Starting a WR when you are going head to head against his QB? (1 Viewer)

[GOroute]

I think this happens a few times a year, but if you own the #1 wr for a team (let's say kevin Curtis) and you are playing against a team that is starting McNabb as his qb, do you start the wr? I think it could play out a few ways. In this example-

Curtis could do nothing and McNabb go off and you are screwed.

Curtis does real well and offsets many of mcnabbs points.

I think this is more debatable when you play a top 10qb that has a real good chance of going off. and of course i am talking about a player like Curtis because there are players like Evans, S.Moss, Ward etc that are equal to him so is it better to avoid the qb/wr combo or go after it?

 

[bulger2holt]

I just play my best matchups and not worry about it. You will be kicking yourself if Mcnabb throws 3 tds to curtis and you missed out. If you have curtis, atleast you neutralized Mcnabb on those tds.

 

[guitarmonkiy]

Why do people still not understand that this concept? You start whatever receivers you think are going to get you the most points. Simple as that. Don't worry about your opponents' players, just put in the people on your team who you feel are going to get you the most points.

 

[GOroute]

Why do people still not understand that this concept? You start whatever receivers you think are going to get you the most points. Simple as that. Don't worry about your opponents' players, just put in the people on your team who you feel are going to get you the most points.

i totally agree with this concept- but i'll give you an example-let's say you ad to pick 2 of these 4:Curtis, Evans, S.Moss, Wardyou cannot say what player will or will not go off. And let's say you are playing mcnabb. does this mean Curtis should play or shouldnt it matter at all.of course if you have s.smith or c.johnson, of course you just play that guy. that's all im saying.

 

[Filthy]

If you've got stud receivers you start them. If my opponent had Romo and I had Wayne, Housh and Crayton I certainly wouldn't pick Crayton over the other two.

 

[Filthy]

Why do people still not understand that this concept? You start whatever receivers you think are going to get you the most points. Simple as that. Don't worry about your opponents' players, just put in the people on your team who you feel are going to get you the most points.

i totally agree with this concept- but i'll give you an example-let's say you ad to pick 2 of these 4:Curtis, Evans, S.Moss, Wardyou cannot say what player will or will not go off. And let's say you are playing mcnabb. does this mean Curtis should play or shouldnt it matter at all.of course if you have s.smith or c.johnson, of course you just play that guy. that's all im saying.

Goes back to the matchup. If you think (using your example) that Phily will throw the ball to Curtis alot during that game (moreso than your other receivers will get targeted that week) then play him.

 

[maxwjom0]

I disagree. There is more to it than "just playing your best lineup".

IF your team is better than your opponent it is to your advantage to play Curtis if he plays McNabb. Reason is if McNabb "goes off", odds are Curtis will have a good game. If McNabb stinks, odds are Curtis will stink and the rest of your better team should be fine.

IF your team is worse than your opponent it is to your advantage to NOT play Curtis and hope McNabb stinks and your alternate receiver does well and you gain ground on the matchup.

IF your teams are "about even", then play your best lineup.

 

[-OZ-]

Why do people still not understand that this concept? You start whatever receivers you think are going to get you the most points. Simple as that. Don't worry about your opponents' players, just put in the people on your team who you feel are going to get you the most points.

i totally agree with this concept- but i'll give you an example-let's say you ad to pick 2 of these 4:Curtis, Evans, S.Moss, Wardyou cannot say what player will or will not go off. And let's say you are playing mcnabb. does this mean Curtis should play or shouldnt it matter at all.of course if you have s.smith or c.johnson, of course you just play that guy. that's all im saying.

In theory, it doesn't matter, but I would play Curtis in this situation. It's more a worst case scenerio than anything. Say you start Evans instead of Curtis, McNabb throws 3 TDs to Curtis, you're kicking yourself and probably losing.You start Curtis instead of Evans, Evans goes off, McNabb to Curtis is quiet, you kick, but may still win.Of course, if Reggie Brown went off, you're in no better shape than if you started Evans.

 

[guitarmonkiy]

I disagree. There is more to it than "just playing your best lineup".IF your team is better than your opponent it is to your advantage to play Curtis if he plays McNabb. Reason is if McNabb "goes off", odds are Curtis will have a good game. If McNabb stinks, odds are Curtis will stink and the rest of your better team should be fine.IF your team is worse than your opponent it is to your advantage to NOT play Curtis and hope McNabb stinks and your alternate receiver does well and you gain ground on the matchup.IF your teams are "about even", then play your best lineup.

