What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sit Reggie Wayne? (1 Viewer)

Ilov80s

Footballguy
Jags D looks real tough and if you checkout Reggie's stats against Jax over the last 2 years, you will puke.

3 for 19

4 for 81

2 for 20

2 for 28

0 total TDs

What WR options would you start over Wayne? Or do you disregard everything with Manning, account for no running game, and let it ride on Reggie no matter what WR is on your bench?

 
Knowing the Indy running game would have its share of hiccups without Edge, I targetted Wayne and Harrison in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of every draft. So far it is working out well.

Facing a Pitt offense with a dinged up Rothlesberger and facing a finely tuned passing game with 2 stud WRs is totally different.

If you are playing me. Please sit Wayne!

 
:no:

I subscribe to the "don't bench your studs" theory almost exclusively, but even moreso with stud WRs. NO WAY do you EVER bench wayne....'cept for his bye week of course!

 
I will break Wayne down over the last 2 years. 1=10 yards, 6=TD.

Wayne is considered a low-end #1 or top-end #2 WR in most leagues. The average ppg for a late 1st/high 2nd WR is about 10. I will use 10 points as the standard for what is an average game.

2005 Regular Season- Wayne averaged 8.5 ppg. He was 21st among ppg.

Average 8-12: 7 games

Bad: <8: 6 games

Great >12: 2 games

2004: Regular Season- Wayne averaged 12 ppg. He was 7th for ppg.

Average 8-12: 3

Bad <8: 5

Great >12: 8

So in 2 years, he has had:

10 average games

11 bad games

10 great games.

So the odds that Reggie Wayne is average, bad, or great is about the same.

Against Jacksonville, Wayne has turned in 3 bad games and 1 average game. 27% of Wayne's bad games have come against Jacksonville. Maybe we can't every truley predict when someone has a bad game or when they have a huge game, but can't we determine when the odds are best?

Anybody reconsidering their stance?

 
Anybody reconsidering their stance?
Nope. What you just described is basically every receiver.Start him, unless you have a very good option with a very good matchup.
7% of Wayne's games over the last 2 years have been against Jax.27% of Wayne's bad games have been against Jax.10% of his average games have been against Jax.0% of his great games have been against Jax.I realize the data sample is small, but there does seem to be a trend.
 
Anybody reconsidering their stance?
Nope. What you just described is basically every receiver.Start him, unless you have a very good option with a very good matchup.
7% of Wayne's games over the last 2 years have been against Jax.27% of Wayne's bad games have been against Jax.10% of his average games have been against Jax.0% of his great games have been against Jax.I realize the data sample is small, but there does seem to be a trend.
Trend means nothing without sample size. :shrug:
 
Anybody reconsidering their stance?
Nope. What you just described is basically every receiver.Start him, unless you have a very good option with a very good matchup.
First, you say Wayne's numbers are basically the same as every WR. Then you say that Wayne should be started...despite scoring stastically the same as every receiver. That does not make sense. Also, I am mostly playing devil's advocate. I would not bench Wayne unless I had a real solid option. I do feel though that this is a situation where an honest case could be made.
 
Anybody reconsidering their stance?
Nope. What you just described is basically every receiver.Start him, unless you have a very good option with a very good matchup.
First, you say Wayne's numbers are basically the same as every WR. Then you say that Wayne should be started...despite scoring stastically the same as every receiver. That does not make sense.
You're completely twisting my argument.EVERY receiver has great games, good games, and poor games. Wayne happens to have better great games, and better good games than his counterparts, and for the most part, better poor games.So, start Wayne.
 
There just isn't a bigger sample size to fairly work with. When a sample size is small, then the difference needs to be significant to even be considered as viable. The numbers seem to be somewhat significant IMO. The numbers say their is a disproportion between what Wayne does against the rest of the league and what Wayne does against Jax.

Lets look at what Wayne has done against other NFL teams:

Jax: 1 good, 3 poor.

Houston: 2 great, 2 good, 1 poor.

