyper inflated Vick's performance and despite having 25 interceptions Eli still had a great year.2008: 479 for 289, 3238 yards and 21 TDs2009: 509 for 317, 4021 yards and 27 TDs2010: 539 for 339, 4002 yards and 31 TDsHe has clearly not regressed one bit, in fact he is coming into his own, the problems if any during this off season have been the giants as a whole are underperforming.

 

[gotexansgo]

Eli Manning hasnt regressed in any regards except for peoples opinion of him. He isnt exactly an elite QB, but he is top 10 and can be had in the 8th round almost religiously.

Not to hijack this thread but since when is Eli top 10? Back to the topic...I have Matt Ryan and Roddy White in my league, and it worked out fine last season...then again Im in a dynasty so things are a bit different.

The last 2 years...

Not in my league. In fact I think he has only cracked the top 10 once.

 

[karmarooster]

The statistical term for this is "covariance" - when two values share something in common that cause both of them to rise or fall at the same time. A Quarterback and Receiver on the same team is the easiest example of positive covariance. If the WR puts up a lot of FF points, the QB probably will too. If the QB has a bad game, the WR probably will too. It's not a given fact, but it increases the probability.

Positive covariance - this will have more erratic results - more peaks and valleys in your team scoring, so in general it should be minimized.

Negative covariance - it isn't necessarily bad, and it may even provide you with more "steady" FF points over the long haul of a season.

If you have access to Subscriber content there is an article on it from last year (I think, maybe the year before?).

There is also evidence that having a stud WR and RB from the same team exhibits negative covariance. These stats are probably nudged by the playcalling for the day, i.e. was the team behind and did they have to air it out? Or were they ahead and they pounded the ground all day? Again, it's not a given fact that their values will rise and fall opposite of each other, it's just that the stats show it has an increased chance of happening.

As for my thoughts on using it as a strategy, I think it depends on your league.

In most leagues the point is to win as many games during the regular season in order to make the playoffs. It doesn't matter if you win your weekly matchup by 1 point or 50 points, it just matters if you win. So consistency is important, and you should avoid positive covariance if possible. Also, these formats usually have single-elimination playoffs, so one bad game from your QB probably also means your #1 WR has a down week and you're knocked out. If you had a #1 WR from a different team you increase your chances of recovering from the bad day your QB had.

If your league has weekly payouts for the highest score, positive covariance might increase your chances of winning a couple of weeks. But unless these payouts are huge, I wouldn't sacrifice a shot a the title just to use this strategy.

I hear you regarding increased volatility for QB/WR vs. increased consistency for WR/RB. But like you said, it does depend on the league. I've been drafting in several $100 to $500 leagues with fairly knowledgable owners, not in your friend or office league with dudes that will regularly make bad picks and leave significant value on the board. In that kind of league, all you need to do is grab the value when it's presented. In tougher leagues, where every other owner makes good selection and value is harder to come by, the competition makes it harder to field an above average team. Every other guy knows about Antonio Brown, Denarious Moore, and Lance Kendricks, etc. so they will be snapped up in the 8-11th rounds.

Given those circumstances, I'm willing to stomach the risk because all I'm really shooting for is first place $.

 

[karmarooster]

Eli Manning hasnt regressed in any regards except for peoples opinion of him. He isnt exactly an elite QB, but he is top 10 and can be had in the 8th round almost religiously.

Not to hijack this thread but since when is Eli top 10? Back to the topic...I have Matt Ryan and Roddy White in my league, and it worked out fine last season...then again Im in a dynasty so things are a bit different.

The last 2 years...

Not in my league. In fact I think he has only cracked the top 10 once.

In one of my leagues last year he was 10th despite throwing 25 INTs because it's only minus 1 point. For minus 2 leagues, it would've dropped him down to David Garrard-level 14th place. Point being, Eli is nothing more than an overvalued QB2 with a tendency to throw interception without the upside of Stafford or Freeman. Manningham and Nicks will also drop their fair share of receptions to make it worse.

 

[Run It Up]

Its really easy to make a player look bad when you only referrence one of their statistics.

Vick threw for barely 3000 yards last year

Bress threw 22 interceptions

Brady threw the ball less times than more than half of the NFL last year

Peyton, despite throwing the ball more than 100 times he ever has in his career only managed 200 more passing yards that his previous season

 

[solorca]

What about a QB/RB combo? I know that the two aren't as closely alligned as a QB/WR combo, but I've had this work with relative success for me in the past. The upside is that you get a majority of the touchdowns from one specific team. The downside is that you're royally screwed if they get shutout or a backup RB scores.