No offense but that was one of the most ridiculous pieces of fantasy advice I've ever heard. Why would you only "play your best lineup" if your teams are even? No matter what the situation, you want to play whoever you think is going to get you the most points. There's no cancelling out or any of that jibberish. Say that you start Curtis over Moss, and that Curtis gets 2 TDs and Moss has 3 TDs. Would you be happy that you started Curtis over Moss because his TDs negated McNabb's?

 

[Filthy]

Points are points. At the end of the Monday night game you have X amount of points. Your opponent has Y amount of points. Regardless of which receiver got you those points, as long as X is greater than Y, you win.

Hello....is this thing on?!

 

[SCT]

Points are points. At the end of the Monday night game you have X amount of points. Your opponent has Y amount of points. Regardless of which receiver got you those points, as long as X is greater than Y, you win. Hello....is this thing on?!

My Braylon played his Derek Anderson last week....I sure was glad all the TD's went to Braylon or I would have been BLOWN OUT. Lost anyways.

 

[maxwjom0]

I disagree. There is more to it than "just playing your best lineup".IF your team is better than your opponent it is to your advantage to play Curtis if he plays McNabb. Reason is if McNabb "goes off", odds are Curtis will have a good game. If McNabb stinks, odds are Curtis will stink and the rest of your better team should be fine.IF your team is worse than your opponent it is to your advantage to NOT play Curtis and hope McNabb stinks and your alternate receiver does well and you gain ground on the matchup.IF your teams are "about even", then play your best lineup.

No offense but that was one of the most ridiculous pieces of fantasy advice I've ever heard. Why would you only "play your best lineup" if your teams are even? No matter what the situation, you want to play whoever you think is going to get you the most points. There's no cancelling out or any of that jibberish. Say that you start Curtis over Moss, and that Curtis gets 2 TDs and Moss has 3 TDs. Would you be happy that you started Curtis over Moss because his TDs negated McNabb's?

I disagree with your disagreement for the reasons listed above. This is all about "Risk and Reward" scenerios and if you are playing a better team and you are the underdog, you may need to hope that BOTH McNabb stinks and your alternate receiver does well to give you a shot a winning. Think of it this way, if you are the underdog and McNabb stinks today, then Curtis will probably stink. Have you gained any ground on your better opponent? No!This would be better discussed as a conversation but the theory is legitimate.

 

[Genester]

I disagree. There is more to it than "just playing your best lineup".IF your team is better than your opponent it is to your advantage to play Curtis if he plays McNabb. Reason is if McNabb "goes off", odds are Curtis will have a good game. If McNabb stinks, odds are Curtis will stink and the rest of your better team should be fine.IF your team is worse than your opponent it is to your advantage to NOT play Curtis and hope McNabb stinks and your alternate receiver does well and you gain ground on the matchup.IF your teams are "about even", then play your best lineup.

No offense but that was one of the most ridiculous pieces of fantasy advice I've ever heard. Why would you only "play your best lineup" if your teams are even? No matter what the situation, you want to play whoever you think is going to get you the most points. There's no cancelling out or any of that jibberish. Say that you start Curtis over Moss, and that Curtis gets 2 TDs and Moss has 3 TDs. Would you be happy that you started Curtis over Moss because his TDs negated McNabb's?

I think you missed the point. Sometimes, you don't KNOW for sure what your best line-up is. Suppose you see 2-3 players as being pretty even this week. That's when you start paying attention to the competition. I completely agree with the original point made above. Even beyond that, I would look at my match-up and factor in the projected outcome. Suppose I have LT and Gates on a bye this week, and the rest of my team is average at best, and I play the best team in the league, loaded with great talent. I may consider that I need a home run much more than I need average production. With that, I may have several similar WRs, but I may start the guy who could blow up vs. the steady guy - for example, suppose I have Curtis and Engram. Engram is probably a slightly better play. But his upside is pretty much 100+1 (again, hypothetically speaking, please don't come back here if he goes for 300+5 today). Curtis' upside is 150+2. Now, if I am even with the other team, I think Engram is the play - he's more likely to generate more points. If I think the other team is miles better this week, I may start Curtis, because I am going to need a huge day vs. a steady performance. Makes sense?To compare this with the NFL, remember the year the Colts stopped scoring quickly and started playing ball control? It wasn't because they couldn't, it was because they realized they needed to keep their D off the field. Another example of adjusting to accommodate the team needs.

