Starting a player to negate an opponents. (1 Viewer)

[noleswin]

Very much up in the air this week. Must win because it is playoff time. Debating on every player over and over on which ones to play. Then it occurs to me that I can start the QB for my opponents #1 reciever. This will in effect negate that player for the most part. At first this sounds like the right move. But is it really??People are debating about this game being a shootout or not , I think not. But the bottom line is I have 2 other QB's that are averaging about the same with better matchups this week in my opinion. So how much of an advantage if any do most feel this would be to make this start to negate another player.

 

[JohnnyU]

This has been talked about to death in the Shark pool, but IMO, you start your best players period, unless you have just as good options on the bench. If your opotions are equal, I only start the QB against his WR if my other positions are stronger than his, otherwise, you are negating yourself.

 

[mcjc4]

If you start a QB to negate your opponents WR and he throws him 2TD's and 180 yards you have eliminated his margin of points over you by what 2pts per TD. He gets 6 you get 4?Now the guy on your bench(Warner?) keeps up the 325-350 pace, throws 2 TD's and out scores the other guy by 5-7 pts. Who do you wish you started come Sunday night?Play the guy with the chance to score the most points for YOUR TEAM! He has the most points Tuesday morning WINS.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

That is an important consideration.There has been much discussion here, as well as articles you'll find on this website, on this topic.I think the bottom line has been generally agreed upon, which is that if your team is better than your opponent's, and that you expect to win if "normal things happen," then playing a "hedge" is a good strategy, since it reduces the odds that something abnormal and positive happens to your opponent's player. A QB is a perfect hedge to a WR (whereas a WR is only a partial hedge to a QB).Of course, the fact that your other QBs may be better is an important consideration as well.Essentially, you'd need to determine if the expected value of the other QBs minus the expected value of your opponent's WR, less - say - a one or two standard deviation outperformance by the WR (or your QB - I wouldn't do it to both), is greater than the expected value of the "hedge QB" minus the WR, with no application of a negative standard deviation (because you have hedged away the downside of his WR going off). You have also hedged away the upside of your hedging QB, which is why this is wisest when you are expected to win anyway.I think I've got that largely right. Anyway, it's that potentially positive variance in the WR's performance that you are able to eliminate as a concern that is the operative benefit of this strategy. If you think his team is better than yours, then you definitely want to start a different QB, because you need "surprising developments" to win, and the strategy outlined above is designed to minimize surprises.

 

[The Gator]

Very much up in the air this week. Must win because it is playoff time. Debating on every player over and over on which ones to play.

Then it occurs to me that I can start the QB for my opponents #1 reciever. This will in effect negate that player for the most part. At first this sounds like the right move. But is it really??

People are debating about this game being a shootout or not , I think not. But the bottom line is I have 2 other QB's that are averaging about the same with better matchups this week in my opinion.

So how much of an advantage if any do most feel this would be to make this start to negate another player.

This dude in my league did this to me last week. I have Palmer and he played Housh, he never plays him. In your case if there is no clear cut #1 for your team i would consider it but if the other match ups are that much better than go that way.WDIS

 

[Tick]

Search for threads started by BassNBrew. There was also one about a year ago called something like, "the current state of FF strategy" that was very interesting.

 

[JerseyPaul]

A hot receiver will score almost twice as many points as his QB for the same play, so the hedge works better the other way. That being said, there is a set of conditions where the hedge makes sense. I had the situation myself.You must believe that your team is by far the superior team If that's the case, hedging against a hot receiver on the other team is a good play. Your other players will outscore his and the hedge will prevent that 1 WR from beating you.That's a lot of "ifs". Normally the best strategy is to play the guys you think will score the most, without regard to who your opponent has.In my case, my opponent was going to start TWO WRs from the same team and I had the QB. When he saw my hedge, he switched out 1 WR and the WR he benched had a HUGE day. The hedge worked in a mysterious way

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

I would say that it depends on your scoring rules as to whether a WR outscores a QB for a given amount of yards/scoring. In our league, they would score about the same (mainly because QBs get 6 pts for TDs in our league).So a QB is a better hedge to a WR than vice versa (since the QB could be throwing TDs to a different WR, which means that the other WR isn't a perfect hedge to the QB.)

 

[Firekaps]

I agree that hedging is ONLY a good strategy if your team is heavily favored, though this week I am faced with a new situation. My opponent, due to injury, will be starting 2 WRs from the same team (Bruce and Holt). I have Fitzpatrick and will be starting him over Brad Johnson. Though I HATE playing defense, this one is a no brainer. If Fitz has a huge game, I have him in there. If he has a bad game, the likely, so do Bruce/Holt.

 

[wannabee]

Here is a recent thread:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...206414&hl=hedge

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

I agree that hedging is ONLY a good strategy if your team is heavily favored, though this week I am faced with a new situation. My opponent, due to injury, will be starting 2 WRs from the same team (Bruce and Holt). I have Fitzpatrick and will be starting him over Brad Johnson. Though I HATE playing defense, this one is a no brainer. If Fitz has a huge game, I have him in there. If he has a bad game, the likely, so do Bruce/Holt.

If I were you, I would leave Johnson in there until the last minute, in order to ensure that your opponent doesn't pull a switcheroo at the last minute, leaving you playing Fitz for a lesser reason.On the other hand, maybe you can leave Fitz in and force your opponent to play a lesser WR, since you've got him hedged, and then at the last minute switch to Johnson.

Anyway, nice boxing out!

 

[sdsjr3]

I agree that there are times when trying to "offset" your opponents player can pay off. Great example is me this week. I have Bledsoe, with what on paper looks to be a GREAT matchup, and I have Warner. My opponent has Fitzgerald.Warner is my starter...why?First, it's highly possible that Warner throws 2 TDs to Fitz and I shoot myself in the foot should Bledsoe throw for 3TDs and 300 yards while Warner doesn't produce that kind of output. However, what makes Warner such a good option in this case is that while Fitz is a great WR, Boldin is equally as good and quite possibly will outscore Fitz...therefore making my decision pay off.Here's the thing. If a QB..let's say Roethlisberger for example, is on your roster with a bad matchup, but you have someone like Bledsoe with a great matchup, and your opponent has Ward. Do you start Big Ben? No. His main target is Hines, therefore nullifying the effect of offsetting your opponents WR because Ben's TDs and yardage will primarily go to Ward. Is Warner's primary target Fitz? No. Both Boldin and Fitz are studs in NFL terms and can easily produce on any given week and Warner spreads it around to them.Anyway, that's my $0.02.