Ten: 2 great, 2 good

Rest of NFL: 5 good, 6 great, 7 poor

So again, when you look at the numbers. Wayne seems to well against Ten. and Houston and do poorly against Jax. His performance against the rest of the NFL is completely random.

 
There just isn't a bigger sample size to fairly work with. When a sample size is small, then the difference needs to be significant to even be considered as viable. The numbers seem to be somewhat significant IMO. The numbers say their is a disproportion between what Wayne does against the rest of the league and what Wayne does against Jax.Lets look at what Wayne has done against other NFL teams:Jax: 1 good, 3 poor. Houston: 2 great, 2 good, 1 poor.Ten: 2 great, 2 goodRest of NFL: 5 good, 6 great, 7 poorSo again, when you look at the numbers. Wayne seems to well against Ten. and Houston and do poorly against Jax. His performance against the rest of the NFL is completely random.
Then why are you trying to convince us?It's your team. :)But seriously, for me, the sample size just isn't there. Four games isn't going to tell me anything, especially when one of them was good.
 
I am actually considering sitting Wayne this week. I can either start him or Portis in my flex spot (other starting receivers are Fitz & Driver). Just something about folks when they play the Texans.....

 
There just isn't a bigger sample size to fairly work with. When a sample size is small, then the difference needs to be significant to even be considered as viable. The numbers seem to be somewhat significant IMO. The numbers say their is a disproportion between what Wayne does against the rest of the league and what Wayne does against Jax.Lets look at what Wayne has done against other NFL teams:Jax: 1 good, 3 poor. Houston: 2 great, 2 good, 1 poor.Ten: 2 great, 2 goodRest of NFL: 5 good, 6 great, 7 poorSo again, when you look at the numbers. Wayne seems to well against Ten. and Houston and do poorly against Jax. His performance against the rest of the NFL is completely random.
Then why are you trying to convince us?It's your team. :)But seriously, for me, the sample size just isn't there. Four games isn't going to tell me anything, especially when one of them was good.
The one that was good, was low end (8.1) so his average against Jax is 3.7. Also, I am not really concerned about making a decision for my team. I was just trying to get some interesting debate going over a player who might have a questionable matchup. I guess nobody else is worried about the matchup.
 
I guess nobody else is worried about the matchup.
I'm not.You see, I know it's a bad matchup. I'm fine with that. However, players like Wayne have the potential to put up HUGE games, no matter what the matchup.Other players don't have the same potential, but have the same downside.I'll take Reggie.
 
Great debate you two.......Seriously!

I think you help make up my mind..............I am starting Reggie!!! :loco:

Brown over Wayne!!!!

Thanks again :thumbup:

 
I totally agree that if you don't have a solid option on the bench, then obviously you start Wayne. Who do people consider worthy of replacing Wayne? Who is good enough to get a start over Wayne?

 
I will break Wayne down over the last 2 years. 1=10 yards, 6=TD. Wayne is considered a low-end #1 or top-end #2 WR in most leagues. The average ppg for a late 1st/high 2nd WR is about 10. I will use 10 points as the standard for what is an average game. 2005 Regular Season- Wayne averaged 8.5 ppg. He was 21st among ppg.Average 8-12: 7 gamesBad: <8: 6 gamesGreat >12: 2 games2004: Regular Season- Wayne averaged 12 ppg. He was 7th for ppg.Average 8-12: 3Bad <8: 5Great >12: 8So in 2 years, he has had:10 average games11 bad games10 great games. So the odds that Reggie Wayne is average, bad, or great is about the same. Against Jacksonville, Wayne has turned in 3 bad games and 1 average game. 27% of Wayne's bad games have come against Jacksonville. Maybe we can't every truley predict when someone has a bad game or when they have a huge game, but can't we determine when the odds are best?Anybody reconsidering their stance?
I'm sorry but this is far too nice a post for a 5 digit member. You got my attention, looking forward to you r further posting...would love to see you chime in over at the RB match up thread I do just about every week. I agree that the odds are he does lousy this week.
 
