Playoff Strategy (1 Viewer)

[DWidmar]

My opponent this week is a huge fan of a certain team. He is starting two WR's and a TE from that team.

I happen to have the QB that goes along with those three players.

I feel like I can negate a big game from those three players if I start the same QB. I can also see how that could hurt me.

I probably couldn't go wrong starting either of my QB's, as both are pretty much must starts, every week.

What say you about this strategy?

I have seen it come into question with maybe one or two players before, but never three from the same team.

I am not asking who to start in this question but only what do you think is good about the strategy and bad about the strategy.

 

[Kwai Chang Caine]

Just spit it out, who are the players in question? I'll guess this involves either Indy or Dallas?

 

[DWidmar]

Just spit it out, who are the players in question? I'll guess this involves either Indy or Dallas?

I dont want this to turn into a 'Who do I start thread'. I want to really discuss the strategy of starting players to negate other players.

 

[djjosee]

Just spit it out, who are the players in question? I'll guess this involves either Indy or Dallas?

I'll go with the Rams .... BTW ... go ahead and start Cutler.

 

[thehornet]

Just spit it out, who are the players in question? I'll guess this involves either Indy or Dallas?

I dont want this to turn into a 'Who do I start thread'. I want to really discuss the strategy of starting players to negate other players.

really, just tell us. WHo cares if the police come out. They will come out regardless and i am curious.

 

[Turtles]

Just spit it out, who are the players in question? I'll guess this involves either Indy or Dallas?

I dont want this to turn into a 'Who do I start thread'. I want to really discuss the strategy of starting players to negate other players.

It's impossible to answer unless you give the players in question. If you're thinking about starting Bulger over Brees because he's starting Avery and Holt, that's dumb. If you're thinking about Rodgers over someone slightly better because he's starting Driver, Jennings, and Lee, that's more reasonable.In general, I'd say start you better players regardless, but *if* you're a big favorite outside of this, *and* the matchup you're thinking about swapping is reasonably close to begin with, there might be some validity to it.

 

[rick6668]

My opponent this week is a huge fan of a certain team. He is starting two WR's and a TE from that team. I happen to have the QB that goes along with those three players. I feel like I can negate a big game from those three players if I start the same QB. I can also see how that could hurt me. I probably couldn't go wrong starting either of my QB's, as both are pretty much must starts, every week. What say you about this strategy? I have seen it come into question with maybe one or two players before, but never three from the same team. I am not asking who to start in this question but only what do you think is good about the strategy and bad about the strategy.

Start the QB who matches his 3 players as long as the QB's are close.Example, you have Romo and he has TO, Roy Williams and Witten.If any of their guys go off, your QB benefits.I think you'll increase you chances of beating him implementing this strategy.

 

[DWidmar]

My opponent this week is a huge fan of a certain team. He is starting two WR's and a TE from that team. I happen to have the QB that goes along with those three players. I feel like I can negate a big game from those three players if I start the same QB. I can also see how that could hurt me. I probably couldn't go wrong starting either of my QB's, as both are pretty much must starts, every week. What say you about this strategy? I have seen it come into question with maybe one or two players before, but never three from the same team. I am not asking who to start in this question but only what do you think is good about the strategy and bad about the strategy.

Start the QB who matches his 3 players as long as the QB's are close.Example, you have Romo and he has TO, Roy Williams and Witten.If any of their guys go off, your QB benefits.I think you'll increase you chances of beating him implementing this strategy.

My only concerns is if I start the QB who goes along with the WR's and this happens:QB throws for 300 yards. 15 points (for me)WR1 gets 120 yards. 12 points for himWR2 gets 80 yards 8 points for himTE gets 60 yards 6 points for him. (other players get the rest of the yards) In this scenario I have a ho hum day at QB he has a solid day at WR1, WR2 and TE. BUT. if the his players catch 4 td's and I start the other QB now my players have to catch 4 td's. The questions are, is it better to play defense (protect my self) or offense (start best QB regardless)

 

[DWidmar]

Just spit it out, who are the players in question? I'll guess this involves either Indy or Dallas?

I dont want this to turn into a 'Who do I start thread'. I want to really discuss the strategy of starting players to negate other players.