 

[noleswin]

In our league QB's and WR's both get 6 for TD's the only difference is he gets 1pt for every 10yds rec. versus my 1pt for every 20 yds passing.This is really eating at me because the 3 QB's are basically the same. I normally play the matchup. I don't want to turn this into a WDIS so I will not mention names. I can see were I would negate myself to some extent but their are other weapons on this team that he throws to so If the team has success through the air it would go to more than one guy. I just feel (unlike the majority of people that are discussing this matchup in several threads) that the streak may end this week for this QB and I have 2 other options that are compareable.

 

[Marc Levin]

Very much up in the air this week. Must win because it is playoff time. Debating on every player over and over on which ones to play.

Then it occurs to me that I can start the QB for my opponents #1 reciever. This will in effect negate that player for the most part. At first this sounds like the right move. But is it really??

People are debating about this game being a shootout or not , I think not. But the bottom line is I have 2 other QB's that are averaging about the same with better matchups this week in my opinion.

So how much of an advantage if any do most feel this would be to make this start to negate another player.

as a strategy it sucks unless both your QBs project to comparable levels for that given week (EXAMPLE - assume Plummer is your normal starter and he is up againt Dallas this week, but you also have your second QB as Hass against SF and your opponent's number one receiver is Jurevicius - I start Hass. And, yes, I know Hass should normally be starting over Plummer, it is an example).I am not replacing Kurt Warner with Ben Roeth just b/c my opponent has Hines Ward.

That said, if they ARE relatively comparable, the opponent's #1 receiver is the tipping point on the scale.

 

[Marc Levin]

Great example is me this week.  I have Bledsoe, with what on paper looks to be a GREAT matchup, and I have Warner.  My opponent has Fitzgerald.Warner is my starter...why?

No - not a great example. If Bledsoe were playing SF you STILL start Warner. Warnber is the most likley of all the QBs you mentioned to go for 300/2. Bledsoe is the MOST likely of the three to go for 180/1TD and 3 Ints against even the most porous passing D.If my opponent has Glenn or Witten, I am still not going to start Bledsoe over Warner.

 

[noleswin]

I agree that there are times when trying to "offset" your opponents player can pay off. Great example is me this week. I have Bledsoe, with what on paper looks to be a GREAT matchup, and I have Warner. My opponent has Fitzgerald.

Warner is my starter...why?

First, it's highly possible that Warner throws 2 TDs to Fitz and I shoot myself in the foot should Bledsoe throw for 3TDs and 300 yards while Warner doesn't produce that kind of output. However, what makes Warner such a good option in this case is that while Fitz is a great WR, Boldin is equally as good and quite possibly will outscore Fitz...therefore making my decision pay off.

Here's the thing. If a QB..let's say Roethlisberger for example, is on your roster with a bad matchup, but you have someone like Bledsoe with a great matchup, and your opponent has Ward. Do you start Big Ben? No. His main target is Hines, therefore nullifying the effect of offsetting your opponents WR because Ben's TDs and yardage will primarily go to Ward. Is Warner's primary target Fitz? No. Both Boldin and Fitz are studs in NFL terms and can easily produce on any given week and Warner spreads it around to them.

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

This is the matchup that I am looking at. WARNER..He has Fitz and I have Boldin. But I don't know that I am as high on Warner this week as most. But having Boldin also gives me the ability to start another QB without the worry of Warner blowing up because you can figure Boldin will get have of what he does

 

[noleswin]

Very much up in the air this week. Must win because it is playoff time. Debating on every player over and over on which ones to play.

Then it occurs to me that I can start the QB for my opponents #1 reciever. This will in effect negate that player for the most part. At first this sounds like the right move. But is it really??

People are debating about this game being a shootout or not , I think not. But the bottom line is I have 2 other QB's that are averaging about the same with better matchups this week in my opinion.

So how much of an advantage if any do most feel this would be to make this start to negate another player.

as a strategy it sucks unless both your QBs project to comparable levels for that given week (EXAMPLE - assume Plummer is your normal starter and he is up againt Dallas this week, but you also have your second QB as Hass against SF and your opponent's number one receiver is Jurevicius - I start Hass. And, yes, I know Hass should normally be starting over Plummer, it is an example).I am not replacing Kurt Warner with Ben Roeth just b/c my opponent has Hines Ward.

That said, if they ARE relatively comparable, the opponent's #1 receiver is the tipping point on the scale.

The 3 QB's in question are Warner, Brees, and Vick. I think you could put all 3 in a hat and have just as good of chance of pulling out the best this week. I however like Brees and Vick a little better than Warner this week. Vick should want to get redemtion from last week and is in the spotlight Monday night. Brees should put up solid numbers against Miami. So in a situation where you basically feel all is even should you hedge?

 

[eoMMan]

It makes no sense. You play who you think will put up the most fantasy points. Period.For example, let's say you are debating between starting Plaxio Burress and Donald Driver. Ignoring who you are facing, let's say you project Plaxico to get you 10 points this week and Donald to get you 12 points. But wait, you're opponent is starting Eli Manning. Should I then start Plaxico? The answer is a definite "no". Eli Manning will still put up the same amount of points whether or not you start Plaxico or Donald. The object of the game is to put up enough points to beat your opponent and the way to do that is to start the players who you think will get you the most points REGARDLESS who you're opponent is starting.

 

[eoMMan]

Very much up in the air this week. Must win because it is playoff time. Debating on every player over and over on which ones to play.

Then it occurs to me that I can start the QB for my opponents #1 reciever. This will in effect negate that player for the most part. At first this sounds like the right move. But is it really??

People are debating about this game being a shootout or not , I think not. But the bottom line is I have 2 other QB's that are averaging about the same with better matchups this week in my opinion.