This season, the best combos for this seem to be Romo/Felix and Ryan/Turner I suppose.

 

[BaBastage]

In most leagues the point is to win as many games during the regular season in order to make the playoffs. It doesn't matter if you win your weekly matchup by 1 point or 50 points, it just matters if you win. So consistency is important, and you should avoid positive covariance if possible. Also, these formats usually have single-elimination playoffs, so one bad game from your QB probably also means your #1 WR has a down week and you're knocked out. If you had a #1 WR from a different team you increase your chances of recovering from the bad day your QB had.

I would have posted the same thing, albeit less eloquently.Very In a head to head leagues, i try to stay away from pairing my QB and WR. Too much volatility imo.

 

[karmarooster]

Eli Manning hasnt regressed in any regards except for peoples opinion of him. He isnt exactly an elite QB, but he is top 10 and can be had in the 8th round almost religiously.

Not to hijack this thread but since when is Eli top 10? Back to the topic...I have Matt Ryan and Roddy White in my league, and it worked out fine last season...then again Im in a dynasty so things are a bit different.

The last 2 years...

Including my opinion. Regression: 2008=10 INTs. 2009=14 INTs. 2010=25 INTs. Have you watched him in the preseason? He's awful, and as likely to throw the ball into the turf as he is to put it in a catchable spot. I prefer Stafford, Freeman, and Bradford to him in that 7-8-9th round range, not the least of which because I won't have to spend every Sunday cheering for that turd when he makes his "Manning Face" after his 2nd INT of the game.

I thought it was common knowledge by now, that even though Eli threw those balls, he was not responsible for more than half of those interceptions, almost all of those were caused by the WRs not making impossibly easy catches. There was an interesting article recently, dont remember where, that compared the Eagles and the Giants. Last year more than 50% of the possible interceptions throw by Eli were in fact intercepted (this is a freakishly outlandish statistic), vice versa, less than 10% of Vick's possible interceptions were intercepted. The end result being it hyper inflated Vick's performance and despite having 25 interceptions Eli still had a great year.2008: 479 for 289, 3238 yards and 21 TDs2009: 509 for 317, 4021 yards and 27 TDs2010: 539 for 339, 4002 yards and 31 TDsHe has clearly not regressed one bit, in fact he is coming into his own, the problems if any during this off season have been the giants as a whole are underperforming.

OK so you (and others apparently) love Eli, and you're good at making excuses for him. Feel free to draft him because I will let you have him. Let's drop it though.

 

[bonesman]

Stafford + Calvin= Championship

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am a longtime fan of this strategy, so long as both the QB and WR playing in an already-established top offense. I did it last year with Schaub and Andre Johnson. And threw Arian Foster on to the same team to boot.

 

[karmarooster]

What about a QB/RB combo? I know that the two aren't as closely alligned as a QB/WR combo, but I've had this work with relative success for me in the past. The upside is that you get a majority of the touchdowns from one specific team. The downside is that you're royally screwed if they get shutout or a backup RB scores.This season, the best combos for this seem to be Romo/Felix and Ryan/Turner I suppose.

Actually for me Rivers again comes to mind plus the great value that is Tolbert. Inside the 10, there is a GREAT chance that the TD will be either a Rivers pass to Vince or Gates, or Tolbert will pound it in. Not a bad option as RB3/Flex. Felix + Romo will cost you a 3rd and 4th, and Turner seems to be on the downside of his career, but I like that option better than the Romo/Felix given the cost.

 

[scrumptrulescent]

In most leagues the point is to win as many games during the regular season in order to make the playoffs. It doesn't matter if you win your weekly matchup by 1 point or 50 points, it just matters if you win. So consistency is important, and you should avoid positive covariance if possible. Also, these formats usually have single-elimination playoffs, so one bad game from your QB probably also means your #1 WR has a down week and you're knocked out. If you had a #1 WR from a different team you increase your chances of recovering from the bad day your QB had.

I would have posted the same thing, albeit less eloquently.Very In a head to head leagues, i try to stay away from pairing my QB and WR. Too much volatility imo.

It's not a bad move in h2h leagues that also pay out well to the leagues weekly top score.

 

[karmarooster]

Stafford + Calvin= Championship

If Stafford throws 25-30, Calvin will get 15. Assuming both play 16 games, yes. Added benefit of this combo: after CJ in the 1st, you can take 5 RBs/WRs/TE in rounds 2 through 6 before grabbing Stafford in the 7th.

 

[Run It Up]

Eli Manning hasnt regressed in any regards except for peoples opinion of him. He isnt exactly an elite QB, but he is top 10 and can be had in the 8th round almost religiously.