It's impossible to answer unless you give the players in question. If you're thinking about starting Bulger over Brees because he's starting Avery and Holt, that's dumb. If you're thinking about Rodgers over someone slightly better because he's starting Driver, Jennings, and Lee, that's more reasonable.In general, I'd say start you better players regardless, but *if* you're a big favorite outside of this, *and* the matchup you're thinking about swapping is reasonably close to begin with, there might be some validity to it.

Definately not like that. That is a no brainer. I have already made my decision but I wanted to see if in this case it is better to 'protect' yourself or just play your normal strategies.

 

[Kwai Chang Caine]

Just spit it out, who are the players in question? I'll guess this involves either Indy or Dallas?

I dont want this to turn into a 'Who do I start thread'. I want to really discuss the strategy of starting players to negate other players.

It's impossible to answer unless you give the players in question. If you're thinking about starting Bulger over Brees because he's starting Avery and Holt, that's dumb. If you're thinking about Rodgers over someone slightly better because he's starting Driver, Jennings, and Lee, that's more reasonable.In general, I'd say start you better players regardless, but *if* you're a big favorite outside of this, *and* the matchup you're thinking about swapping is reasonably close to begin with, there might be some validity to it.

Agree. The OP is making a mistake generalizing the scenario. You have to know the players involved.

 

[rick6668]

My opponent this week is a huge fan of a certain team. He is starting two WR's and a TE from that team. I happen to have the QB that goes along with those three players. I feel like I can negate a big game from those three players if I start the same QB. I can also see how that could hurt me. I probably couldn't go wrong starting either of my QB's, as both are pretty much must starts, every week. What say you about this strategy? I have seen it come into question with maybe one or two players before, but never three from the same team. I am not asking who to start in this question but only what do you think is good about the strategy and bad about the strategy.

Start the QB who matches his 3 players as long as the QB's are close.Example, you have Romo and he has TO, Roy Williams and Witten.If any of their guys go off, your QB benefits.I think you'll increase you chances of beating him implementing this strategy.

My only concerns is if I start the QB who goes along with the WR's and this happens:QB throws for 300 yards. 15 points (for me)WR1 gets 120 yards. 12 points for himWR2 gets 80 yards 8 points for himTE gets 60 yards 6 points for him. (other players get the rest of the yards) In this scenario I have a ho hum day at QB he has a solid day at WR1, WR2 and TE. BUT. if the his players catch 4 td's and I start the other QB now my players have to catch 4 td's. The questions are, is it better to play defense (protect my self) or offense (start best QB regardless)

Either scenario is fine. He only outscored your QB by 11 with 3 players against 1. Now you have 3 players going against his QB.If you feel your team overall is better than his, then start the QB that matches his. This will lessen the chance that his players blow up and yours don't.

 

[DWidmar]

Just spit it out, who are the players in question? I'll guess this involves either Indy or Dallas?

I dont want this to turn into a 'Who do I start thread'. I want to really discuss the strategy of starting players to negate other players.

It's impossible to answer unless you give the players in question. If you're thinking about starting Bulger over Brees because he's starting Avery and Holt, that's dumb. If you're thinking about Rodgers over someone slightly better because he's starting Driver, Jennings, and Lee, that's more reasonable.In general, I'd say start you better players regardless, but *if* you're a big favorite outside of this, *and* the matchup you're thinking about swapping is reasonably close to begin with, there might be some validity to it.

Agree. The OP is making a mistake generalizing the scenario. You have to know the players involved.

Relentless I tell ya. I love it.I think it would be relevent if I needed to know who to start. I just want to know what you think about the strategy. Potentially keeping up with three of his players with one of mine or going with the best player available.

 

[DWidmar]

My opponent this week is a huge fan of a certain team. He is starting two WR's and a TE from that team.

I happen to have the QB that goes along with those three players.

I feel like I can negate a big game from those three players if I start the same QB. I can also see how that could hurt me.

I probably couldn't go wrong starting either of my QB's, as both are pretty much must starts, every week.

What say you about this strategy?

I have seen it come into question with maybe one or two players before, but never three from the same team.

I am not asking who to start in this question but only what do you think is good about the strategy and bad about the strategy.

