Playing against a QB when you have a top WR/TE or visa versa (1 Viewer)

[Baloney Sandwich]

In the first round of the playoffs I'm playing against a team that has Drew Brees at QB while I have Jimmy Graham. This type of scenario has come up often over the years where either me or my opponent will have a QB and the other one with have the top receiver on that team. Generally speaking, do you feel the team with the QB or the team with the Receiver has the advantage in this type of scenario? For simplicity sake, let's assume 4 pts per passing TD and 6 pts per receiving TD.

 

[McGarnicle]

Makes no difference, you start the players who you believe will score the most points regardless of opponent's players.

 

[Houston turmOiler]

Personally I just play my best line up and let it go. If I have a decision that is close about who to start then I can weigh that in. For example I have Keenan Allen and I played against Rivers last week but I left Allen on the bench. I did not think he was a better option over Bryant or Gordon or Andre Brown in my Flex. I guess its like anything else in this hobby sometimes you will be right and sometimes you will be wrong.

 

[DoubleG]

First off, I agree with McGarnicle. I do think, in your specific case though, the Graham owner has an advantage. Typically (now I will be proved wrong) when Brees has a big day, it's in large part due to Graham. On teams where guys spread the ball around more (Denver, for example) - the advantage doesn't exist. Romo/Bryant in Dallas is similar to the Brees example. The Bears is the counter-example (Cutler/Mc have been willing to hit whoever is open).

In general though - it doesn't matter. Start the guy you think will score the most points.

 

[lod01]

Makes no difference, you start the players who you believe will score the most points regardless of opponent's players.

Yep. Been on both ends of this. When you have the receiver, you just hope to cancel out 2 TDs. You get none, you usually lose.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Both are starting as usual... This can determine the outcome sometimes though.

I hate even more when I have a top WR and play against a lower WR on the same team.

For instance, I own Marshall and play Jeffrey and Marshall gets me 8 and Jeffrey gets him 50 - Guaranteed loss in that situation.

 

[nastynate]

The only time I've let this type of situation affect my lineup is in situations where I might be up big and I have a WR that my opponents QB will be throwing to on Sunday/Monday night. Or, if I'm down big early and I'm starting a WR that his QB is throwing to (never gonna catch up).

For instance -- Last year I was playing someone who had Romo early in the year, playing on Monday night. I had Austin on the bench. After the early games I had a huge lead, so I swapped out my WR for Austin, hedging Romo having a massive game with the Austin play. Romo tossed 5 INTs so I didn't have to worry, but had he thrown 5 TDs, Austin was a likely to be on the receiving end of 1 or 2 of those. On the flip side, had I been down big, playing Austin wouldn't have done anything for me as his QB was getting pts along with Austin (not as many, but if you're down big, you need more than a 2 pts advantage on TDs).

Other than circumstantial moves like that, I agree with everyone else. Play who is going to give you the most points regardless of who your opponent is playing.

 

[Nugget]

In general, I think the oppsing QB/WR or QB/TE is helpful to the team that is favored in the match. There is less variance and less opportunity for the upset.

 

[TartanLion]

If you are playing against a real stud WR then I like it from the quarterback end.

If his stud WR goes off on one and has a big game, you at least know that your quarterback will be achieving some parity by keeping you close with a decent score.

If your QB fails then you are at least certain that one of his biggest and most dangerous weapons has put up a dud.

Then of course there is the added potential for your QB to find his TDs elsewhere giving you a good score with the added benefit of his stud having a dud.

I've got Stafford and went up against Calvin in week one. Calvin had two TDs called back and Stafford threw two TDs to Fauria and Bush. Worked out very well for me.

Endoif the day, I agree with the overall point about not worrying too much but you can't help but notice things like this.

 

[zftcg]

The only time I've let this type of situation affect my lineup is in situations where I might be up big and I have a WR that my opponents QB will be throwing to on Sunday/Monday night. Or, if I'm down big early and I'm starting a WR that his QB is throwing to (never gonna catch up).

For instance -- Last year I was playing someone who had Romo early in the year, playing on Monday night. I had Austin on the bench. After the early games I had a huge lead, so I swapped out my WR for Austin, hedging Romo having a massive game with the Austin play. Romo tossed 5 INTs so I didn't have to worry, but had he thrown 5 TDs, Austin was a likely to be on the receiving end of 1 or 2 of those. On the flip side, had I been down big, playing Austin wouldn't have done anything for me as his QB was getting pts along with Austin (not as many, but if you're down big, you need more than a 2 pts advantage on TDs).