 

[Filthy]

Points are points. At the end of the Monday night game you have X amount of points. Your opponent has Y amount of points. Regardless of which receiver got you those points, as long as X is greater than Y, you win. Hello....is this thing on?!

My Braylon played his Derek Anderson last week....I sure was glad all the TD's went to Braylon or I would have been BLOWN OUT. Lost anyways.

OMFG, I'm sensing some skulls denser than depleted uranium around here. Braylon E. got 29.70 points last week in my league. T.J. Housh got 36.50 Do you think that somehow the 29.70 points that Braylon got you are somehow 'magical' and thus greater than the 36.50 that T.J. would have gotten you?! Holy hallucinigenic drugs, Batman!

 

[Don Quixote]

Points are points. At the end of the Monday night game you have X amount of points. Your opponent has Y amount of points. Regardless of which receiver got you those points, as long as X is greater than Y, you win. Hello....is this thing on?!

Of course, the goal is to maximize points, but short of being Carnac the Magnificent, it is impossible to know where chips will fall. Sure, there are projections, but it is all just a best guess. If you have two WR's of equal value, one of whom is on same team of QB of the other team, playing that WR can sometimes minimize the margin of error.

 

[Jimmy James]

Scenario:

Andre Davis is ranked #23 during one week

Wes Welker is ranked #24 the same week, projected to score .3 points less than Davis

If your opponent is playing Tom Brady, starting Welker is a no brainer. You're buying cheap Tom Brady goes off throwing 4 TDs to Welker insurance.

If we're talking about benching #5 Roy Williams for #24 Wes Welker, of course you don't do it. This comes into play only when your two options are projected to be close in scoring.

 

[-OZ-]

Points are points. At the end of the Monday night game you have X amount of points. Your opponent has Y amount of points. Regardless of which receiver got you those points, as long as X is greater than Y, you win. Hello....is this thing on?!

My Braylon played his Derek Anderson last week....I sure was glad all the TD's went to Braylon or I would have been BLOWN OUT. Lost anyways.

OMFG, I'm sensing some skulls denser than depleted uranium around here. Braylon E. got 29.70 points last week in my league. T.J. Housh got 36.50 Do you think that somehow the 29.70 points that Braylon got you are somehow 'magical' and thus greater than the 36.50 that T.J. would have gotten you?! Holy hallucinigenic drugs, Batman!

Some people sure are dense. Did ANYONE here say you should start Braylon, or a matchup over Housh? But perhaps over similarly ranked WRs?Last week:8 Dwayne Bowe KC vs CIN 0 0 0 6 78 0.6 16.29 Donald Driver GB vs WAS 0 0 0 7 75 0.5 16.110 Steve Smith CAR at ARI 1 4 0 6 74 0.5 15.611 Laveranues Coles NYJ vs PHI 0 0 0 6 76 0.5 15.412 Braylon Edwards CLE vs MIA 1 4 0 5 72 0.6 15.213 Joey Galloway TB vs TEN 0 0 0 6 65 0.5 14.314 Kevin Curtis PHI at NYJ 0 0 0 5 70 0.5 14.015 Jerricho Cotchery NYJ vs PHI 0 0 0 5 68 0.5 13.8I would have gone with Edwards over any of these except SS anyway, but matchup is a factor, to me anyway.

 

[SCT]

Points are points. At the end of the Monday night game you have X amount of points. Your opponent has Y amount of points. Regardless of which receiver got you those points, as long as X is greater than Y, you win. Hello....is this thing on?!

My Braylon played his Derek Anderson last week....I sure was glad all the TD's went to Braylon or I would have been BLOWN OUT. Lost anyways.

OMFG, I'm sensing some skulls denser than depleted uranium around here. Braylon E. got 29.70 points last week in my league. T.J. Housh got 36.50 Do you think that somehow the 29.70 points that Braylon got you are somehow 'magical' and thus greater than the 36.50 that T.J. would have gotten you?! Holy hallucinigenic drugs, Batman!

Yes, yes, I would be ######ed had I said anything about starting Braylon over TJ Housh....which I didn't. I was just glad I started him over other WR options that did not get 3 TD passes from my opponents QB. I understand that points are points, and that it's a lot of luck to know who to start. I didn't say it mattered if I started my WR vs. his QB, just that I was glad I had and that was an example of WR/QB. But I appreciate your sharing your professorial wisdom, you cerebral powerhouse.