Start the QB who matches his 3 players as long as the QB's are close.Example, you have Romo and he has TO, Roy Williams and Witten.

If any of their guys go off, your QB benefits.

I think you'll increase you chances of beating him implementing this strategy.

My only concerns is if I start the QB who goes along with the WR's and this happens:QB throws for 300 yards. 15 points (for me)

WR1 gets 120 yards. 12 points for him

WR2 gets 80 yards 8 points for him

TE gets 60 yards 6 points for him.

(other players get the rest of the yards)

In this scenario I have a ho hum day at QB he has a solid day at WR1, WR2 and TE.

BUT. if the his players catch 4 td's and I start the other QB now my players have to catch 4 td's.

The questions are, is it better to play defense (protect my self) or offense (start best QB regardless)

Either scenario is fine. He only outscored your QB by 11 with 3 players against 1. Now you have 3 players going against his QB.If you feel your team overall is better than his, then start the QB that matches his. This will lessen the chance that his players blow up and yours don't.

We match up somewhat even although I will give a slight edge to my team. If this QB also puts up several TD's and keeps up with his players, I could potentially outscore his QB while I match TD's for three of his players.

 

[DWidmar]

The match up for QB 'A" (same as his players) is slightly tougher than QB 'B' (my other QB). QB 'A' is on the road, QB 'B' is at home.

 

[Mike]

Start your guy who you think will score the most points.

 

[DWidmar]

Start your guy who you think will score the most points.

I have always felt that way as well. Do you see any advantages to implementing this strategy? What disadvantages do you see?

 

[CD Dragon]

if you can counter his 3 players with one QB then i definitely would do it, the main difference changer is TDs, more than likely (barring a trick play) his 3 guys TDs are wholly dependent on your QB (barring injury) . the only way i would not do this, unless i had no other option is in a PPR league

or a 3-4pt TD pass vs 6pt rec TD

devils advocate:

QB throws for 400 yds = 16-20 pts depending on scoring

his 3 guys catch all yds = 37-40 pts

TDs are a wash

you are down 20 pts roughly

lets say his qb scores 7-8 more pts than your QB

you are down 28 pts (in a worse case scenario)

now you have 3 wrs 2 rbs 1 te 1 pk 1d vs his 1 wr 2 rb 1 pk 1 d

if you get 10 pts each from your 2 WRs and 3pts from you TE (very probable)

then all you need to do is outscore his WR,RB,RB,PK,and D by 1 pt per position

i like the odds and if your QB can hit a FB or RB for a TD. YOU ARE GOLD!!

 

[Chaka]

Start the player who will score the most points.

 

[fantasyplayer]

Start the player who will score the most points.

Obviously if you KNOW which QB will score the most points, you'll start him. Since you never know, I think this can be a viable strategy. Of course, like others have mentioned, it would be helpful to know the players involved.

 

[Chaka]

Start the player who will score the most points.

Obviously if you KNOW which QB will score the most points, you'll start him. Since you never know, I think this can be a viable strategy. Of course, like others have mentioned, it would be helpful to know the players involved.

You don't know?

 

[rick6668]

Interesting article

 

[Breesisdaman]

Start the player who will score the most points.

 

[lion_crazz]

That article was a great read! Loved reading some of the names too. Remember when Ben Coates, Mark Chumura, and Frank Wycheck were stud tight ends?

I'd like to know the team/players that the OP is deciding between as well. Being that you said QB A (the same team as his players) is on the road, it comes down to: Phillip Rivers, Jason Campbell, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Jay Cutler, or Matt Cassell.

 

[Lash]

guess #1 the answer is Cutler

at Carolina and dude has Marshall, Royal, Scheffler

guess #2 the answer is Brees

at Chicago and the dude has Colston, Moore, Shockey

and you're other QB is Warner vs the vikings horrible Pass defense

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

My opponent this week is a huge fan of a certain team. He is starting two WR's and a TE from that team. I happen to have the QB that goes along with those three players. I feel like I can negate a big game from those three players if I start the same QB. I can also see how that could hurt me. I probably couldn't go wrong starting either of my QB's, as both are pretty much must starts, every week. What say you about this strategy? I have seen it come into question with maybe one or two players before, but never three from the same team. I am not asking who to start in this question but only what do you think is good about the strategy and bad about the strategy.