Other than circumstantial moves like that, I agree with everyone else. Play who is going to give you the most points regardless of who your opponent is playing.

A few years ago, I had Romo and my opponent had Austin. I was busy all afternoon, and when I checked the score Austin had 3 TD catches but Romo had only thrown 2. Turned out he had gotten injured, left the game temporarily, and Kitna came in and threw one to Austin. Needless to say, I lost that week.

 

[TeeDub]

Good post. I was going to mention this for the audible on Sunday.

In my league I have Matt forte and my opponent has alshon Jeffrey. I just picked up mccown and am truly thinking about playing him this week (my other qbs are romo/rivers). I see it as a safe move for me because if alshon goes off I still get some of the points. And if there's no passing game whatsoever that will mean forte went off and I'll still get the points. I hope I'm right lol.

He also has demArco murrau

 

[DoubleG]

Good post. I was going to mention this for the audible on Sunday.

In my league I have Matt forte and my opponent has alshon Jeffrey. I just picked up mccown and am truly thinking about playing him this week (my other qbs are romo/rivers). I see it as a safe move for me because if alshon goes off I still get some of the points. And if there's no passing game whatsoever that will mean forte went off and I'll still get the points. I hope I'm right lol.

He also has demArco murrau

Cutler still hasn't been ruled out....just sayin'. Oh, and the Bears could lose 24-6 too.

 

[Raider Nation]

Makes no difference, you start the players who you believe will score the most points regardless of opponent's players.

Personally I just play my best line up and let it go.

In general though - it doesn't matter. Start the guy you think will score the most points.

I don't think this is what he asked.

 

[ghostguy123]

No advantage at all for either side. Not sure how there could be.

If you have Brees and he has Graham, Brees is capable of a good game without Graham going off. On the flip side, Graham can have a really good game while Brees has a modest or mediocre game.

In this particular case, I think Graham is a more valuable player given how much he scores over everyone else at his position, but really I don't see much of any kind of advantage or disadvantage to this.

Or like if you have Romo and he has Dez. I think that only favors the guy with Dez because Dez is the more valuable player anyway, and chances are was drafted WAYYYYY before Romo.

 

[TeeDub]

Good post. I was going to mention this for the audible on Sunday.

In my league I have Matt forte and my opponent has alshon Jeffrey. I just picked up mccown and am truly thinking about playing him this week (my other qbs are romo/rivers). I see it as a safe move for me because if alshon goes off I still get some of the points. And if there's no passing game whatsoever that will mean forte went off and I'll still get the points. I hope I'm right lol.

He also has demArco murrau

Cutler still hasn't been ruled out....just sayin'. Oh, and the Bears could lose 24-6 too.

Yeah I'm ready to drop sproles if I have to for cutler (free agency locked by Thursday 8:30). Also with the bears playing one of the worst passing defenses at home I like my chances of mccown putting up better numbers than romo/rivers this week

 

[TeeDub]

Or like if you have Romo and he has Dez. I think that only favors the guy with Dez because Dez is the more valuable player anyway, and chances are was drafted WAYYYYY before Romo.

Depending on the match ups and my other qbs I would play romo if my top opponent had dez as his wr1. Especially if I had Murray too

 

[ghostguy123]

Or like if you have Romo and he has Dez. I think that only favors the guy with Dez because Dez is the more valuable player anyway, and chances are was drafted WAYYYYY before Romo.

Depending on the match ups and my other qbs I would play romo if my top opponent had dez as his wr1. Especially if I had Murray too

well of course it depends on your other QBs, plus the matchup. Obviously you want to play Romo if you think he will score more than whoever else you have. After all, who cares what Dez does, if Romo scores more than your bench QB, you made the right call.

 

[TeeDub]

Or like if you have Romo and he has Dez. I think that only favors the guy with Dez because Dez is the more valuable player anyway, and chances are was drafted WAYYYYY before Romo.

Depending on the match ups and my other qbs I would play romo if my top opponent had dez as his wr1. Especially if I had Murray too

well of course it depends on your other QBs, plus the matchup. Obviously you want to play Romo if you think he will score more than whoever else you have. After all, who cares what Dez does, if Romo scores more than your bench QB, you made the right call.