So how much of an advantage if any do most feel this would be to make this start to negate another player.

as a strategy it sucks unless both your QBs project to comparable levels for that given week (EXAMPLE - assume Plummer is your normal starter and he is up againt Dallas this week, but you also have your second QB as Hass against SF and your opponent's number one receiver is Jurevicius - I start Hass. And, yes, I know Hass should normally be starting over Plummer, it is an example).I am not replacing Kurt Warner with Ben Roeth just b/c my opponent has Hines Ward.

That said, if they ARE relatively comparable, the opponent's #1 receiver is the tipping point on the scale.

The 3 QB's in question are Warner, Brees, and Vick. I think you could put all 3 in a hat and have just as good of chance of pulling out the best this week. I however like Brees and Vick a little better than Warner this week. Vick should want to get redemtion from last week and is in the spotlight Monday night. Brees should put up solid numbers against Miami. So in a situation where you basically feel all is even should you hedge?

Forget who you are facing and start whichever QB you think will put up the most points and that's your answer.

 

[Marc Levin]

Very much up in the air this week. Must win because it is playoff time. Debating on every player over and over on which ones to play.

Then it occurs to me that I can start the QB for my opponents #1 reciever. This will in effect negate that player for the most part. At first this sounds like the right move. But is it really??

People are debating about this game being a shootout or not , I think not. But the bottom line is I have 2 other QB's that are averaging about the same with better matchups this week in my opinion.

So how much of an advantage if any do most feel this would be to make this start to negate another player.

as a strategy it sucks unless both your QBs project to comparable levels for that given week (EXAMPLE - assume Plummer is your normal starter and he is up againt Dallas this week, but you also have your second QB as Hass against SF and your opponent's number one receiver is Jurevicius - I start Hass. And, yes, I know Hass should normally be starting over Plummer, it is an example).I am not replacing Kurt Warner with Ben Roeth just b/c my opponent has Hines Ward.

That said, if they ARE relatively comparable, the opponent's #1 receiver is the tipping point on the scale.

The 3 QB's in question are Warner, Brees, and Vick. I think you could put all 3 in a hat and have just as good of chance of pulling out the best this week. I however like Brees and Vick a little better than Warner this week. Vick should want to get redemtion from last week and is in the spotlight Monday night. Brees should put up solid numbers against Miami. So in a situation where you basically feel all is even should you hedge?

You're nuts.Start Warner and don't look back - especially given your situation of having both Fitz and Boldin active in this game.

You are doubly nuts if you think Vick or Brees are "likely" to have big days.

Unless you operate on some rules that heavily penalize INTs?

 

[noleswin]

Very much up in the air this week. Must win because it is playoff time. Debating on every player over and over on which ones to play.

Then it occurs to me that I can start the QB for my opponents #1 reciever. This will in effect negate that player for the most part. At first this sounds like the right move. But is it really??

People are debating about this game being a shootout or not , I think not. But the bottom line is I have 2 other QB's that are averaging about the same with better matchups this week in my opinion.

So how much of an advantage if any do most feel this would be to make this start to negate another player.

as a strategy it sucks unless both your QBs project to comparable levels for that given week (EXAMPLE - assume Plummer is your normal starter and he is up againt Dallas this week, but you also have your second QB as Hass against SF and your opponent's number one receiver is Jurevicius - I start Hass. And, yes, I know Hass should normally be starting over Plummer, it is an example).I am not replacing Kurt Warner with Ben Roeth just b/c my opponent has Hines Ward.

That said, if they ARE relatively comparable, the opponent's #1 receiver is the tipping point on the scale.

The 3 QB's in question are Warner, Brees, and Vick. I think you could put all 3 in a hat and have just as good of chance of pulling out the best this week. I however like Brees and Vick a little better than Warner this week. Vick should want to get redemtion from last week and is in the spotlight Monday night. Brees should put up solid numbers against Miami. So in a situation where you basically feel all is even should you hedge?

You're nuts.Start Warner and don't look back - especially given your situation of having both Fitz and Boldin active in this game.

You are doubly nuts if you think Vick or Brees are "likely" to have big days.

Unless you operate on some rules that heavily penalize INTs?

-2 for INT's But I don't think I am nuts look at the cheat sheets. They all fall between 4 and 8. That seems to be the concenses everywhere not just on FBG

 

[Marc Levin]

No - I get it - but its Warner.Calculate the likelihood of the other two going for the equivelant of 300/2.

 

[Synthesizer]

Play your best lineup. Let him worry about matching up with you, not the other way around.

 

[apalmer]

Very much up in the air this week. Must win because it is playoff time. Debating on every player over and over on which ones to play.

Then it occurs to me that I can start the QB for my opponents #1 reciever. This will in effect negate that player for the most part. At first this sounds like the right move. But is it really??

People are debating about this game being a shootout or not , I think not. But the bottom line is I have 2 other QB's that are averaging about the same with better matchups this week in my opinion.

So how much of an advantage if any do most feel this would be to make this start to negate another player.

as a strategy it sucks unless both your QBs project to comparable levels for that given week (EXAMPLE - assume Plummer is your normal starter and he is up againt Dallas this week, but you also have your second QB as Hass against SF and your opponent's number one receiver is Jurevicius - I start Hass. And, yes, I know Hass should normally be starting over Plummer, it is an example).I am not replacing Kurt Warner with Ben Roeth just b/c my opponent has Hines Ward.

That said, if they ARE relatively comparable, the opponent's #1 receiver is the tipping point on the scale.

The 3 QB's in question are Warner, Brees, and Vick. I think you could put all 3 in a hat and have just as good of chance of pulling out the best this week. I however like Brees and Vick a little better than Warner this week. Vick should want to get redemtion from last week and is in the spotlight Monday night. Brees should put up solid numbers against Miami. So in a situation where you basically feel all is even should you hedge?

Forget who you are facing and start whichever QB you think will put up the most points and that's your answer.