I play the QB that negates his three receivers.

 

[Wrigley]

Start your best QB, regardless of who your opponent is starting.

 

[Bobcat10]

I'd probably start the QB throwing to his players (AND other players).

But I really think we have to know the QBs to make a sound decision overall no matter what strategy is being used or debated.

 

[DWidmar]

Interesting article

Great article! Thanks

 

[DWidmar]

guess #1 the answer is Cutler

at Carolina and dude has Marshall, Royal, Scheffler

guess #2 the answer is Brees

at Chicago and the dude has Colston, Moore, Shockey

and you're other QB is Warner vs the vikings horrible Pass defense

Ding, Ding, Ding we have a winner. I only gave the names so we could debate the symantecs of the strategy as many posters need it to be able to talk about it.

Please do not just tell me who to start as that is not what I want this thread to be about.

 

[daveR]

Overthinking it.

All you can control is your own team. Your opponent's point total isn't going to change. You need to score more than him. If you think one of your qb's is going to put up better numbers, play him. If not, it doesn't matter.

 

[DWidmar]

Overthinking it.All you can control is your own team. Your opponent's point total isn't going to change. You need to score more than him. If you think one of your qb's is going to put up better numbers, play him. If not, it doesn't matter.

I agree that you always want to put your best players in the line up. There are several weeks where I think I am doing that and I am wrong and then there are weeks where I am right. The challenge becomes knowing which will put up better numbers. We can project matchups, stats, gut feelings etc... to determine who we should start. Lets say I porject QB 'A' to put up 25 points and QB 'B' to put up 28 points. Obviously for the purpose of most points wins, I should start QB 'B'.Now I don't know those projections to be for sure, so is it safer to play QB 'A' in case he does have a better game so I can match the TD's totals of my opponents players? Covering my bets I guess.

 

[rick6668]

For those who keep posting, just start the player who will score more points, this is a flawed idea.

You do not know who will score more points. If the owner is able to update his roster after the games are played, then this is a good strategy, but this is not an option. It's like saying in hold'em, play the hole cards that will be the nuts on the river.

If you could see your opponents hole cards pre-flop before choosing from a select set of hands, what your opponents have can help decide what you should play.

I.E. You can choose from 77 or JTs.

Option #1 - Opponent has 66 - You should choose 77

Option #2 - Opponent has 99 - You should choose JTs

Neither are guaranteed to win, but each option improves your chance at winning.

It really depends on the situation.

"The Anti-hookup (choosing a QB from the same NFL team as your opponent's WR's and/or TE's ) is a wise strategy for favorites and a poor strategy for underdogs.

If you had both QB's on Monday night (i.e. Manning and Brees) and you were up by 40 in a standard points league, you only have your QB left and he has Colston, Moore and Shockey as his only 3 players left it's a no brainer that you start Brees. If your opponent has Wayne, Harrison and Dallas Clark, it's a no brainer to start Manning.

You're likely to win no matter what QB you start, but you're more likely to win if you start the same QB as you opponent is starting players.

 

[inca911]

If you feel that you should beat your opponent more likely than not, then you start the QB that negates some of his players' scoring. This levels the playing field and prevents him from "catching-up".

Similarly, it you feel you are behind your opponent and are more likely to lose, then you start the different QB

 

[5 Digits]

That article nailed it. Your decision should consider how much of a favorite or an underdog you are in this matchup.

If you're a favorite to win, lean more towards starting the same QB as his receivers. You may choose to do this even if it means giving up some projected points because it buys you some insurance, if that team happens to blow up, your QB also blows up, so it will be less likely that that particular game flips your fantasy matchup in his favor.

If you're the underdog, lean more towards starting a separate QB from his receivers. Being the underdog means you need your team to do better than expected, or his team to do worse, preferably both. If your QB is throwing to his receivers, it may not matter if he has a better than expected game because that means his players are likely doing better than expected as well. That's just one less player of yours that could flip the matchup in your favor. Or to look at it from another angle, you're now the other guy in the previous paragraph and you're giving your opponent the insurance that he wants.

It's easy to take this concept too far though. The projected points total for each of your players should still be your #1 consideration. I would just use this strategy to choose between a close decision.

