Starting the Opposing QB's Receiver (1 Viewer)

[Ahmad Rashad]

Has anyone else ever been on the fence between 2 WR's and gone with the one that happens to be catching passes from your opponent's QB in order to neutralize the potential of that QB going off?

This week, I'm on the fence between Cotchery and Santonio Holmes at WR4 (start 4 WR's in a 10-team league). In our matchup for first place, my opponent is starting Roethlisberger at QB, so in case Pitt ends up throwing a lot, and because of Cotchery's injured shoulder, I'm leaning toward starting Holmes.

Holmes hasn't had nearly as many targets as Cotchery this year because Pitt's usually had a lead and hasn't had to throw much, but I'm not sure how much Pitt will need to throw against Arizona. I could see Arizona bringing Warner in with a no huddle offense and scoring some points, like they did at Baltimore last week, which might force Pitt to keep airing it out at least some all game. In that case, I think if Roethlisberger throws a lot, Holmes will get a lot of targets with Ward out injured, and he should score high if Roethlisberger scores high. If Pitt ends up running the ball all game, I won't mind because that means my opponent's QB won't score much and I'll probably win on the strength of the rest of my team.

I think I have a stronger lineup elsewhere, so I don't want to see Roethlisberger/Holmes go off and end up costing me the victory if I keep Holmes on the bench. Even though I'd probably start Cotchery if my opponent didn't have Roethlisberger, in this case I think starting Holmes will give me greater odds of winning our matchup.

I've used this strategy in the past at times, but this week seems like the best example of this strategy. Has anyone else ever done this, and does it make sense?

 

[Big Dumb Ape]

I generally stick with the "start the players I think are going to score the most points" strategy.

 

[Slinger]

I generally stick with the "start the players I think are going to score the most points" strategy.

I never know the opposing owner's lineup until later on in the afternoon.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

I generally stick with the "start the players I think are going to score the most points" strategy.

I never know the opposing owner's lineup until later on in the afternoon.

I generally do, too, but when I'm on the fence like this week, a situation like this can tip the scale.I know my opponent will start Roethlisberger this week because his alternative is Leinart, and if he switches out because I'm starting Homes, I'd be very happy.

 

[Slinger]

I generally stick with the "start the players I think are going to score the most points" strategy.

I never know the opposing owner's lineup until later on in the afternoon.

I generally do, too, but when I'm on the fence like this week, a situation like this can tip the scale.I know my opponent will start Roethlisberger this week because his alternative is Leinart, and if he switches out because I'm starting Homes, I'd be very happy.

I like the fact that you're considering these things, but I can tell you from experience that he won't care that you're starting Holmes. I wish I knew where it was, but someone wrote a piece in this forum which basically states that it's never a good idea to concern yourself with starting opposing QB's WR.If you think Holmes is your best WR, go for him, but if you feel you have a better WR it's wise to go with him instead.

 

[Guinis72]

I also set my initial lineup without knowing who my opponent is starting. If I was on the fence between 2 players though, as the OP stated, and really felt like they were pretty even, I probably would go with the WR of my opponents QB just to make things interesting.

 

[delusional]

It works sometimes. If you have two wrs who are equal in weekly projections and points but one is the WR of the opposing teams QB..you lean towards that guy a bit. Also have to factor in match up and such but sometimes it works.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Has anyone else ever been on the fence between 2 WR's and gone with the one that happens to be catching passes from your opponent's QB in order to neutralize the potential of that QB going off?This week, I'm on the fence between Cotchery and Santonio Holmes at WR4 (start 4 WR's in a 10-team league). In our matchup for first place, my opponent is starting Roethlisberger at QB, so in case Pitt ends up throwing a lot, and because of Cotchery's injured shoulder, I'm leaning toward starting Holmes. Holmes hasn't had nearly as many targets as Cotchery this year because Pitt's usually had a lead and hasn't had to throw much, but I'm not sure how much Pitt will need to throw against Arizona. I could see Arizona bringing Warner in with a no huddle offense and scoring some points, like they did at Baltimore last week, which might force Pitt to keep airing it out at least some all game. In that case, I think if Roethlisberger throws a lot, Holmes will get a lot of targets with Ward out injured, and he should score high if Roethlisberger scores high. If Pitt ends up running the ball all game, I won't mind because that means my opponent's QB won't score much and I'll probably win on the strength of the rest of my team.I think I have a stronger lineup elsewhere, so I don't want to see Roethlisberger/Holmes go off and end up costing me the victory if I keep Holmes on the bench. Even though I'd probably start Cotchery if my opponent didn't have Roethlisberger, in this case I think starting Holmes will give me greater odds of winning our matchup.I've used this strategy in the past at times, but this week seems like the best example of this strategy. Has anyone else ever done this, and does it make sense?