That's an answer that sounds better than it is. Yeah, if your choices are Palmer and Losman, you're an idiot to start Losman just because your opponent is starting Evans. On the other hand, if you're choosing between two relatively equal guys (say, Brees and Vick), you need to consider all angles to make your choice. For example, last week FBG projections had Brees and Vick within a point of each other, making it a coin flip. However, I'm setting a lineup where my RB's are better than my opponents, my D is better than his, and my WR's are about equal to his. His biggest advantage is having Gates at TE. The only way I can see that he is likely to beat me is if Gates blows up. Then I notice he is also starting McCardell. IMO, it's a no-brainer: Brees is my starter, not because I think he'll score more pints than Vick (because I think it's a coinflip as to whether he will or not), but because of the effect Brees has on the other team. Look at it this way: if I start Brees and Vick outscores him 25-0, I don't get any points for Brees, but my opponent isn't getting any points for Gates & McCardell, so I'm not hurting too badly. On the other hand, if I start Vick and Brees outscores him 25-0, not only do I not get any QB points, but my opponent is likely getting big points out of Gates and/or McCardell and I'm in trouble. I'll take the insurance policy any time.The object is NOT to try to score as many points as possible. It's to score more than your opponent. "Hedging" (in the right situation) is one way to to do that.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

The people who are saying it's nuts to start anyone other than "who you expect to have the most points" are ignoring the possibility of surprising performance, and the effect that has on the game between you and your opponent.I could "prove," statistically, that IF your team is significantly better than your opponent's team, you "should" play the hedge. I'm not going to, because it's been done in these forums and on this website. I tried to outline qualitatively why this is true above. But you want to surpress the odds of a positive deviation from the norm among your opponent's players. You have the means to do that.What we haven't heard yet (I don't think) is whose team (yours or your opponent's) is "better on paper" given your players' matchups this week. That is the deciding factor. If you are equal, then I entirely agree with those who say you should just start your best players."The object is NOT to try to score as many points as possible. It's to score more than your opponent. "Hedging" (in the right situation) is one way to to do that." Well put.

 

[eoMMan]

Very much up in the air this week. Must win because it is playoff time. Debating on every player over and over on which ones to play.

Then it occurs to me that I can start the QB for my opponents #1 reciever. This will in effect negate that player for the most part. At first this sounds like the right move. But is it really??

People are debating about this game being a shootout or not , I think not. But the bottom line is I have 2 other QB's that are averaging about the same with better matchups this week in my opinion.

So how much of an advantage if any do most feel this would be to make this start to negate another player.

as a strategy it sucks unless both your QBs project to comparable levels for that given week (EXAMPLE - assume Plummer is your normal starter and he is up againt Dallas this week, but you also have your second QB as Hass against SF and your opponent's number one receiver is Jurevicius - I start Hass. And, yes, I know Hass should normally be starting over Plummer, it is an example).I am not replacing Kurt Warner with Ben Roeth just b/c my opponent has Hines Ward.

That said, if they ARE relatively comparable, the opponent's #1 receiver is the tipping point on the scale.

The 3 QB's in question are Warner, Brees, and Vick. I think you could put all 3 in a hat and have just as good of chance of pulling out the best this week. I however like Brees and Vick a little better than Warner this week. Vick should want to get redemtion from last week and is in the spotlight Monday night. Brees should put up solid numbers against Miami. So in a situation where you basically feel all is even should you hedge?

Forget who you are facing and start whichever QB you think will put up the most points and that's your answer.

That's an answer that sounds better than it is. Yeah, if your choices are Palmer and Losman, you're an idiot to start Losman just because your opponent is starting Evans. On the other hand, if you're choosing between two relatively equal guys (say, Brees and Vick), you need to consider all angles to make your choice. For example, last week FBG projections had Brees and Vick within a point of each other, making it a coin flip. However, I'm setting a lineup where my RB's are better than my opponents, my D is better than his, and my WR's are about equal to his. His biggest advantage is having Gates at TE. The only way I can see that he is likely to beat me is if Gates blows up. Then I notice he is also starting McCardell. IMO, it's a no-brainer: Brees is my starter, not because I think he'll score more pints than Vick (because I think it's a coinflip as to whether he will or not), but because of the effect Brees has on the other team. Look at it this way: if I start Brees and Vick outscores him 25-0, I don't get any points for Brees, but my opponent isn't getting any points for Gates & McCardell, so I'm not hurting too badly. On the other hand, if I start Vick and Brees outscores him 25-0, not only do I not get any QB points, but my opponent is likely getting big points out of Gates and/or McCardell and I'm in trouble. I'll take the insurance policy any time.The object is NOT to try to score as many points as possible. It's to score more than your opponent. "Hedging" (in the right situation) is one way to to do that.

Well, if you have the 2 players as basically equals and it's a coin flip, I agree with the "hedging" strategy. However, I think we sometimes get too caught up in who the other guy is starting. Also, who's to say that LT won't take a short screen pass for a 80 yard TD?

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

It has struck me that I can sneak in a WDIS, facing a slightly different situation but one where the same issues apply. So I'm going to do so.I have the Bills and the Lions D, and Favre and McNair.McNair and Favre are tossups, as are the Bills and Lions. Favre faces Lions. I favor McNair because of matchup and Favre's mistake prone-ness; I favor the Lions because of Favre's mistake prone-ness.I am very, very heavily favored over my opponent this week. I have been planning to start McNair (if healthy) and the Lions; now I'm wondering if I should start Favre and the Lions, as Lions scoring off Favre's mistakes would partially offset Favre's mistakes. I am lowering my expected "normal" score, but reducing the chance that I have a really low score by having a poor QB and DT output. Either I'll have a good QB and poor DT output, or a poor QB and a good DT output.Hmm...

 

[cstu]

It makes no sense. You play who you think will put up the most fantasy points. Period.

For example, let's say you are debating between starting Plaxio Burress and Donald Driver. Ignoring who you are facing, let's say you project Plaxico to get you 10 points this week and Donald to get you 12 points. But wait, you're opponent is starting Eli Manning. Should I then start Plaxico? The answer is a definite "no". Eli Manning will still put up the same amount of points whether or not you start Plaxico or Donald. The object of the game is to put up enough points to beat your opponent and the way to do that is to start the players who you think will get you the most points REGARDLESS who you're opponent is starting.

Ok, I'll put it this way so you'll understand.Let's say you project that Plaxico gets you 10 points this week and Donald gets you 12 points and compare boom and bust days for Eli for each player.