 

[ready5]

I disagree. There is more to it than "just playing your best lineup".IF your team is better than your opponent it is to your advantage to play Curtis if he plays McNabb. Reason is if McNabb "goes off", odds are Curtis will have a good game. If McNabb stinks, odds are Curtis will stink and the rest of your better team should be fine.IF your team is worse than your opponent it is to your advantage to NOT play Curtis and hope McNabb stinks and your alternate receiver does well and you gain ground on the matchup.IF your teams are "about even", then play your best lineup.

No offense but that was one of the most ridiculous pieces of fantasy advice I've ever heard. Why would you only "play your best lineup" if your teams are even? No matter what the situation, you want to play whoever you think is going to get you the most points. There's no cancelling out or any of that jibberish. Say that you start Curtis over Moss, and that Curtis gets 2 TDs and Moss has 3 TDs. Would you be happy that you started Curtis over Moss because his TDs negated McNabb's?

I disagree with your disagreement for the reasons listed above. This is all about "Risk and Reward" scenerios and if you are playing a better team and you are the underdog, you may need to hope that BOTH McNabb stinks and your alternate receiver does well to give you a shot a winning. Think of it this way, if you are the underdog and McNabb stinks today, then Curtis will probably stink. Have you gained any ground on your better opponent? No!This would be better discussed as a conversation but the theory is legitimate.

maxwjom0, you're completely right... and guitarmonkiy, you're completely oversimplifying.since no one knows what exactly a player will produce, it's impossible to know what exactly your best roster should be in a given week. unless you have zero depth, it can be a smart move to mitigate some of your risk. beyond offsetting QBs with WRs (and vice versa), you can also offset RBs with defenses, etc. also, there's also the argument of starting the kicker (at least early in the season) from the same team as your QB or RB so that every scoring drive results in points for you. further, you need to consider your opponent in head-to-head... if they typically score high or have some boom/bust players, you might also need to start a boom/bust player of your own or do something to offset one of theirs. if they're a typically low-scoring team, then you might want to favor a steady player (e.g. garrard) so that you don't unnecessarily drop a game if several of your high-risk players bust all at once.people can complain all they want about how fantasy football is all luck. in my mind, there are many strategic things you can do to play risk/reward in your favor... a little tougher in redraft or total points leagues perhaps, but still worth considering.

 

[ready5]

Points are points. At the end of the Monday night game you have X amount of points. Your opponent has Y amount of points. Regardless of which receiver got you those points, as long as X is greater than Y, you win. Hello....is this thing on?!

My Braylon played his Derek Anderson last week....I sure was glad all the TD's went to Braylon or I would have been BLOWN OUT. Lost anyways.

OMFG, I'm sensing some skulls denser than depleted uranium around here. Braylon E. got 29.70 points last week in my league. T.J. Housh got 36.50 Do you think that somehow the 29.70 points that Braylon got you are somehow 'magical' and thus greater than the 36.50 that T.J. would have gotten you?! Holy hallucinigenic drugs, Batman!

try not assuming that you're the genius here and you might learn something to your benefit.if you've got housh and braylon, you obviously start housh. but that's not the point. depending on the rest of the circumstances, starting braylon (a player with a high ceiling) vs. anderson (a boom/bust player) is a good move. yes, it may have ended up that another similarly-tiered player outscored braylon... but then anderson likely would've scored less, too. further, we have no guarantee about the performance of any of these players... the thought is that if anderson puts up a 40+ point game that the rising tide (browns offense) will raise all boats (especially braylon) and the risk will be mitigated.sheesh... FBGs needs to do an article on how to position your roster/lineup to match your risk management needs.

 

[AnonymousBob]

I think it's a great strategy provided you're choosing between two wr's that expected produce about the same number of points. I wouldn't bench a stud for a some dud but if I had to choose between Lance Moore and Reggie Brown, my opinion would change. If your opponent had McNabb why WOULDN'T you play one of his wr's? Again, nobody is advocating bencing Randy Moss to play Amani Toomer but if you have comparable talent levels I think it is a brilliant strategy.

 

[Filthy]

Sorry that I came across harsh AND I didn't say anyone stated they would start Braylon over Housh. Those were two closely matched (points wise) receivers last week but Housh edged Edwards. My point there was that he would have lost regardless of which receiver got him the 29.70 points.