Not to hijack this thread but since when is Eli top 10? Back to the topic...I have Matt Ryan and Roddy White in my league, and it worked out fine last season...then again Im in a dynasty so things are a bit different.

The last 2 years...

Including my opinion. Regression: 2008=10 INTs. 2009=14 INTs. 2010=25 INTs. Have you watched him in the preseason? He's awful, and as likely to throw the ball into the turf as he is to put it in a catchable spot. I prefer Stafford, Freeman, and Bradford to him in that 7-8-9th round range, not the least of which because I won't have to spend every Sunday cheering for that turd when he makes his "Manning Face" after his 2nd INT of the game.

I thought it was common knowledge by now, that even though Eli threw those balls, he was not responsible for more than half of those interceptions, almost all of those were caused by the WRs not making impossibly easy catches. There was an interesting article recently, dont remember where, that compared the Eagles and the Giants. Last year more than 50% of the possible interceptions throw by Eli were in fact intercepted (this is a freakishly outlandish statistic), vice versa, less than 10% of Vick's possible interceptions were intercepted. The end result being it hyper inflated Vick's performance and despite having 25 interceptions Eli still had a great year.2008: 479 for 289, 3238 yards and 21 TDs2009: 509 for 317, 4021 yards and 27 TDs2010: 539 for 339, 4002 yards and 31 TDsHe has clearly not regressed one bit, in fact he is coming into his own, the problems if any during this off season have been the giants as a whole are underperforming.

OK so you (and others apparently) love Eli, and your good at making excuses for him. Feel free to draft him because I will let you have him. Let's drop it though.

Ok, great thread you started, make points - counter other peoples points by dismissing them, refer to things you arent knowledgable about, when properly addressed dismiss those points too. I dont own Eli in any league, I just recognize players performances and the value of them slipping way past their actual value in drafts, I didnt even bring this point up, I suggested that Eli + Nicks is just as good of a same team combo as some you listed, you immediatelly attacked that point by saying a top 10 QB has regressed - noting only that he has thrown more interceptions every year.You can have your terrible topic, im out of here.

 

[karmarooster]

Why do you want me to do? I don't care about Eli and don't want to talk about him, and others have great commentary. Devoting half of this thread to Eli was not my intention. I was simply pushing back on the Eli+Nicks suggestion based on my opinion of Eli only. I also said feel free to draft him but I will not.

I actually put some effort into adding up pairs and ADP data for those that are interested.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Stafford + Calvin= Championship

When the championship game rolls around I'd still rather have Calvin + either Brady or Rivers.

 

[glumpy]

Didn't aim to do this but ended up with the Romo-Dez combo myself. Romo round 3, Dez round 4, after starting out Rice-McFadden in the first two.

That one's higher risk than I would have preferred--but there is some potential there...

 

[B3TD]

I can't believe that after 26 replies, not one person has mentioned that you should NEVER let teammates influence your draft selections (unless it's a matter of having 3 or more guys from the same team, which is where it could be a very bad idea)...

Disregarding the idea that you might create volatility in your team's scoring, you should always take the guys that you feel will allow to field the most competitive team, with no bearing on whether or not they're teammates... I mean, I couldn't imagine doing what the OP is proposing in taking Jennings in the early second just because I had Rodgers, when I could have a Fitz, Nicks or Vincent Jackson there that is likely to score me more points over the course of the season.

So no, it certainly shouldn't be much of a deterrent, but it certainly shouldn't be viewed as an advantage either.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Disregarding the idea that you might create volatility in your team's scoring, you should always take the guys that you feel will allow to field the most competitive team, with no bearing on whether or not they're teammates.

Why would I want to disregard the point about increased volatility?Again, it's only the QB/WR pair that can potentially have negative effects.

Other teammate pairs are not a concern, such as QB/RB or WR/RB.

And in a draft I would only let it serve as a tie-breaker, if I somehow arrived at a choice between two WRs or two QBs that I had rated very close to one another. If I felt there was a large gap between the players, yeah, I'd still take that higher-rated QB even if I already owned his #1 WR. We're not dealing with cut and dry facts here, only increased probability. And you'd be losing ground if you took a lesser player just to avoid such a probability.

 

[karmarooster]

I can't believe that after 26 replies, not one person has mentioned that you should NEVER let teammates influence your draft selections (unless it's a matter of having 3 or more guys from the same team, which is where it could be a very bad idea)... Disregarding the idea that you might create volatility in your team's scoring, you should always take the guys that you feel will allow to field the most competitive team, with no bearing on whether or not they're teammates... I mean, I couldn't imagine doing what the OP is proposing in taking Jennings in the early second just because I had Rodgers, when I could have a Fitz, Nicks or Vincent Jackson there that is likely to score me more points over the course of the season.So no, it certainly shouldn't be much of a deterrent, but it certainly shouldn't be viewed as an advantage either.