Eli bust:

Eli (14 points) - 200 yards, 1 TD (4 points/TD, 1/20 yards passing)

Burress (5 points) - 50 yards, 0 TD

Eli boom:

Eli (27 points) - 300 yards, 3 TD's (4 points/TD, 1/20 yards passing)

Burress (27 points) - 150 yards, 2 TD's

In the bust scenario, the difference between starting Driver and Burress would be 5 points (14-10 vs. 14-5) in favor of starting Driver. However in the boom scenario, he difference between starting Driver and Burress would be 12 points (27-10 vs. 27-27) in favor of starting Burress.

Starting Burress is insurance in case Eli blows up. Of course there are other variables to consider, such as how much of your opposing QB's targets go to your receiver and if the QB has the ability to put up big numbers. In general I think it's a smart move to counter your opposing QB with his #1 receiver if your WR options are similar in projections, especially in leagues where QB TD's are 4 points.

 

[eoMMan]

It makes no sense.  You play who you think will put up the most fantasy points.  Period.

For example, let's say you are debating between starting Plaxio Burress and Donald Driver.  Ignoring who you are facing, let's say you project Plaxico to get you 10 points this week and Donald to get you 12 points.  But wait, you're opponent is starting Eli Manning.  Should I then start Plaxico?  The answer is a definite "no".  Eli Manning will still put up the same amount of points whether or not you start Plaxico or Donald.  The object of the game is to put up enough points to beat your opponent and the way to do that is to start the players who you think will get you the most points REGARDLESS who you're opponent is starting.

Ok, I'll put it this way so you'll understand.Let's say you project that Plaxico gets you 10 points this week and Donald gets you 12 points and compare boom and bust days for Eli for each player.

Eli bust:

Eli (14 points) - 200 yards, 1 TD (4 points/TD, 1/20 yards passing)

Burress (5 points) - 50 yards, 0 TD

Eli boom:

Eli (27 points) - 300 yards, 3 TD's (4 points/TD, 1/20 yards passing)

Burress (27 points) - 150 yards, 2 TD's

In the bust scenario, the difference between starting Driver and Burress would be 5 points (14-10 vs. 14-5) in favor of starting Driver. However in the boom scenario, he difference between starting Driver and Burress would be 12 points (27-10 vs. 27-27) in favor of starting Burress.

Starting Burress is insurance in case Eli blows up. Of course there are other variables to consider, such as how much of your opposing QB's targets go to your receiver and if the QB has the ability to put up big numbers. In general I think it's a smart move to counter your opposing QB with his #1 receiver if your WR options are similar in projections, especially in leagues where QB TD's are 4 points.

I understand what you are saying but when was the last time Burress had a 150 yard, 2 TD game? As far as Eli goes, he usually spreads his TD's around (Shockey, Toomer, etc.). Like I said, I think if it's a close one, go ahead and use this strategy. But don't get caught up in it too much. Play who you think will get you points.

 

[eoMMan]

It makes no sense.  You play who you think will put up the most fantasy points.  Period.

For example, let's say you are debating between starting Plaxio Burress and Donald Driver.  Ignoring who you are facing, let's say you project Plaxico to get you 10 points this week and Donald to get you 12 points.  But wait, you're opponent is starting Eli Manning.  Should I then start Plaxico?  The answer is a definite "no".  Eli Manning will still put up the same amount of points whether or not you start Plaxico or Donald.  The object of the game is to put up enough points to beat your opponent and the way to do that is to start the players who you think will get you the most points REGARDLESS who you're opponent is starting.

Ok, I'll put it this way so you'll understand.Let's say you project that Plaxico gets you 10 points this week and Donald gets you 12 points and compare boom and bust days for Eli for each player.

Eli bust:

Eli (14 points) - 200 yards, 1 TD (4 points/TD, 1/20 yards passing)

Burress (5 points) - 50 yards, 0 TD

Eli boom:

Eli (27 points) - 300 yards, 3 TD's (4 points/TD, 1/20 yards passing)

Burress (27 points) - 150 yards, 2 TD's

In the bust scenario, the difference between starting Driver and Burress would be 5 points (14-10 vs. 14-5) in favor of starting Driver. However in the boom scenario, he difference between starting Driver and Burress would be 12 points (27-10 vs. 27-27) in favor of starting Burress.

Starting Burress is insurance in case Eli blows up. Of course there are other variables to consider, such as how much of your opposing QB's targets go to your receiver and if the QB has the ability to put up big numbers. In general I think it's a smart move to counter your opposing QB with his #1 receiver if your WR options are similar in projections, especially in leagues where QB TD's are 4 points.

I understand what you are saying but when was the last time Burress had a 150 yard, 2 TD game? As far as Eli goes, he usually spreads his TD's around (Shockey, Toomer, etc.). Like I said, I think if it's a close one, go ahead and use this strategy. But don't get caught up in it too much. Play who you think will get you points.

October 2nd....... You get my point though.

 

[cstu]

It makes no sense. You play who you think will put up the most fantasy points. Period.

For example, let's say you are debating between starting Plaxio Burress and Donald Driver. Ignoring who you are facing, let's say you project Plaxico to get you 10 points this week and Donald to get you 12 points. But wait, you're opponent is starting Eli Manning. Should I then start Plaxico? The answer is a definite "no". Eli Manning will still put up the same amount of points whether or not you start Plaxico or Donald. The object of the game is to put up enough points to beat your opponent and the way to do that is to start the players who you think will get you the most points REGARDLESS who you're opponent is starting.

Ok, I'll put it this way so you'll understand.Let's say you project that Plaxico gets you 10 points this week and Donald gets you 12 points and compare boom and bust days for Eli for each player.

Eli bust:

Eli (14 points) - 200 yards, 1 TD (4 points/TD, 1/20 yards passing)

Burress (5 points) - 50 yards, 0 TD

Eli boom:

Eli (27 points) - 300 yards, 3 TD's (4 points/TD, 1/20 yards passing)

Burress (27 points) - 150 yards, 2 TD's

In the bust scenario, the difference between starting Driver and Burress would be 5 points (14-10 vs. 14-5) in favor of starting Driver. However in the boom scenario, he difference between starting Driver and Burress would be 12 points (27-10 vs. 27-27) in favor of starting Burress.