Thanks for the feedback on my post. In this particular case, this strategy worked out very well. Cotchery ended up playing and doing very well, but Holmes ended up doing much better, with 2 TD's to boot. As I thought might happen, Warner came in and got Arizona a lead, forcing Pittsburgh to throw a lot rather than running all game as in previous weeks. My opponent racked up points on Roethlisberger's passing, but I got more from Holmes' receptions from him, which neutralized those points. I won't know for sure until tomorrow night's game, but this decision could make the difference in keeping me in first place.

 

[Slinger]

It worked because Holmes scored a lot, not because he has Big Ben.

 

[Jimmy James]

The obvious danger is that if you're playing in a league where points matter (as tiebreakers or for other reasons), you might be shooting yourself in the foot if you start a slightly worse player just to play the matchup against your fantasy opponent. It might work out for you in the week's matchup if both the QB and your WR stink, but it could put you behind where you would otherwise be in points.

I personally think that it's nice insurance to have in just the right situation, but you have to recognize that it can be costly insurance depending on your exact league format.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

It worked because Holmes scored a lot, not because he has Big Ben.

It also would have worked if Pitt kept a lead and ran all game, where Big Ben and Holmes wouldn't have scored very much. That's the point -- since my team was stronger elsewhere, I didn't want to lose because Big Ben ended up throwing more than expected. In head to head, the main objective is to score more points than your opponent, and in this particular case this strategy increased the odds that the objective would be achieved.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

The obvious danger is that if you're playing in a league where points matter (as tiebreakers or for other reasons), you might be shooting yourself in the foot if you start a slightly worse player just to play the matchup against your fantasy opponent. It might work out for you in the week's matchup if both the QB and your WR stink, but it could put you behind where you would otherwise be in points. I personally think that it's nice insurance to have in just the right situation, but you have to recognize that it can be costly insurance depending on your exact league format.

Agree, it's nice insurance in just the right situation. You don't want to start a "worse player" but rather use it when you're on the fence between 2 players. Of course if the player you start ends up scoring less than the alternative, it will hurt you in total points, but there should be a pretty good chance the player you start ends up scroing more than the alternative, as happened in this case.For a fairly simple example, if you had a small lead against your opponent heading into Monday night's game in a TD only league (all TD's worth 6 points), and your opponent had only Chad Johnson left while you had a choice between Tom Brady and Carson Palmer, it would make sense to increase your odds of winning by starting Palmer, even if you thought Brady might score more points. Chances are, if Johnson gets a TD, Palmer would also get a TD, so with your lead, you likely will win. If you start Brady instead, you may have higher odds of scoring more points, but you'd also have higher odds of losing your matchup. You want to win your matchup, which you can almost surely do in this case by starting Palmer. This same principle is why the strategy discussed in this thread increases your odds of winning your matchup in the right situation.

 

[Slinger]

It worked because Holmes scored a lot, not because he has Big Ben.

It also would have worked if Pitt kept a lead and ran all game, where Big Ben and Holmes wouldn't have scored very much. That's the point -- since my team was stronger elsewhere, I didn't want to lose because Big Ben ended up throwing more than expected. In head to head, the main objective is to score more points than your opponent, and in this particular case this strategy increased the odds that the objective would be achieved.