Well I certainly wouldn't reach for an inferior WR and take Jennings over Fitz or Nicks. But when there is a toss up - IMO Vince Jackson and Jennings are a toss up - I might prefer the pairing. But in general, this is more of a way to think about QB strategy in rounds 3-8. Thus if you get AJ --> Schaub. If you get Calvin --> Stafford; Austin --> Romo. etc. etc. Nothing can be set in stone before a draft, and you have to adjust on the fly. But I don't see why teammates should NEVER influence your draft. If you are one of those people that is SUPER high on Dez and really believe he will score 10-15 TDs this year, then why not grab Romo in the 4th ahead of, say, Manning or Brees? I guess what I mean is that this is only something to think about when drafting, and take advantage of it when it presents itself.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Nobody thinks Big Ben & Wallace is a worthwhile combo?

 

[B3TD]

Disregarding the idea that you might create volatility in your team's scoring, you should always take the guys that you feel will allow to field the most competitive team, with no bearing on whether or not they're teammates.

Why would I want to disregard the point about increased volatility?Again, it's only the QB/WR pair that can potentially have negative effects.Other teammate pairs are not a concern, such as QB/RB or WR/RB.

Let me answer these one at a time, becuase all you're doing is proving my point:1)Replace "disregard" with "leaving aside". Leaving aside what could be a disadvantage, you don't gain any advantage over a QB or WR that scores more points2) Any combo from the same team can have negative effects if the team puts up a stinker of a game. But again, it's not enough of a reason to avoid or go for a combo.It is not an advantage or disadvantage in itself. As always it only matters if you choose the "right" players, not necessarily the right combos.

 

[karmarooster]

Nobody thinks Big Ben & Wallace is a worthwhile combo?

I do. Wallace is a proven 1300 yard deep threat with the ability to score double digit TDs. Some people are worried that the emergence of Brown and Sanders, plus Ward still playing well will take away some of his targets. Grabbing both means that if those WRs do emerge and Wallace only puts up, say, 1100 and 9, you still reap some of the benefits of the other WRs via Big Ben. In fact, aside from Romo and Rivers, I see this range of QBs as ideal for the situation. Ben, Stafford, and Freeman all look poised to break into the Top 5 QBs, and if they do so, you can bet that each QB's stud WR1 will have great numbers, too. I have to say, though, that I probably prefer Stafford over the other two, and might take him despite the concept of the OP. Detroit QBs combined for something like 4000 yards and 30 TDs last year, and will continue to pass without a solid ground game. In contrast, Ben and Freeman both have beasts at RB. Not to mention Calvin is the most dominant WR on the 3 teams. Currently in a slow draft (2+3+flex, .5 PPR for RB and full PPR for WR/TE), drafted at 1.03. So far I've got Rice, Wallace, and Mike Williams, so strongly considering either Ben or Freeman in the 7th/8th rounds unless great QB value presents itself in the 5th or 6th.

 

[B3TD]

But I don't see why teammates should NEVER influence your draft. If you are one of those people that is SUPER high on Dez and really believe he will score 10-15 TDs this year, then why not grab Romo in the 4th ahead of, say, Manning or Brees? I guess what I mean is that this is only something to think about when drafting, and take advantage of it when it presents itself.

Ummm, so you would take Romo over Brees just because of some connection that might be boom-or-bust or not work out? If you're higher on Romo than Brees, then yes, but that should have nothing to with whether you drafted Bryant... Yes, Bryant is of course a factor for Romo's numbers, but whether you actually own him has zero effect on Romo's value vs. Brees.

 

[BoomBoom]

One thing I've thought about when contemplating the combo is the effect of an injury to the QB in the combo. While some beasts like Calvin get theirs regardless of which QB is in there, I've also thought in the past if you had a Manning/Wayne combo and Manning went down you'd have to significantly downgrade Wayne with Manning out. So while the TD combo might be nice, the downside of an injury hurting both players gives me pause.

 

[karmarooster]

But I don't see why teammates should NEVER influence your draft. If you are one of those people that is SUPER high on Dez and really believe he will score 10-15 TDs this year, then why not grab Romo in the 4th ahead of, say, Manning or Brees? I guess what I mean is that this is only something to think about when drafting, and take advantage of it when it presents itself.