If u want to use this week as an example and choose between romo, rivers, or Palmer with the same line ups we mentioned, I would choose romo over them all but I don't think it's an easy decision at all with the potential upside and current trends of all players involved in this scenario

 

[ghostguy123]

Or like if you have Romo and he has Dez. I think that only favors the guy with Dez because Dez is the more valuable player anyway, and chances are was drafted WAYYYYY before Romo.

Depending on the match ups and my other qbs I would play romo if my top opponent had dez as his wr1. Especially if I had Murray too

well of course it depends on your other QBs, plus the matchup. Obviously you want to play Romo if you think he will score more than whoever else you have. After all, who cares what Dez does, if Romo scores more than your bench QB, you made the right call.

If u want to use this week as an example and choose between romo, rivers, or Palmer with the same line ups we mentioned, I would choose romo over them all but I don't think it's an easy decision at all with the potential upside and current trends of all players involved in this scenario

I guess I am just not sure if you are saying it is better to have the QB or the WR in this case, and why.

 

[TeeDub]

Or like if you have Romo and he has Dez. I think that only favors the guy with Dez because Dez is the more valuable player anyway, and chances are was drafted WAYYYYY before Romo.

Depending on the match ups and my other qbs I would play romo if my top opponent had dez as his wr1. Especially if I had Murray too

well of course it depends on your other QBs, plus the matchup. Obviously you want to play Romo if you think he will score more than whoever else you have. After all, who cares what Dez does, if Romo scores more than your bench QB, you made the right call.

If u want to use this week as an example and choose between romo, rivers, or Palmer with the same line ups we mentioned, I would choose romo over them all but I don't think it's an easy decision at all with the potential upside and current trends of all players involved in this scenario

I guess I am just not sure if you are saying it is better to have the QB or the WR in this case, and why.

Don't mind me, I'm just being sneaky and trying to get some comments about my line up idea lol. To get back to topic, for a case like the cowboy's this week I think it'll be better to have dez (mostly in PPR). It looks like the cowboys have finally found their balanced offense that is pissing off romo owners and exciting cowboy fans. Dez should most likely get his catches and hopefully a touchdown. With how bad the bears' run defense is I wouldn't be surprised if romo only goes 215/1.

For the saints example I rather have jimmy graham because he's jimmy graham

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The OP's scenario isn't really strategy driven. There aren't many guys benching a Drew Brees or Jimmy Graham during the fantasy playoffs.

The more important question is starting WR2's and low end TE1's to go against higher end QB1's. I don't think there are many scenarios where someone will start a low end QB1 to cancel out a high end WR1 or TE1. Usually in those cases, that QB is probably a QB1 anyway.

It is wise to play the guys you think will score the most, no doubt that should guide your lineup. But if you are favored, the tactic of starting a lower tier flex guy to cancel the upside of your opponents biggest potential scorer is one you should consider. It reduces statistical variance and effect of an outlier type game, and effectively shortens the benches. A 10 vs 10 lineup is reduced to 9 vs 9 or 8 vs 8, etc. If you feel really confident about your other starting guys, it makes sense.

Throwing out the Jimmy freaking Graham vs Drew freaking Brees example, cancelling a player on an opposing roster is a viable move.

 

[zftcg]

Good post. I was going to mention this for the audible on Sunday.

In my league I have Matt forte and my opponent has alshon Jeffrey. I just picked up mccown and am truly thinking about playing him this week (my other qbs are romo/rivers). I see it as a safe move for me because if alshon goes off I still get some of the points. And if there's no passing game whatsoever that will mean forte went off and I'll still get the points. I hope I'm right lol.

He also has demArco murrau

The problem with that logic is that it assumes there are a finite number of points and you just have to make sure you get a larger share than your opponent.

Perfect example: I have long been an opponent of this strategy, but a few weeks ago I managed to talk myself into it. I was making what I thought was a tough decision between SSmith and Hilton for my flex. My opponent had Newton and I was heavily favored, so I let that be the deciding factor and started Smith. Figured the only way he beats me is if Cam goes off, so I could hedge his upside with Smith.

So what happened? Newton and Smith both had mediocre days, so in that sense it "worked". But so did the rest of my lineup ... while Hilton went absolutely crazy, scoring three TDs on my bench. And I lost.

Obviously, one bad result doesn't make something a bad strategy. But I do think it exposes the flaws in that thinking.

In your case, McCown may be the best play (I'd probably go with Rivers, but it's close.) But if he's the best play, it's because he's going to score more than your other options, not because he's going to neutralize your opponent's players.