The 2009 K Thread (1 Viewer)

[Mike Herman]

SAN FRANCISCO

Ricky Schmitt began the week kicking field goals with his fiancee. Now he'll be doing it on Sunday for the San Francisco 49ers. The 49ers signed Schmitt to a one-year contract Wednesday to replace regular kicker Joe Nedney, who has a strained hamstring and will miss this week's game against the Detroit Lions at Candlestick Park. Schmitt was with the 49ers in 2008 until the end of the preseason. San Francisco will be the 10th NFL team he has either played for or worked out with this year. Sunday will be the first time he has ever played in a regular-season NFL game. "This is the best Christmas present ever," Schmitt said. "I'm glad to be back. I've been waiting three years for this. I just kept working at it, keeping the faith, and now I'm here."

Schmitt entered the NFL as an undrafted rookie free agent with the Arizona Cardinals in 2007. He spent time on the practice squads of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Oakland Raiders in 2008. He was released by the Raiders in September. Schmitt got the call from the 49ers after Nedney was hurt on a kickoff late in the third quarter of last week's 27-13 loss to the Philadelphia Eagles. Schmitt had been working out at his old high school in his hometown of Virginia Beach, Virginia, with his fiancee Jennifer Gentile holding and retrieving balls for him. He had tryouts earlier this year with San Diego, Baltimore, Minnesota, Miami, Tampa Bay, Washington, Tennessee and the New York Jets.

He's a good fit for the 49ers despite his inexperience because, like Nedney, Schmitt kicks left-footed. Schmitt said he emulated Nedney when he was growing up while Nedney was playing for the Tennessee Titans. "I like the ball exactly the way Joe does, so Andy (Lee) doesn't have to worry about changing anything with the holding," Schmitt said. "There's a real familiarity here, and that helps a lot. It's just a really comfortable situation for me." Nedney, a 14th-year veteran, will miss his first game in five seasons with the 49ers. Nedney became the 42nd player in NFL history to score 1,000 career points earlier this season.

link

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Much like last weeks Nugent find, a late scratch before playing the lions.

49ers sign kicker Ricky Schmitt

The Associated Press

Posted: 12/23/2009 04:12:14 PM PST

Updated: 12/23/2009 04:12:15 PM PST

SANTA CLARA, Calif.—Ricky Schmitt began the week kicking field goals with his fiancee. Now he'll be doing it on Sunday for the San Francisco 49ers.

The 49ers signed Schmitt to a one-year contract Wednesday to replace regular kicker Joe Nedney, who has a strained hamstring and will miss this week's game against the Detroit Lions at Candlestick Park.

Schmitt was with the 49ers in 2008 until the end of the preseason. San Francisco will be the 10th NFL team he has either played for or worked out with this year.

Sunday will be the first time he has ever played in a regular-season NFL game.

"This is the best Christmas present ever," Schmitt said. "I'm glad to be back. I've been waiting three years for this. I just kept working at it, keeping the faith, and now I'm here."

Schmitt entered the NFL as an undrafted rookie free agent with the Arizona Cardinals in 2007. He spent time on the practice squads of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Oakland Raiders in 2008. He was released by the Raiders in September.

Schmitt got the call from the 49ers after Nedney was hurt on a kickoff late in the third quarter of last week's 27-13 loss to the Philadelphia Eagles.

Schmitt had been working out at his old high school in his hometown of Virginia Beach, Virginia, with his fiancee Jennifer Gentile holding and retrieving balls for him. He had tryouts earlier this year with San Diego, Baltimore, Minnesota, Miami, Tampa Bay, Washington, Tennessee and the

New York Jets.

He's a good fit for the 49ers despite his inexperience because, like Nedney, Schmitt kicks left-footed. Schmitt said he emulated Nedney when he was growing up while Nedney was playing for the Tennessee Titans.

"I like the ball exactly the way Joe does, so Andy (Lee) doesn't have to worry about changing anything with the holding," Schmitt said. "There's a real familiarity here, and that helps a lot. It's just a really comfortable situation for me."

Nedney, a 14th-year veteran, will miss his first game in five seasons with the 49ers. Nedney became the 42nd player in NFL history to score 1,000 career points earlier this season.

———

 

[thecardiackid]

You'd need some serious stones to roll w/ this guy. Even w/ this matchup.

I had just dropped cundiff for nedney last night, and I don't think I can do it in a SB.

Anyone got a good forecast on the weather / wind?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

http://www.fftoday.com/stats/fantasystats....sort_order=DESC

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

similarily I am playing grahm over nugent (though considering hedging as opponent has Warner/Fitz AND cardinals D.

 

[Pooh Tong and Nemo]

Schmitt looked like poop in practice today. Guy kicks these knuckleballs that barely get 15-20 ft off the ground. There has to be better options out there.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

oh I don't know him from adam. But the lions have let up tons of short kicks (our di only decent in the red zone it seems.) and usually 4+XPs too

 

[Mike Herman]

"I had $11 in my bank account before I got out here." - 49ers kicker Ricky Schmitt http://bit.ly/6jD3h8 #NFL 4 minutes ago from TweetDeck

Cowboys kicker Shaun Suisham prefers the football placed at a different angle from that of his predecessor, Nick Folk. http://bit.ly/5J8ZWU 6 minutes ago from TweetDeck

"I can't sit and dwell on it or it's just going to keep creeping up." - Green Bay Packers kicker Mason Crosby http://bit.ly/6Bx62X #NFL 8 minutes ago from TweetDeck