Ummm, so you would take Romo over Brees just because of some connection that might be boom-or-bust or not work out? If you're higher on Romo than Brees, then yes, but that should have nothing to with whether you drafted Bryant... Yes, Bryant is of course a factor for Romo's numbers, but whether you actually own him has zero effect on Romo's value vs. Brees.

Well I would take Manning out of the equation entirely. Regarding Brees vs. Romo, I would easily take Romo first, and would do so especially if I believe in Dez.Maybe some of the disconnect here is that it's NOT "well, I took dez in the 3rd, so I should take romo in the 4th." Rather, it's "I REALLY believe in Dez's talent and think he'll out-perform expectations and could be this year's Nicks or Calvin with 10+ TDs. Therefore, I'm going to double dip and capitalize on it, because I know Romo is going to have a great season if I'm right on Dez." Of course, if you DON'T believe in Dez that way, then you shouldn't draft him in the first place, and the point becomes moot. Thus being super high on Dez leads one to be super high on Romo. If you're correct on the call, it could win you the league.

In any case, I've made my point and tried to explain it, so I'll step aside and see if others agree or disagree or throw out suggestions, and let the thread develop without my direction. Thanks for the comments.

 

[B3TD]

But I don't see why teammates should NEVER influence your draft. If you are one of those people that is SUPER high on Dez and really believe he will score 10-15 TDs this year, then why not grab Romo in the 4th ahead of, say, Manning or Brees? I guess what I mean is that this is only something to think about when drafting, and take advantage of it when it presents itself.

Ummm, so you would take Romo over Brees just because of some connection that might be boom-or-bust or not work out? If you're higher on Romo than Brees, then yes, but that should have nothing to with whether you drafted Bryant... Yes, Bryant is of course a factor for Romo's numbers, but whether you actually own him has zero effect on Romo's value vs. Brees.

Well I would take Manning out of the equation entirely. Regarding Brees vs. Romo, I would easily take Romo first, and would do so especially if I believe in Dez.Maybe some of the disconnect here is that it's NOT "well, I took dez in the 3rd, so I should take romo in the 4th." Rather, it's "I REALLY believe in Dez's talent and think he'll out-perform expectations and could be this year's Nicks or Calvin with 10+ TDs. Therefore, I'm going to double dip and capitalize on it, because I know Romo is going to have a great season if I'm right on Dez." Of course, if you DON'T believe in Dez that way, then you shouldn't draft him in the first place, and the point becomes moot. Thus being super high on Dez leads one to be super high on Romo. If you're correct on the call, it could win you the league.

In any case, I've made my point and tried to explain it, so I'll step aside and see if others agree or disagree or throw out suggestions, and let the thread develop without my direction. Thanks for the comments.

I mean yes, I upgraded Ryan because of having more weapons now, and I like Romo for the same reason... I just hear to often about these "combos" to where I think people are making it a strategy to double-dip, as if it's an advantage in itself, rather than just taking the guys you feel are the best values at the position.So I'm not trying to knock you for coming up with good potential combos, but moreover to emphasize that if you like Romo because of Dez, then move him up your board, but don't let whether you have Dez influence your decision of when is the appropriate time to take Romo.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I can't believe that after 26 replies, not one person has mentioned that you should NEVER let teammates influence your draft selections (unless it's a matter of having 3 or more guys from the same team, which is where it could be a very bad idea)...

+picks from other teams that share the same bye week. Got myself into some tricky week 6 and 11 sitches this way but whatever.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Eli Manning hasnt regressed in any regards except for peoples opinion of him. He isnt exactly an elite QB, but he is top 10 and can be had in the 8th round almost religiously.

Not to hijack this thread but since when is Eli top 10? Back to the topic...I have Matt Ryan and Roddy White in my league, and it worked out fine last season...then again Im in a dynasty so things are a bit different.

The last 2 years...

Not in my league. In fact I think he has only cracked the top 10 once.

In one of my leagues last year he was 10th despite throwing 25 INTs because it's only minus 1 point. For minus 2 leagues, it would've dropped him down to David Garrard-level 14th place. Point being, Eli is nothing more than an overvalued QB2 with a tendency to throw interception without the upside of Stafford or Freeman. Manningham and Nicks will also drop their fair share of receptions to make it worse.