I'm not understanding how it matters what receiver gets you the points. At the end of the week, you still have X amount of points. Your opponent has Y amount of points.............

 

[guitarmonkiy]

Points are points. At the end of the Monday night game you have X amount of points. Your opponent has Y amount of points. Regardless of which receiver got you those points, as long as X is greater than Y, you win. Hello....is this thing on?!

My Braylon played his Derek Anderson last week....I sure was glad all the TD's went to Braylon or I would have been BLOWN OUT. Lost anyways.

OMFG, I'm sensing some skulls denser than depleted uranium around here. Braylon E. got 29.70 points last week in my league. T.J. Housh got 36.50 Do you think that somehow the 29.70 points that Braylon got you are somehow 'magical' and thus greater than the 36.50 that T.J. would have gotten you?! Holy hallucinigenic drugs, Batman!

This is exactly what I've been trying to get at!

 

[ready5]

Sorry that I came across harsh AND I didn't say anyone stated they would start Braylon over Housh. Those were two closely matched (points wise) receivers last week but Housh edged Edwards. My point there was that he would have lost regardless of which receiver got him the 29.70 points.I'm not understanding how it matters what receiver gets you the points. At the end of the week, you still have X amount of points. Your opponent has Y amount of points.............

look forwards instead of backwards... with hindsight, it's obvious which players should've been started. look at your lineup this week... can you say with 100% certainty that you know you started your optimal lineup? what about your opponent? is he starting any streaky players that sometimes turn in 40 point games? if so, what can you do to absorb the blow of that? it once again comes down to risk/reward... if you risk a few points by starting a suboptimal player that has the potential reward of mostly offsetting a player of his that might score big, then that's something to consider.none of this is cut and dried... but if you're already to the point of benching everyday starters for a scrub with a great matchup, you might as well throw the idea of offsetting your opponent into your decision process.

 

[Filthy]

I'm so glad I drafted Wayne and Housh. With their bye weeks gone, I don't have to look at their lineups.

 

[Christo]

There is more to it than "just playing your best lineup".

Actually, there isn't.

 

[-OZ-]

Sorry that I came across harsh AND I didn't say anyone stated they would start Braylon over Housh. Those were two closely matched (points wise) receivers last week but Housh edged Edwards. My point there was that he would have lost regardless of which receiver got him the 29.70 points.

I'm not understanding how it matters what receiver gets you the points. At the end of the week, you still have X amount of points. Your opponent has Y amount of points.............

Yes, and what we're discussing is how to best ensure X > Y, no matter what X and Y actually are.

 

[RoarinSonoran]

A. Always start your studs.

B.

Pick one.

 

[acme]

couldn't say if it is a good play or a bad play... it does seem to be the "safe play" though... if the QB goes off then you have a good shot at WR going off too then. although what if they both have a bad day.

in my league QBs are the high scorers- 6 pts for a passing TD and no penalty for INTs -- so if i feel i can "neutralize" the opposing QB with my WR i often will. its like trading pieces in chess, but each piece has a value: think of QB as the queen and the WR as the bishop. i'll trade my WR output for his QB output every time... the thinking may be messed-up, but the strategy has served me pretty well in my league for the last eleven years.

 

[Jimmy James]

One thing to mention is that this sort of "insurance" might not be such a good idea in all leagues. If a big hunk of your prize money is awarded to the top points scorer and you're trying to win that money, don't worry about these sorts of matchups at all.

 

[acme]

One thing to mention is that this sort of "insurance" might not be such a good idea in all leagues. If a big hunk of your prize money is awarded to the top points scorer and you're trying to win that money, don't worry about these sorts of matchups at all.

yes, good point. i'm speaking strictly from a H-2-H format, playing for the "W"if high points come into play then of course, you play your best possible players each week

 

[ready5]

There is more to it than "just playing your best lineup".

Actually, there isn't.

possibly a obviously you want to play your best lineup... but the point of this discussion is that no one knows what your best lineup should actually be. i think maxwjom0 was referring to the "always start your studs" strategy, in which case he's definitely right... occasionally it is a better strategy to start an offsetting player than one of your so-called studs. like i touched on before, if you're already to the point of setting your lineup based on NFL matchups, why not take that one step further and pay attention to your FF matchups as well?

 

[Jon_Moore]

I love this situation.