Starting Burress is insurance in case Eli blows up. Of course there are other variables to consider, such as how much of your opposing QB's targets go to your receiver and if the QB has the ability to put up big numbers. In general I think it's a smart move to counter your opposing QB with his #1 receiver if your WR options are similar in projections, especially in leagues where QB TD's are 4 points.

I understand what you are saying but when was the last time Burress had a 150 yard, 2 TD game? As far as Eli goes, he usually spreads his TD's around (Shockey, Toomer, etc.). Like I said, I think if it's a close one, go ahead and use this strategy. But don't get caught up in it too much. Play who you think will get you points.

October 2nd....... You get my point though.

I'm definitely not advocating it over using common sense, but in certain situations it can be useful. Burress happened to be a good example since the weeks that Manning blew up were Burress' huge games.

 

[Trig2U]

I don't think I'd ever bench my ususal starting QB to hedge against a WR having a huge game. On the other hand, once in a while I've started a #2 WR or a TE because he plays for the same NFL team as my opponent's QB. The idea being that you can sometimes lessen the impact or even neutralize a big game by a QB if he hits your player with a TD or a few key passes. Starting a kicker who plays for the same team as your opponents QB or top RB is also a possible target. It seems to me that there's a good chance for some correlation between how those players will produce that week and how your opponent's players will perform that week. Basically the theory is that you take a shot at closing the gap between your opponent's top producers and your lesser producing positions so as to improve your odds in the game; and theoretically the risk is minimal on your part. I'm not saying you bench Antonio Gates or Larry Fitzgerald or some other star just to play a guy who might "block" your opponent's QB. But suppose your choice is between TJ Houshmandzadeh and Reggie Wayne as your #2 WR. Under ordinary circumstances you figure they'll get you 7-9 pts. So all things being more or less equal, if you're playing against Carson Palmer why not start TJ? But if you're going up against Peyton that week why not throw Reggie in there? Now, maybe some stat guys on FBG has already broken this down and proved that in the long run you gain little or nothing through this type of "strategy" but I have seen it work in a given game, and it really drives an opponent crazy when it does.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

I don't think I'd ever bench my ususal starting QB to hedge against a WR having a huge game.

On the other hand, once in a while I've started a #2 WR or a TE because he plays for the same NFL team as my opponent's QB. The idea being that you can sometimes lessen the impact or even neutralize a big game by a QB if he hits your player with a TD or a few key passes.

Starting a kicker who plays for the same team as your opponents QB or top RB is also a possible target.

It seems to me that there's a good chance for some correlation between how those players will produce that week and how your opponent's players will perform that week. Basically the theory is that you take a shot at closing the gap between your opponent's top producers and your lesser producing positions so as to improve your odds in the game; and theoretically the risk is minimal on your part.

I'm not saying you bench Antonio Gates or Larry Fitzgerald or some other star just to play a guy who might "block" your opponent's QB. But suppose your choice is between TJ Houshmandzadeh and Reggie Wayne as your #2 WR. Under ordinary circumstances you figure they'll get you 7-9 pts. So all things being more or less equal, if you're playing against Carson Palmer why not start TJ? But if you're going up against Peyton that week why not throw Reggie in there?

Now, maybe some stat guys on FBG has already broken this down and proved that in the long run you gain little or nothing through this type of "strategy" but I have seen it work in a given game, and it really drives an opponent crazy when it does.

They have broken it down; it has modest value IF AND ONLY IF you have a better team than your opponent (on paper). Otherwise, you should play your "best players" (whoever they are; you never know until after the game is played).

 

[cstu]

I don't think I'd ever bench my ususal starting QB to hedge against a WR having a huge game.

On the other hand, once in a while I've started a #2 WR or a TE because he plays for the same NFL team as my opponent's QB. The idea being that you can sometimes lessen the impact or even neutralize a big game by a QB if he hits your player with a TD or a few key passes.

Starting a kicker who plays for the same team as your opponents QB or top RB is also a possible target.

It seems to me that there's a good chance for some correlation between how those players will produce that week and how your opponent's players will perform that week. Basically the theory is that you take a shot at closing the gap between your opponent's top producers and your lesser producing positions so as to improve your odds in the game; and theoretically the risk is minimal on your part.

I'm not saying you bench Antonio Gates or Larry Fitzgerald or some other star just to play a guy who might "block" your opponent's QB. But suppose your choice is between TJ Houshmandzadeh and Reggie Wayne as your #2 WR. Under ordinary circumstances you figure they'll get you 7-9 pts. So all things being more or less equal, if you're playing against Carson Palmer why not start TJ? But if you're going up against Peyton that week why not throw Reggie in there?

Now, maybe some stat guys on FBG has already broken this down and proved that in the long run you gain little or nothing through this type of "strategy" but I have seen it work in a given game, and it really drives an opponent crazy when it does.

They have broken it down; it has modest value IF AND ONLY IF you have a better team than your opponent (on paper). Otherwise, you should play your "best players" (whoever they are; you never know until after the game is played).

This is absolutely true. What you are trying to accomplish by doing this is to weaken the other team at the position are are likely to get the most points from. If you are looking at another team and thinking that the only way he can beat you is if his QB has a huge day, it makes sense to take that element out of the game.

 

[Del Griffith]

I've been playing fantasy football for 10 years now. I have NEVER considered my opponents lineup in determining my lineup, even to break a tie between players. I hope to play this game another 50 years, God willing, and I will NEVER consider my opponents lineup in determining my lineup. NEVER.

 

[Fresh Prince]

the insurance policy any time.

The object is NOT to try to score as many points as possible. It's to score more than your opponent. "Hedging" (in the right situation) is one way to to do that.

You want to outscore your opponent and the best way to do that is by scoring as many points as possible. The real objective is putting out the line-up that is most efficient. You don't want to leave points on the bench. If I have a week where I am 100% efficient, then it doesn't matter if I won or lost because I couldn't have done anything better anyway. I don't look to hedge or look to avoid it, I just try to have 100% efficiency. You guys talk like hedging affects how many points your opponents score and it doesn't unless they are foolish enough to put in a lesser player to avoid it.

 

[Marc Levin]

I don't think I'd ever bench my ususal starting QB to hedge against a WR having a huge game.