Clearly, scoring system has an impact on where Eli will end up. He was 10th in both my leagues last year (as well as 2009). I dont expect him to throw 20+INTs again, but -2INTs certainly decrease his value. Even with that though, you said that drops him to 14th which is still an above average backup FF QB. I dont know where youre getting Nicks will drop a lot of balls from, he catches pretty much everything within 5 yards of him. On the other hand, I do think losing Smith and Boss will hurt Eli this year, although Beckum was a great receiving TE at Wisconsin, so maybe he becomes a solid option.I think Eli is actually undervalued at this point. Everyone knows the interception struggles, but he's a mortal lock for 3800+yds and 25+TDs barring injury. You mention the upside of Stafford and Freeman compared to Eli, but Freeman's ADP is essentially a round higher than Eli, and Stafford's is 4 picks. Im honestly surprised the disparity isnt greater. In my money leagues, Freeman and Stafford went 2+ and Bradford 3+ rounds before Eli, and they all went over a round before him in the other. Additionally, once those guys are gone, who exactly do you prefer to Eli as your backup? Cutler, Flacco, Orton, Fitzpatrick, and McCoy are the next 5 I personally have ranked after him. I will take Eli in a second over any of those guys. In fact, at that point in the draft, Eli would probably be my overall target unless a RB or WR I was ridiculously high on fell that far (which ain't happening in the 9th round).

 

[LittlePhatty]

Let me answer these one at a time, becuase all you're doing is proving my point:

1)Replace "disregard" with "leaving aside". Leaving aside what could be a disadvantage, you don't gain any advantage over a QB or WR that scores more points

The advantage you potentially gain is more consistent scoring, week to week. That can lead to more wins. Please refer to my earlier post about it not mattering at all if you beat your weekly opponent by 1 point or by 50 points. More erratic weekly scores could mean you lose that last game you needed to make the playoffs.But the basic premise of your idea is absolutely correct: "If you leave out the only disadvantage, there are no disadvantages."

2) Any combo from the same team can have negative effects if the team puts up a stinker of a game. But again, it's not enough of a reason to avoid or go for a combo.

Not the point. You can't plan for bad games, you just have to minimize risk. And when you quoted me, you left out the part where I said I'd only use it as a tie-breaker in a draft. I'd always choose the better player if there was a large gap between the two, even if I wind up with a QB/WR combo from the same team.

Here's a link to the article, I just found it.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2008/08drinen-sameteam.php

 

[Kenny Powers]

Stafford + Calvin= Championship

Thats what I have in 1 league, and Im kind of concerned with it. I had to take Stafford when I did, but his injury issues are a major concern. I keep telling myself about his upside potential in that offense over 16 games, and that he didnt miss a game in college, but I dont know.During draft chatter, I asked an owner if he'd swap QBs, my Stafford/Eli combo for his Freeman/Flacco combo, and he said he might do it. Considering I have Freeman ranked as QB7 and Stafford QB12 (though only 12 pts separating them), Im strongly feeling like officially offering it.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Stafford + Calvin= Championship

If Stafford throws 25-30, Calvin will get 15. Assuming both play 16 games, yes. Added benefit of this combo: after CJ in the 1st, you can take 5 RBs/WRs/TE in rounds 2 through 6 before grabbing Stafford in the 7th.

Almost exactly what I did 1.11: Mendenhall2.2: Megatron3.11: Felix4.2 DeAngelo5.11: Ingram6.2: Hightower7.11: StaffordLove how it worked out except for the Stafford injury concerns in the back of my mind.

 

[karmarooster]

Clearly, scoring system has an impact on where Eli will end up. He was 10th in both my leagues last year (as well as 2009). I dont expect him to throw 20+INTs again, but -2INTs certainly decrease his value. Even with that though, you said that drops him to 14th which is still an above average backup FF QB. I dont know where youre getting Nicks will drop a lot of balls from, he catches pretty much everything within 5 yards of him. On the other hand, I do think losing Smith and Boss will hurt Eli this year, although Beckum was a great receiving TE at Wisconsin, so maybe he becomes a solid option.I think Eli is actually undervalued at this point. Everyone knows the interception struggles, but he's a mortal lock for 3800+yds and 25+TDs barring injury. You mention the upside of Stafford and Freeman compared to Eli, but Freeman's ADP is essentially a round higher than Eli, and Stafford's is 4 picks. Im honestly surprised the disparity isnt greater. In my money leagues, Freeman and Stafford went 2+ and Bradford 3+ rounds before Eli, and they all went over a round before him in the other. Additionally, once those guys are gone, who exactly do you prefer to Eli as your backup? Cutler, Flacco, Orton, Fitzpatrick, and McCoy are the next 5 I personally have ranked after him. I will take Eli in a second over any of those guys. In fact, at that point in the draft, Eli would probably be my overall target unless a RB or WR I was ridiculously high on fell that far (which ain't happening in the 9th round).