This seems like the perfect time to quote several posts that Chase Stewart made over in the Tony Gonzalez vs. Denver thread.

Here are the parameters:

I looked at all WRs/TEs that scored at least 300 FPs from 2003-2004, combined. PPR scoring, no rushing stats considered. All WRs/TEs must have played at least 24 games, and been on the same team in 2003, 2004 and 2005. I then wanted to see which WRs did really poorly against a divisional opponent in those two years, and see how they did in 2005.

The lowest a receiver scored against a division opponent was 48% of his average FP/G. Hines Ward averaged 15.1 FP/G from 2003-2004, but only 7.3 FP/G against the Cleveland Browns. In 2005, Ward scored 49.9 FPs in two games against the Browns.

Rod Smith averaged 13.3 FP/G from '03-'04; against the Oakland Raiders, Smith averaged just 6.1 FP/G. Smith scored 30.1 FPs in two games in 2005 against the Raiders.

Eddie Kennison averaged 13.0 FP/G; against San Diego, he averaged just 6.8 FP/G. He scored 28.4 FPs in two games against the Chargers in 2005.

Those are just the first three receivers I saw. The table is way too ugly to paste here, but I'll answer any questions you like about specific receivers.

Conclusions

Splits happen. In four games out of thirty-two, picked at random, there would be a quartet of really ugly games for a star. I'm sure some stud RB has stunk it up in weeks 5 and 11 of the last two years. There's no logic behind that, of course.

...

Here are the next three on the list.

Donald Driver: 12.4 FP/G, 6.5 FP/G vs. Chicago; 31.1 FPs in two games in 2005.

Marvin Harrison: 18.3 FP.G, 9.8 FP/G vs. Houston; 43.3 FPs in two games in 2005.

Jimmy Smith: 13.8 FP/G, 7.6 FP/G vs. Tennessee; 22.5 FPs in two games in 2005.

That's six examples now, and the six most extreme: all six receivers averaged fewer than 60% of their season average FP total against these division rivals. Five of them dominated that same opponent the next year, and one performed about average. Gonzalez was at 56%; history seems to indicate that he's more likely, rather than less likely to do well against the Broncos.

...

FP/G = FP/G from 2003-2004

Riv = FP/G from 2003-2004 vs. specific rival

OPP = specific opponent

NFP/G = FP/G from 2005

NRiv = FP/G from 2005 vs. specific rival

Name FP/G Riv OPP NFP/G NRivHines Ward 15.1 7.3 Cle 15.5 25.0Rod Smith 13.3 6.5 Oak 14.5 15.1Eddie Kennison 13.0 6.8 Sdg 13.0 14.2Donald Driver 12.4 6.5 Chi 14.9 15.6Marvin Harrison 18.3 9.8 Hou 17.8 21.7Jimmy Smith 13.8 7.6 Ten 13.0 11.3The same arguments against starting Gonzalez could be made against starting Donald Driver against the Bears, or Marvin Harrison against the Texans.
According to Chase, that's a complete list of all WR/TEs who averaged less than 60% of their average production against a division rival over 2003-2004. Aside from Jimmy Smith (who barely missed his average in 2005), all WRs OUTPERFORMED their season average in 2005. According to this, the fact that Reggie Wayne has struggled against Jacksonville over the past two seasons does more to suggest that he'll have a BIG GAME this weekend than it does to suggest he'll have a BAD GAME this weekend.Still thinking of benching Wayne?