On the other hand, once in a while I've started a #2 WR or a TE because he plays for the same NFL team as my opponent's QB. The idea being that you can sometimes lessen the impact or even neutralize a big game by a QB if he hits your player with a TD or a few key passes.

Starting a kicker who plays for the same team as your opponents QB or top RB is also a possible target.

It seems to me that there's a good chance for some correlation between how those players will produce that week and how your opponent's players will perform that week. Basically the theory is that you take a shot at closing the gap between your opponent's top producers and your lesser producing positions so as to improve your odds in the game; and theoretically the risk is minimal on your part.

I'm not saying you bench Antonio Gates or Larry Fitzgerald or some other star just to play a guy who might "block" your opponent's QB. But suppose your choice is between TJ Houshmandzadeh and Reggie Wayne as your #2 WR. Under ordinary circumstances you figure they'll get you 7-9 pts. So all things being more or less equal, if you're playing against Carson Palmer why not start TJ? But if you're going up against Peyton that week why not throw Reggie in there?   

Now, maybe some stat guys on FBG has already broken this down and proved that in the long run you gain little or nothing through this type of "strategy" but I have seen it work in a given game, and it really drives an opponent crazy when it does.

They have broken it down; it has modest value IF AND ONLY IF you have a better team than your opponent (on paper). Otherwise, you should play your "best players" (whoever they are; you never know until after the game is played).

This is absolutely true. What you are trying to accomplish by doing this is to weaken the other team at the position are are likely to get the most points from. If you are looking at another team and thinking that the only way he can beat you is if his QB has a huge day, it makes sense to take that element out of the game.

These guys are dead on - if your overall team is a decent degree stronger than your opponent's, and you know that one of his receivers can only get points by you also getting points, then hedging, pretty much regardless of the names of the quarterbakcs, is a viable (and pretty good) strategy. You are counting on your other players ot give you the win anyway, and you are making sure one of your opponent's WRs can't single-handedly make up that gap.

 

[BassNBrew]

I've been playing fantasy football for 10 years now. I have NEVER considered my opponents lineup in determining my lineup, even to break a tie between players. I hope to play this game another 50 years, God willing, and I will NEVER consider my opponents lineup in determining my lineup. NEVER.

Hopefully guys like you continue to play this way in h2h leagues and I can continue to use advanced strategies to manufacture an extra win each year.

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

I've been playing fantasy football for 10 years now. I have NEVER considered my opponents lineup in determining my lineup, even to break a tie between players. I hope to play this game another 50 years, God willing, and I will NEVER consider my opponents lineup in determining my lineup. NEVER.

Hopefully guys like you continue to play this way in h2h leagues and I can continue to use advanced strategies to manufacture an extra win each year.

ZING!

 

[Del Griffith]

I've been playing fantasy football for 10 years now. I have NEVER considered my opponents lineup in determining my lineup, even to break a tie between players. I hope to play this game another 50 years, God willing, and I will NEVER consider my opponents lineup in determining my lineup. NEVER.

Hopefully guys like you continue to play this way in h2h leagues and I can continue to use advanced strategies to manufacture an extra win each year.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.Amazing........

 

[Pigskin75]

I think there are times where this does have a major effect.For instance, w're a points per reception league. This week we have a game where one team will surely start Drew Breese and his opponent will start AGates. Gates, being the all world guy like he is could just about equal Breese's output with the added PPR.So, while Breese and Gates are racking up points, the Breese owner's TE no where near scores what Gates can pick up. There is no way for the Breese owner to make up the margin with a good QB outting because the majority of his output is directly related to Gates.AGates is one of those special players that these type matchups can effect, IMO.

 

[GridironMenace]

I've been playing fantasy football since 1987 and I always consider my opponents lineup.Here is the answer: the answer lies at which position you are trying to block. If you are blocking a position that is higher scoring (QB), by using a lower scoring position (WR), then it is worthwhile (assuming your WR isn't just bench fodder). If you are using a higher tier player (QB) to block your opponents lower tier player (WR) then that is suicide, because you have minimized the damaged caused by his WR, his QB is going to cause major damage.For example two teams:Team Aalmer, Harrison, WardTeam B:Roethlisberger, Muhammad, ChambersWhich WR should team A start? While Harrison is the better player I would argue that Ward is the better play because it limits team B's QB. If Ward scores then you gain points. If he doesn't then Big ben proably son't scoire many points, of which you will then still have Palmers points to blow away your competition.Fantasy football isn't always about scoring the most points. It is WINNING on a WEEKLY basis. Keep that in mind.Blocking with a lower tier player- good.Blocking with a higher tier player- bad.

 

[GridironMenace]

I will also add that I consider the other teams QB when drafting too. I ALWAYS TRY to take a WR that plays on the same team as a team from my divisions QB. This year a guy in my division took Culpepper. The decision a couple rounds later was Burleson or Joe Horn. I took Burleson for this exact purpose. It limits Culpeppers points when we play. Now Burleson sucks this year and Culpepper got hurt but the principal remains. It is a fantastic strategy to go by.

 

[Del Griffith]

I will also add that I consider the other teams QB when drafting too. I ALWAYS TRY to take a WR that plays on the same team as a team from my divisions QB. This year a guy in my division took Culpepper. The decision a couple rounds later was Burleson or Joe Horn. I took Burleson for this exact purpose. It limits Culpeppers points when we play. Now Burleson sucks this year and Culpepper got hurt but the principal remains. It is a fantastic strategy to go by.

Great strategy How many times do you play teams in your own division? Twice? What do you do for the other 11 or 12 games?Granted, Joe Horn has had a lost season, but prior to the season starting, who in their right mind would ever draft Burleson ahead of him?

Still......amazing

 

[fsufan]

In our league QB's and WR's both get 6 for TD's the only difference is he gets 1pt for every 10yds rec. versus my 1pt for every 20 yds passing.

This is really eating at me because the 3 QB's are basically the same. I normally play the matchup.

I don't want to turn this into a WDIS so I will not mention names.

I can see were I would negate myself to some extent but their are other weapons on this team that he throws to so If the team has success through the air it would go to more than one guy.

I just feel (unlike the majority of people that are discussing this matchup in several threads) that the streak may end this week for this QB and I have 2 other options that are compareable.

it does not matter who you play you will still lose

 

[Fresh Prince]

I've been playing fantasy football since 1987 and I always consider my opponents lineup.