 

[DWidmar]

Has anybody had any success or failures doing this? Any real life examples?

 

[chris1969]

4 words of advice,

#1 Check his line-up right before kick-off. If he is an underdog, he make may last minute line-up changes and your plan would be for naught.

#2 Look at both of your QB's objectively and project total points in that game for both. Know exactly how many points your giving up for the insurance policy.

#3 Even if your total team is much better than his total team, compare your RB's to his RB's. That's where the consistent fantasy points are scored and if his are better than yours, you may want to think twice.

#4 I've done this more than a few times with mixed results, I never read the article posted above, but looking back it definately worked better when I had a dominant team.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Depends on your scoring system but in my league, you will almost always come out behind in that scenario unless the QB spreads the ball around to players your opponent isn't starting. My league gives points per reception, not for completions, and receiving yardage adds up quicker than do passing yards. If he has the top 2 receiving targets and they get a majority of the targets, I doubt I could outpace him at QB in my scoring system. This is even more true if one of his players is the RB. If the game turns conservative, his RB running well actually strangles your QB opportunities.

Why play for an offset? If your other QB has a better matchup, I'd play the odds and chase the points. Your strategy ought to be to score the most total points, not offset his.

If you have a striking advantage in other positions I can see where this offset idea might seem attractive. But aren't the odds just as good that your other QB will outproduce the QB in question which would mean more total points anyway?

 

[Chaka]

Start the player who will score the most points.

:championship:

 

[daveR]

Overthinking it.

All you can control is your own team. Your opponent's point total isn't going to change. You need to score more than him. If you think one of your qb's is going to put up better numbers, play him. If not, it doesn't matter.

I agree that you always want to put your best players in the line up. There are several weeks where I think I am doing that and I am wrong and then there are weeks where I am right. The challenge becomes knowing which will put up better numbers. We can project matchups, stats, gut feelings etc... to determine who we should start.

Lets say I porject QB 'A' to put up 25 points and QB 'B' to put up 28 points. Obviously for the purpose of most points wins, I should start QB 'B'.

Now I don't know those projections to be for sure, so is it safer to play QB 'A' in case he does have a better game so I can match the TD's totals of my opponents players? Covering my bets I guess.

The problem you need to solve is your QB-A versus your QB-B. If you pick the right one, it doesn't matter what your opponent does. If you pick the wrong one, it doesn't matter what your opponent does.

 

[heidbrink]

Overthinking. But isn't that the fun of this hobby of ours. so I'll bite.

In your situation you have two stud, roughly equivalent in my mind, QB's. Certainly nobody would find fault if you decided either way with your QB decision based on other factors than your opponents line up.

wrt the whole "neutralization of the enemy" approach I normally like to have the stud WR for my opponents stud QB. Anytime he tosses my guy the rock its a couple for me and .5 for him. td is 6 for me and 4 for him. Depending on your scoring, if his wr guy gets the majority of your qb guys attention then he might have the advantage.

Perhaps what you really have going on in your mind is that the guy you "want" to start, that is to say, perhaps slightly higher on the weekly cheatsheets, is not the guy who will perhaps provide a little "insurance" against your opponent.

If you are going to insane you can always delegate to the executive decision maker... :coinflip:

Have fun with your decision and good luck on Sunday!

 

[-OZ-]

the safer play, because you're just trying to win, not necessarily score the most possible points, is to play the QB that matches his team. Assuming of course, we're talking similar production here.

 

[lion_crazz]

He already posted the match-ups:

Warner (at home vs. Minny) or Cutler (playing in Carolina). His opponent has Marshall, Royal, and Scheffler.

Honestly, I would never bench Warner or Brees, ever.

 

[CalBear]

The problem you need to solve is your QB-A versus your QB-B. If you pick the right one, it doesn't matter what your opponent does. If you pick the wrong one, it doesn't matter what your opponent does.

This is fallacious. You can't predict what the QBs will do, but you can predict that the magnitude of the possible score differential between your two teams will be less if the players are negating each other. That makes it a potentially useful strategy if you have the stronger team, and a poor strategy if you have the weaker team. That doesn't mean you should start Joe Flacco over Peyton Manning, but it might mean you start Warner over Brees, depending on who your opponent has.