I think we're almost saying the same thing.If you have WR A and WR B who you think will almost score the exact same points, you'll go with WR B because your opponent's QB is throwing to him.I just wouldn't go with WR B if you have reasons to believe that WR A will score more than him. Either way, I'm glad it worked out for you.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

It worked because Holmes scored a lot, not because he has Big Ben.

It also would have worked if Pitt kept a lead and ran all game, where Big Ben and Holmes wouldn't have scored very much. That's the point -- since my team was stronger elsewhere, I didn't want to lose because Big Ben ended up throwing more than expected. In head to head, the main objective is to score more points than your opponent, and in this particular case this strategy increased the odds that the objective would be achieved.

I think we're almost saying the same thing.If you have WR A and WR B who you think will almost score the exact same points, you'll go with WR B because your opponent's QB is throwing to him.I just wouldn't go with WR B if you have reasons to believe that WR A will score more than him. Either way, I'm glad it worked out for you.

Whatever. As I said in the first line of the first post, "Has anyone else ever been on the fence between 2 WR's and gone with the one that happens to be catching passes from your opponent's QB in order to neutralize the potential of that QB going off?" I don't know how you got from that "if you think WR A will score more than WR B you should start WR B because your opponent's QB is throwing to him."

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

It's not officially FF season until the annual "canceling out" theory thread is started. I had week 3 in the pool myself.

Two factions inevitably emerge from this thread every year. One group always cites "risk management" in one way or another to argue for it. The other group, who apparently knows with certainty exactly which of their players will score the most points each and every week will frame their response as "I start the players who will score the most", and will mock and ridicule you for even bringing the concept up.

You'll never convince either group that they're wrong.

 

[massraider]

It's not officially FF season until the annual "canceling out" theory thread is started. I had week 3 in the pool myself.

Two factions inevitably emerge from this thread every year. One group always cites "risk management" in one way or another to argue for it. The other group, who apparently knows with certainty exactly which of their players will score the most points each and every week will frame their response as "I start the players who will score the most", and will mock and ridicule you for even bringing the concept up.

You'll never convince either group that they're wrong.

 

[Joe Kidd]

Not if it were a question to start T.O. yesterday, but....

My opponent's QB Romo - 339 yds passing 3 TD and 1 int. 3 rushes for 24 yds and a TD.

My team's #1 WR T.O.'s #'s - 3 catches for 33 yds.

So that didn't workout to well for me. Now I suppose if I were a Crayton owner AND STARTED him, it would've worked out okay.

 

[Tanner9919]

Has anyone else ever been on the fence between 2 WR's and gone with the one that happens to be catching passes from your opponent's QB in order to neutralize the potential of that QB going off?This week, I'm on the fence between Cotchery and Santonio Holmes at WR4 (start 4 WR's in a 10-team league). In our matchup for first place, my opponent is starting Roethlisberger at QB, so in case Pitt ends up throwing a lot, and because of Cotchery's injured shoulder, I'm leaning toward starting Holmes. Holmes hasn't had nearly as many targets as Cotchery this year because Pitt's usually had a lead and hasn't had to throw much, but I'm not sure how much Pitt will need to throw against Arizona. I could see Arizona bringing Warner in with a no huddle offense and scoring some points, like they did at Baltimore last week, which might force Pitt to keep airing it out at least some all game. In that case, I think if Roethlisberger throws a lot, Holmes will get a lot of targets with Ward out injured, and he should score high if Roethlisberger scores high. If Pitt ends up running the ball all game, I won't mind because that means my opponent's QB won't score much and I'll probably win on the strength of the rest of my team.I think I have a stronger lineup elsewhere, so I don't want to see Roethlisberger/Holmes go off and end up costing me the victory if I keep Holmes on the bench. Even though I'd probably start Cotchery if my opponent didn't have Roethlisberger, in this case I think starting Holmes will give me greater odds of winning our matchup.I've used this strategy in the past at times, but this week seems like the best example of this strategy. Has anyone else ever done this, and does it make sense?

another somebody-done-somebody wrong song..or , more likely, a WDIS.