I really don't want to get into Eli discussion again, but I guess this has some relevance as you're asking about the WRs. Nicks and Manningham are both barely over 60% in terms of catch rate. Part of that is because of Eli's erratic throwing. Steve Smith, who was closer to 67%, is now gone. As for as higher upside guys, Stafford (7), Freeman (8), Bradford (9), Kolb (10), and Flacco (10) are all more intriguing to me than Eli in the 9th.

 

[B3TD]

How is it more consistent point-scoring, when a bad week for one team cripples 2 of your starters? Alos how is it minimizing risk? As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, if that WR's scroing is highly dependent on the QB, then a QB going down is going to be twice the blow. I can really only make an argument that it could potentially lead to a disadvantage, but I can't claim it's an advantage, other than if you would have drafted him there anyway.

The only way to minimize risk is to take less risky players. The only way to be more consistent is to draft more consistent players.

As for only using it as a "tie-breaker", okay I can respect that, but the vibe of this thread seemed to be that it's an advantage. My point is that it's not an advantage if you're passing on a better value QB or WR to "double-dip" with another, nor should it be a factor in your decision of who to take other than "all things equal" when choosing your pick.

Let me answer these one at a time, becuase all you're doing is proving my point:

1)Replace "disregard" with "leaving aside". Leaving aside what could be a disadvantage, you don't gain any advantage over a QB or WR that scores more points

The advantage you potentially gain is more consistent scoring, week to week. That can lead to more wins. Please refer to my earlier post about it not mattering at all if you beat your weekly opponent by 1 point or by 50 points. More erratic weekly scores could mean you lose that last game you needed to make the playoffs.But the basic premise of your idea is absolutely correct: "If you leave out the only disadvantage, there are no disadvantages."

2) Any combo from the same team can have negative effects if the team puts up a stinker of a game. But again, it's not enough of a reason to avoid or go for a combo.

Not the point. You can't plan for bad games, you just have to minimize risk. And when you quoted me, you left out the part where I said I'd only use it as a tie-breaker in a draft. I'd always choose the better player if there was a large gap between the two, even if I wind up with a QB/WR combo from the same team.

Here's a link to the article, I just found it.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2008/08drinen-sameteam.php

 

[greggorymac]

I have Rivers, VJ, and Gates... I am mildly concerned with this, but I wouldn't want any other TE over Gates and I can't sit VJ. So I'm rolling with it and gonna see how it flies.

The only thing you need to be worried about is Week 6.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Clearly, scoring system has an impact on where Eli will end up. He was 10th in both my leagues last year (as well as 2009). I dont expect him to throw 20+INTs again, but -2INTs certainly decrease his value. Even with that though, you said that drops him to 14th which is still an above average backup FF QB. I dont know where youre getting Nicks will drop a lot of balls from, he catches pretty much everything within 5 yards of him. On the other hand, I do think losing Smith and Boss will hurt Eli this year, although Beckum was a great receiving TE at Wisconsin, so maybe he becomes a solid option.I think Eli is actually undervalued at this point. Everyone knows the interception struggles, but he's a mortal lock for 3800+yds and 25+TDs barring injury. You mention the upside of Stafford and Freeman compared to Eli, but Freeman's ADP is essentially a round higher than Eli, and Stafford's is 4 picks. Im honestly surprised the disparity isnt greater. In my money leagues, Freeman and Stafford went 2+ and Bradford 3+ rounds before Eli, and they all went over a round before him in the other. Additionally, once those guys are gone, who exactly do you prefer to Eli as your backup? Cutler, Flacco, Orton, Fitzpatrick, and McCoy are the next 5 I personally have ranked after him. I will take Eli in a second over any of those guys. In fact, at that point in the draft, Eli would probably be my overall target unless a RB or WR I was ridiculously high on fell that far (which ain't happening in the 9th round).

I really don't want to get into Eli discussion again, but I guess this has some relevance as you're asking about the WRs. Nicks and Manningham are both barely over 60% in terms of catch rate. Part of that is because of Eli's erratic throwing. Steve Smith, who was closer to 67%, is now gone. As for as higher upside guys, Stafford (7), Freeman (8), Bradford (9), Kolb (10), and Flacco (10) are all more intriguing to me than Eli in the 9th.

Yeah, and Mark Ingram has more upside than Dion Lewis. Half my point was in any serious league, Freeman, Stafford, and Bradford are all gone before Eli. If you like Kolb and Flacco more than him, to each his own, but IMO Eli is clearly the best QB available once QB13 is off the board, which is typically Bradford.ETA: Catch rate has nothing to do with drops, it has to do with targets. Smith's was likely higher because he ran mostly short routes.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I like the strategy but it does not have to be QB + WR1. For example in one league I have Romo and then Witten as my QB1 and TE1, then I have Eli and Nicks so i get the double up no matter who I have at QB, and I am not doing it at the detriment of the rest of squad.