 

[BassNBrew]

If you feel that you should beat your opponent more likely than not, then you start the QB that negates some of his players' scoring. This levels the playing field and prevents him from "catching-up".Similarly, it you feel you are behind your opponent and are more likely to lose, then you start the different QB

This is the correct answer.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

He already posted the match-ups: Warner (at home vs. Minny) or Cutler (playing in Carolina). His opponent has Marshall, Royal, and Scheffler. Honestly, I would never bench Warner or Brees, ever.

Warner could outproduce Cutler by 2 TDs this week, or not.I would want to see the other matchups to determine if the OP is the favorite or underdog in his matchup before saying definitively what I would do here. If I were him, and felt I had a strong RB advantage, I would likely start Cutler assuming 6 point passing TDs (versus 4 point passing / 6 point receiving).However, since this would be the fantasy playoffs, I'm assuming the OP's opponent has a pretty solid roster, in which case you want to maximize your own points and start Warner.

 

[PewterFan]

You're overthinking it. Pretend it's Week 7. In the end your goal is the same - score as much points as possible. I personally never look at the starting lineup of my opponent until well after kickoff. Good luck.

Edit to add: ...unless you play me.

 

[dancer]

The problem you need to solve is your QB-A versus your QB-B. If you pick the right one, it doesn't matter what your opponent does. If you pick the wrong one, it doesn't matter what your opponent does.

This is fallacious. You can't predict what the QBs will do, but you can predict that the magnitude of the possible score differential between your two teams will be less if the players are negating each other. That makes it a potentially useful strategy if you have the stronger team, and a poor strategy if you have the weaker team. That doesn't mean you should start Joe Flacco over Peyton Manning, but it might mean you start Warner over Brees, depending on who your opponent has.

But just to take it further, if Baltimore is playing Indy on Monday night, you are losing by a bunch of points after Sunday, and your opponent has all of the Indy WRs (and TEs and RBs) starting, you absolutely have to start Flacco over Manning. Your only hope to win is for Manning to have a terrible day and Flacco to have a career game. Those of you saying "always start the better player" can't win in this scenario. (ignoring for a second the possibility Manning runs a few TDs in, or passes to himself, discarding these as less likely than Flacco having a big game)

Of course, things are never as clear-cut as this hypothetical...

 

[GregR_2]

Has anybody had any success or failures doing this? Any real life examples?

I'm sure there there are examples of both. But unless you're going to evaluate some large number of cases of it, more than you'll get in this thread, I wouldn't really put any stock in anecdotal evidence. It is probably a very small swing that you'd expect from making such a move, and that really wouldn't be likely to show up in a small number of samples.

 

[DWidmar]

He already posted the match-ups:

Warner (at home vs. Minny) or Cutler (playing in Carolina). His opponent has Marshall, Royal, and Scheffler.

Honestly, I would never bench Warner or Brees, ever.

Warner could outproduce Cutler by 2 TDs this week, or not.I would want to see the other matchups to determine if the OP is the favorite or underdog in his matchup before saying definitively what I would do here. If I were him, and felt I had a strong RB advantage, I would likely start Cutler assuming 6 point passing TDs (versus 4 point passing / 6 point receiving).

However, since this would be the fantasy playoffs, I'm assuming the OP's opponent has a pretty solid roster, in which case you want to maximize your own points and start Warner.

Just to get more insight I will post the two line ups:Mine

QB

Cutler / Warner

RB

ADP

Turner

WR

Wayne

Calvin Johnson

Isaac Bruce / Ginn (undecided)

TE

Boss

K

Elam

def

GB

his team

QB

Orton

RB

Portis

Chris Johnson

WR

Marshall

Royal

Donald Driver

TE

Scheffler

K

Gotskowski

Def

Carolina

 

[DWidmar]

Has anybody had any success or failures doing this? Any real life examples?

I'm sure there there are examples of both. But unless you're going to evaluate some large number of cases of it, more than you'll get in this thread, I wouldn't really put any stock in anecdotal evidence. It is probably a very small swing that you'd expect from making such a move, and that really wouldn't be likely to show up in a small number of samples.

Great point.