 
I never understand why people looking at prior year stats versus a certain team as if it's going to be predictive of what will happen this year. It's not like it's the exact same 11 people on defense each year, or the exact same 11 players on offense for that matter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is what it is said:
Ilov80s said:
There just isn't a bigger sample size to fairly work with.
Sure there is, let's just go back three years as opposed to two. It really doesn't matter much since the Jags have had a starting CB change all of these years to go along with CB Rashean Mathis. Deon Grant came over in '04 which was a factor in helping out the Jags pass d...but still the constant changing at the CB position makes it difficult to determine when the cutoff point should be in soley judging Wayne's stats as you are doing. Marcus Stroud, John Henderson and that strong run D has obviously been there for the past three years ('03-'05), Mike Peterson was obviously a huge addition to the linebacking corps when he was signed away from the Colts (addition by subtraction factor here too for Jags). Leftwich and Taylor were there for the offense, along with WR Jimmy Smith of course. Can see no reason why Wayne stat comparison should not go back 3 years. Including Wayne's '03 numbers vs the Jaguars changes things quite a bit from a stat perspective...
Ofcourse you can go back further, but 3 years in the NFL is a lifetime. There are so many changes that happen. Like another poster said, it is difficult to even attempt to make predictions on a yearly basis.So, based on nearly everyone's responses here weekly matchups just don't really matter for #2WRs?Again keep in mind Wayne is the #2 on his team and last year was only 21st ppg at his position. Does he get too much credit from us? It seems like I must be the only person who has a possible better play then Wayne this week.In a 3 WR league, its nearly impossible to bench Wayne. In a league that only plays 2 WRs or uses a flex spot, then this might be a week to try somebody who has been productive from the bench. I am fortunate enough to have Coles burning a hole on my bench and might give him a shot (if he is healthy).On a week to week basis, I agree it is nearly impossible to really predict stats- especially the TDs. I am just showing that there is a little trend developing. Is this trend because something Jax does? Or is it an anomaly?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I realize the data sample is small, but there does seem to be a trend.
If a homerun hitter hit 5 home runs in 3 games, would you expect him to hit 271 home runs for the season. Likewise if that same hitter started the season with zero homeruns would you expect him to hit 0 homeruns for the entire season. What happened in three of four previous games means little. Manning will throw for around 300 yards and Harrison and Wayne will have the majority of those yards and one will probably be over 100 yards have a TD. Which one is the question. But there are only a handful of WR you start over Wayne, and one is on a bye week and one is sitting out.
 
Great strategy question. In response to whom do you start over Wayne, I've debated about Driver since the season started but I don't like to switch around starters. I always seem to miss the big game from the guy on the bench. Probably one of the main reason I'll stick with Wayne.

By the way, just 'cause a fellow has a high member number doesn't mean he hasn't been around awhile. I've been here from the start. Best site on the web.

 
I realize the data sample is small, but there does seem to be a trend.
If a homerun hitter hit 5 home runs in 3 games, would you expect him to hit 271 home runs for the season.
No, but if a homerun hitter hit 5 homeruns in 3 games against one particular starting pitcher, then I would expect for that starting pitcher to continue to struggle against that hitter. Managers use small trends all the time when determining when/who to pinch hit or bring in from the bullpen.Also , I am new here. I have been posting on another FF site for awhile and just wasn't that happy with it this year. I give this site a big :thumbup:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I realize the data sample is small, but there does seem to be a trend.
If a homerun hitter hit 5 home runs in 3 games, would you expect him to hit 271 home runs for the season.
No, but if a homerun hitter hit 5 homeruns in 3 games against one particular starting pitcher, then I would expect for that starting pitcher to continue to struggle against that hitter. Managers use small trends all the time when determining when/who to pinch hit or bring in from the bullpen.Also , I am new here. I have been posting on another FF site for awhile and just wasn't that happy with it this year. I give this site a big :thumbup:
They do, but it does not mean they are right to do it.
 
I realize the data sample is small, but there does seem to be a trend.
If a homerun hitter hit 5 home runs in 3 games, would you expect him to hit 271 home runs for the season.
No, but if a homerun hitter hit 5 homeruns in 3 games against one particular starting pitcher, then I would expect for that starting pitcher to continue to struggle against that hitter. Managers use small trends all the time when determining when/who to pinch hit or bring in from the bullpen.
Yep, and they're idiots for doing so, with that small of a sample.
 