Good thread topic, has some validity in my eyes.

 

[Ever Present Lurker]

I'm rolling with Stafford/Calvin Johnson. But it wasn't done with the intent to have a QB/WR1 tandem. I had a plan, and in the execution of the plan, these were the players that, value-wise, I ended up with. That said, I'm not disappointed.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

The statistical term for this is "covariance" - when two values share something in common that cause both of them to rise or fall at the same time. A Quarterback and Receiver on the same team is the easiest example of positive covariance. If the WR puts up a lot of FF points, the QB probably will too. If the QB has a bad game, the WR probably will too. It's not a given fact, but it increases the probability.

Positive covariance - this will have more erratic results - more peaks and valleys in your team scoring, so in general it should be minimized.

Negative covariance - it isn't necessarily bad, and it may even provide you with more "steady" FF points over the long haul of a season.

If you have access to Subscriber content there is an article on it from last year (I think, maybe the year before?).

There is also evidence that having a stud WR and RB from the same team exhibits negative covariance. These stats are probably nudged by the playcalling for the day, i.e. was the team behind and did they have to air it out? Or were they ahead and they pounded the ground all day? Again, it's not a given fact that their values will rise and fall opposite of each other, it's just that the stats show it has an increased chance of happening.

As for my thoughts on using it as a strategy, I think it depends on your league.

In most leagues the point is to win as many games during the regular season in order to make the playoffs. It doesn't matter if you win your weekly matchup by 1 point or 50 points, it just matters if you win. So consistency is important, and you should avoid positive covariance if possible. Also, these formats usually have single-elimination playoffs, so one bad game from your QB probably also means your #1 WR has a down week and you're knocked out. If you had a #1 WR from a different team you increase your chances of recovering from the bad day your QB had.

If your league has weekly payouts for the highest score, positive covariance might increase your chances of winning a couple of weeks. But unless these payouts are huge, I wouldn't sacrifice a shot a the title just to use this strategy.

This is an excellent post, but it only covers half the story. In each weekly matchup we only have to beat one other fantasy team and the positive covariance increases the randomness of the matchup. If our team is pretty good, that tends to work against us. But, over the course of the season we have to beat out a lot of teams. We want to be the best out of 12 teams in a 12-team league. The positive covariance for a QB/WR combination promotes this chance as both players will tend to have an up year or down year together.Some people have spoken of the extra risk to the WR because your QB might get hurt. Any QB can get hurt whether you own him or not. By having the WR/QB combo you only need to get lucky once that the QB doesn't get hurt to help both players. This is another example of positive covariance over the course of the season being an advantage.

I consider it a slight plus to draft a QB or WR that completes a combo.

As far as the combo hurting ones chances in the playoff knockout system, that just isn't right. The positive covariance will be neutral if the fantasy teams are equal, and when we have two playoff teams both teams are probably pretty good. While it is true that a bad game by your QB will put you behind the 8-ball, that is exactly balanced by the fact that a good game by your QB puts you in the driver's seat.

A strong strategy is to get a borderline WR3 or WR4 to pair up with your QB. The WR might exceed expectations and become a reliable starter just like any WR you take at that point. But he will also give you an optional starter on a weekly basis depending on whether you want positive covariance for that week or not. If you get Brees, Lance Moore is an excellent option for this reason. He isn't a must start so you have the choice of how to arrange your lineup for the week.

 

[B3TD]

OK, you guys go basing your draft decisions on some theoretical covariance, and I'll stick to drafting the best values and basing my decisions on postional scarcity, scoring and lineup requirements. If it happens, it happens,I obviously have no issue with taking a WR because you like his QB or QB because you like his WRs or both, but the object is to obtain the best possible 15-20 guys to fill your lineup. Focusing on a connection because you have 1 guy is only going to inhibit you from making the most informed draft decision.

And BTW, if you're so gung ho on this strategy, then I'd be sure to check their playoff schedule, because you can have a "positive covariance" all year, but 1 stinker is all it takes in the playoffs.

But again, to be clear, I only bring up the negative to balance everything you're saying about the positive. This means that at the end of the day, you look to fill your lineup roster with guys who you think will score the most points compared to others at their position (remember, you still have to start a whole lineup on top of that connection). You gain no advantage by passing up surer scorers or better values for what might either be a lower scoring "connection" or prevent you from filling your roster with higher scorers at other positions. It should absolutely be a moot factor in draft strategy.