Here is the answer: the answer lies at which position you are trying to block. If you are blocking a position that is higher scoring (QB), by using a lower scoring position (WR), then it is worthwhile (assuming your WR isn't just bench fodder). If you are using a higher tier player (QB) to block your opponents lower tier player (WR) then that is suicide, because you have minimized the damaged caused by his WR, his QB is going to cause major damage.

For example two teams:

Team A:

Palmer, Harrison, Ward

Team B:

Roethlisberger, Muhammad, Chambers

Which WR should team A start? While Harrison is the better player

I would argue that Ward is the better play because it limits team B's QB. If Ward scores then you gain points. If he doesn't then Big ben proably son't scoire many points, of which you will then still have Palmers points to blow away your competition.

Fantasy football isn't always about scoring the most points. It is WINNING on a WEEKLY basis. Keep that in mind.

Blocking with a lower tier player- good.

Blocking with a higher tier player- bad.

Yeah, this will work great if Harrison goes off for 8 catces, 120 yards, 2 TDs while Ward gets 3 for 40 and 0 and Big Ben throws a short TD to Heath, a little longer to El, and a screen to Parker. Great coaching move there. Please tell me how scoring more points gives you less of a chance to win a game weekly. You seem to imply that it is ok to go for a player you expect to score less because it will give you a better shot at winning.

The key is to not leave any points on the bench. If you are 100% efficient, no 'advanced strategies' like this one will make a difference. If you project your opponent's team to score 120 points, this strategy won't change that unless he takes out a better option for a worse one which is plain stupid on his part.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

It doesn't bother me in the least that some of you feel "just put the highest scoring team on the field." As if you knew who that would be in advance. I agree that if you know in advance that you are going to outscore your opponent, then you should just put those players in that do that. Otherwise, you are just guessing, and has been pointed out, the goal is to outscore your opponent. Scoring the most points you can is the primary - but not only - means to achieve that. Hedging manages the delta between your scoring and your opponent's.I KNOW that it is statistically valid to hedge your opponent's players IF YOUR TEAM "SHOULD" OUTSCORE HIS based on normal output. I've seen it statistically proven and, frankly, it is so theoretically valid that I didn't need to see the proof. The whole disconnect here is that those who disagree with this strategy act as if they know who will score more, and those who believe in it are trying to eliminate undesirable uncertainty. It is the uncertainty that one of your inferior opponent's players might beat you, that you can eliminate with a viable player on the same team, that is the key to this working. You just keep doing what you're doing, with your rolly-eyed smilies. I will agree that it is simpler to just pick the players you think will score the most that week. No one here has advocated hedging if you are not stronger on paper than your opponent, nor if you are putting markedly inferior players into the game instead of no-brainer starters. But if it is a reasonably close call, and you can lock in a spread between your score and your rival's, that's the way to go.BTW, I wouldn't advise ever becoming a derivatives trader (or, really, any finance job). Shower curtain ring sales is a good line of business.

 

[BassNBrew]

I've been playing fantasy football since 1987 and I always consider my opponents lineup.

Here is the answer:  the answer lies at which position you are trying to block. If you are blocking a position that is higher scoring (QB), by using a lower scoring position (WR), then it is worthwhile (assuming your WR isn't just bench fodder).  If you are using a higher tier player (QB) to block your opponents lower tier player (WR) then that is suicide, because you have minimized the damaged caused by his WR, his QB is going to cause major damage.

For example two teams:

Team A:

Palmer, Harrison, Ward

Team B:

Roethlisberger, Muhammad, Chambers

Which WR should team A start?  While Harrison is the better player

I would argue that Ward is the better play because it limits team B's QB.  If Ward scores then you gain points.  If he doesn't then Big ben proably son't scoire many points, of which you will then still have Palmers points to  blow away your competition.

Fantasy football isn't always about scoring the most points.  It is WINNING on a WEEKLY basis.  Keep that in mind.

Blocking with a lower tier player- good.

Blocking with a higher tier player- bad.

Yeah, this will work great if Harrison goes off for 8 catces, 120 yards, 2 TDs while Ward gets 3 for 40 and 0 and Big Ben throws a short TD to Heath, a little longer to El, and a screen to Parker. Great coaching move there. Please tell me how scoring more points gives you less of a chance to win a game weekly. You seem to imply that it is ok to go for a player you expect to score less because it will give you a better shot at winning.

The key is to not leave any points on the bench. If you are 100% efficient, no 'advanced strategies' like this one will make a difference. If you project your opponent's team to score 120 points, this strategy won't change that unless he takes out a better option for a worse one which is plain stupid on his part.

Don't have the links with me, but I doubt if any of the teams in the 3 leagues that I play in are greater then 85% efficient and a majority are likely under 80%. Take away one or two no-brainer studs and that percentage would really plummet. That tells me that "starting your best player" is easier said then done.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

I'm in a league that uses cbssportsline, and it always amuses me to see the "coach's ratings." My coach's rating is 12th. The other guy in my division who I've been contending with is 1st.I'm 10-3, with a deep bench but only one stud. He's 7-6, with Tomlinson, Jordan, and a number of other no-brainers, and absolutely no bench whatsover. It's easy to make the right decisions when you have no other options.I would bet he's 90%+ efficient, while I'm probably no better than 75% efficient... and that's whether I go with FBG's recommendations in LD (using our scoring), which I usually do, or not. With everyone but the top 20 players in the league, and those beyond the top 100, you are just guessing as to who will have a better game, with matchups the only thing you have to work with.

 

[Marvin88]

I am new to this thread but ironically I have been deliberating over this all weekend! My first playoff matchup where Lineup Dominator has me and my opponent close. We both have a potential "block". He has Boldin, I've got Hasslebeck and Warner (both good plays). He has Brad Johnson, I have Koren Robinson. This is a PPR league where rec. TD's get 10 points and passing TD's 6 points. I think the thought about assuming you know the player to get the most points ahead of time is correct - you can't possibly know. So if all things are equal, why not play the block? I think that is all these guys who propose the strategy are saying. So I am seriously considering Warner to block Boldin from going off.