I was actually thinking of sitting Wayne this week and starting Coles instead. But Coles is a little dinged with the calf and I know as soon as I sit Wayne he'll explode.

 
I realize the data sample is small, but there does seem to be a trend.
If a homerun hitter hit 5 home runs in 3 games, would you expect him to hit 271 home runs for the season.
No, but if a homerun hitter hit 5 homeruns in 3 games against one particular starting pitcher, then I would expect for that starting pitcher to continue to struggle against that hitter. Managers use small trends all the time when determining when/who to pinch hit or bring in from the bullpen.
Yep, and they're idiots for doing so, with that small of a sample.
When thats the only sample you have, what can you do? If you wait untill the sample size is big enough to say, "well I guess Jim Thome owns him." Then you are costing the team wins. You might be costing yourself a job. Some managers would rather be proactive and I don't see anything wrong with that. You have to put your players in positions to succeed.
 
Is this gonna end up like one of those "I didn't wanna start Wayne but FBG's convinced me when my gut told me to go with Brandon Jones. Now Wayne got me a big fat zero and cost me the game"?

To save yourself the heartache, you start your studs.

 
Again, I ask do we give Wayne too much credit? He was a stud in 04, but that was a crazy year with the numbers the eltie QBs put up. In 05, Wayne finished as the 21st ranked WR. Is the 21st ranked WR deserving of stud-must-start status?

 
kingmalaki said:
I totally agree that if you don't have a solid option on the bench, then obviously you start Wayne. Who do people consider worthy of replacing Wayne? Who is good enough to get a start over Wayne?
Portis at my flex spot?
How about Brown, Reggie @ SF or Steve Smith @ TB but he not going to play
 
kingmalaki said:
I totally agree that if you don't have a solid option on the bench, then obviously you start Wayne. Who do people consider worthy of replacing Wayne? Who is good enough to get a start over Wayne?
Portis at my flex spot?
How about Brown, Reggie @ SF or Steve Smith @ TB but he not going to play
Reggie Brown is a serious thought. Nabb will put up just as big of numbers as Manning for the 3rd consecutive week. Tough call.ETA: I checked Brown's stats. While has does have a TD in each game, he only has 3 receptions. I wouldn't do it. He just isn't getting the targets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kingmalaki said:
I totally agree that if you don't have a solid option on the bench, then obviously you start Wayne. Who do people consider worthy of replacing Wayne? Who is good enough to get a start over Wayne?
Portis at my flex spot?
How about Brown, Reggie @ SF or Steve Smith @ TB but he not going to play
Reggie Brown is a serious thought. Nabb will put up just as big of numbers as Manning for the 3rd consecutive week. Tough call.ETA: I checked Brown's stats. While has does have a TD in each game, he only has 3 receptions. I wouldn't do it. He just isn't getting the targets.
So is he worth sitting for Portis (vs Hou)?
 
I agree with the "never sit your studs" theory. In a league where I have Wayne and Holt whom I drafted as my #1 and #2 WRs, I should play them.

But then the cheatsheets come out and Driver is sitting at #1 (already was drooling over his gaga matchup version the Lions), with Wayne and Holt at #10 and #11. And then the mind games begin... Plus Driver has outproduced both of them with 9 points in week 1 and 16 points in week 2 as opposed to 8 and 9 points for Holt and 6 and 13 points for Wayne. And then I look at the targets...27 for Holt, 21 for Driver, and 17 for Wayne... And then I think about how the Jags shut my Steelers down...

I will stick with Holt, but starting Driver over Wayne is very, very, very tempting... :wall:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's nothing wrong with sitting Wayne this week. If you think you have a valid reason to do so, and weighed the options properly both ways, then do what you think is right for your team. It is YOUR team.

 
I will stick with Holt, but starting Driver over Wayne is very, very, very tempting... :wall:
Driver and Wayne are more of 2nd tier WR1. They are pretty much interchangeable depending on matchup, although Driver will be more consistant as the #1 option of Farve. Holt is your only must start WR.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top