I won't bench T.O. for Curtis to offset Mcnabb, but I dang sure won't go out of my way to bench Curtis because I'm against Mcnabb.

It is my experience the #1 receiving option will usually come very close to the QB if not outproduce him. There is a bit of an "offset" factor.

Now, you've still got a QB, and he's still got a receiver, so you haven't really gotten a leg up, but it covers your butt if the QB goes crazy.

 

[J R]

I disagree. There is more to it than "just playing your best lineup".

IF your team is better than your opponent it is to your advantage to play Curtis if he plays McNabb. Reason is if McNabb "goes off", odds are Curtis will have a good game. If McNabb stinks, odds are Curtis will stink and the rest of your better team should be fine.

IF your team is worse than your opponent it is to your advantage to NOT play Curtis and hope McNabb stinks and your alternate receiver does well and you gain ground on the matchup.

IF your teams are "about even", then play your best lineup.

No offense but that was one of the most ridiculous pieces of fantasy advice I've ever heard. Why would you only "play your best lineup" if your teams are even? No matter what the situation, you want to play whoever you think is going to get you the most points. There's no cancelling out or any of that jibberish. Say that you start Curtis over Moss, and that Curtis gets 2 TDs and Moss has 3 TDs. Would you be happy that you started Curtis over Moss because his TDs negated McNabb's?

Because you're not clairvoyant.

 

[-OZ-]

I love this situation.

I won't bench T.O. for Curtis to offset Mcnabb, but I dang sure won't go out of my way to bench Curtis because I'm against Mcnabb.

It is my experience the #1 receiving option will usually come very close to the QB if not outproduce him. There is a bit of an "offset" factor.

Now, you've still got a QB, and he's still got a receiver, so you haven't really gotten a leg up, but it covers your butt if the QB goes crazy.

obviously depends on scoring, but unless there's a good 2 or 3 option: Brady, Palmer, Peyton, Kitna, and Bulger of old; I think this is right.

 

[SuperJohn96]

I disagree. There is more to it than "just playing your best lineup".

IF your team is better than your opponent it is to your advantage to play Curtis if he plays McNabb. Reason is if McNabb "goes off", odds are Curtis will have a good game. If McNabb stinks, odds are Curtis will stink and the rest of your better team should be fine.

IF your team is worse than your opponent it is to your advantage to NOT play Curtis and hope McNabb stinks and your alternate receiver does well and you gain ground on the matchup.

IF your teams are "about even", then play your best lineup.

No offense but that was one of the most ridiculous pieces of fantasy advice I've ever heard. Why would you only "play your best lineup" if your teams are even? No matter what the situation, you want to play whoever you think is going to get you the most points. There's no cancelling out or any of that jibberish. Say that you start Curtis over Moss, and that Curtis gets 2 TDs and Moss has 3 TDs. Would you be happy that you started Curtis over Moss because his TDs negated McNabb's?

I disagree with your disagreement for the reasons listed above. This is all about "Risk and Reward" scenerios and if you are playing a better team and you are the underdog, you may need to hope that BOTH McNabb stinks and your alternate receiver does well to give you a shot a winning. Think of it this way, if you are the underdog and McNabb stinks today, then Curtis will probably stink. Have you gained any ground on your better opponent? No!This would be better discussed as a conversation but the theory is legitimate.

There are people who get it, and there are people who don't. And this guy gets it.

I don't understand why everytime this topic comes up, people don't realize (a) we aren't talking about starting Kevin Curtis over Randy Moss or Steve Smith, or whomever, and (b) that NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!

It's about giving you a BETTER CHANCE at an edge when deciding on players of similar projections.

People get so upset over this it's unbelievable. Sometimes it feels like I'm trying to convince someone the world isn't flat.

I might just give up trying, and be thankful I understand something that not too many people in FF do...and be thankful for the edge.

 

[PatrickT]

I don't ever set my lineup based on this. However, if it comes to a game where it's close, and I happen to have a WR against his QB from the same NFL team, I certainly feel a bit better about my chances.

Example. Going into MNF, I had Wayne going against Manning and I was up. I was pretty comfortable with that. But again, I wouldn't plan my lineup around it.

 

[turleyfan]

I never look at my opponent's lineup. Not until live scoring starts, anyway.

I guess if I need a 5th or 6th tiebreaker to decide between to seemingly identical plays, I might consider it. But it never seems to come to that.