 

[Mike Herman]

RT @clevelanddotcom: This Day in Browns History: Lou Groza's FG gives Cleveland Browns their first NFL championship. http://bit.ly/4OoywX about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

Kickin' it over the holidays: Barth family follows its kickers (Connor and Casey) http://bit.ly/5wQq6E #NFL #NCAA about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

New Orleans Saints head coach Sean Payton praises kicker John Carney for role http://bit.ly/8p659s #NFL about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

 

[gheemony]

I was wondering if it is a good strategy to start the kicker from the same team as your opponent's QB, assuming your other choice at kicker is equally good (or even marginally better)? In a 4 point per pass TD league, the outcomes I see:

1. QB throw pass TD: 4 pt for other team, 1 pt for you. You have effectively cut the value of pass TDS by 1 pt.

2. Drive within FG range, pass TD attempts fail, FG made. You get 3 pts (maybe 4 or 5). Opponent gets zero. A potential 6 pt swing for you each time.

The worst case scenario is a 4 pass TD game where opponent gets 16 pts for TDS and you only get 4 for XPs.

If the whole team has a bad game, you both suffer, but I'd rather have a bad game from my kicker than a bad game from my QB.

Unless of course you could predict that your other kicker would do better. But it's so random, how can you know?

 

[gheemony]

Has anybody researched whether there is an advantage to starting the kicker form the team of your opponent's QB? seems like so possible advantages.

 

[Mike Herman]

Has anybody researched whether there is an advantage to starting the kicker form the team of your opponent's QB? seems like so possible advantages.

Haven't researched anything regarding that. I've never been a fan of altering my "strongest" lineup to counter the opponents lineup. Plus, messing with your kicker can only lead to bad times.

 

[GiantsRule]

I was wondering if it is a good strategy to start the kicker from the same team as your opponent's QB, assuming your other choice at kicker is equally good (or even marginally better)? In a 4 point per pass TD league, the outcomes I see:1. QB throw pass TD: 4 pt for other team, 1 pt for you. You have effectively cut the value of pass TDS by 1 pt.2. Drive within FG range, pass TD attempts fail, FG made. You get 3 pts (maybe 4 or 5). Opponent gets zero. A potential 6 pt swing for you each time.The worst case scenario is a 4 pass TD game where opponent gets 16 pts for TDS and you only get 4 for XPs.If the whole team has a bad game, you both suffer, but I'd rather have a bad game from my kicker than a bad game from my QB.Unless of course you could predict that your other kicker would do better. But it's so random, how can you know?

This is just another variation of the cancellation theory which does not work in any circumstance.You can and talk about how cliche it is, but fantasy football really is as simple as playing the best players who you think will score you the most points every single week.Sorry to disappoint you. Good luck in the championship.

 

[pmark]

In general I agree that you don't pay attention to canceling out your opponent and to play your best players, but if you truly feel that both opinions are equal then I would go with the canceling opinion.

I did this last week with my kickers. I started Hartley b/c my opponent had Brees. My other kicker was Kaeding and I felt that both of them were equals. I too thought that if Brees went off then I would at least cut into his points with Hartley and and I would be willing to have a bad kicker day for a bad QB day.

 

[zoobird]

'Cancellation' is just a way of slightly lower the variance in scores for those players. That's a good thing if you think your team is better than your opponent's. It's a bad thing if your opponent has a better team.

 

[GiantsRule]

'Cancellation' is just a way of slightly lower the variance in scores for those players. That's a good thing if you think your team is better than your opponent's. It's a bad thing if your opponent has a better team.

Call it what you want. It doesn't work.

 

[zoobird]

'Cancellation' is just a way of slightly lower the variance in scores for those players. That's a good thing if you think your team is better than your opponent's. It's a bad thing if your opponent has a better team.

Call it what you want. It doesn't work.

If your opponent has a worse team than you, then it very, very, very slightly reduces his chance beating you. In typical league formats, the impact is really never enough for it to affect who you should play.

 

[Drop]

Do you have any more info on Ricky Schmitt? What kind of leg does he have? Accurate, powerful? Clutch? What kind of athlete is he in general? Has he played any other positions? Injury history? How is his kickoff game?

 

[thammond]

In general I agree that you don't pay attention to canceling out your opponent and to play your best players, but if you truly feel that both opinions are equal then I would go with the canceling opinion.I did this last week with my kickers. I started Hartley b/c my opponent had Brees. My other kicker was Kaeding and I felt that both of them were equals. I too thought that if Brees went off then I would at least cut into his points with Hartley and and I would be willing to have a bad kicker day for a bad QB day.

I did a similiar thing last week. My kicker had been Rackers who was injured. It seemed to me that Kris Brown for Hou was about the best kicker/matchup available and my opponent had Schaub and Andre Johnson. It worked out OK as Schaub only had one TD, Johnson did not get a TD and Brown kicked 3 FG and 1 XP. Schaub and Johnson ended up with a lot of points, but so did my kicker. I ended up winning. Routed for incomplete passes especially in the red zone!

 

[J R]

I was wondering if it is a good strategy to start the kicker from the same team as your opponent's QB, assuming your other choice at kicker is equally good (or even marginally better)? In a 4 point per pass TD league, the outcomes I see:

1. QB throw pass TD: 4 pt for other team, 1 pt for you. You have effectively cut the value of pass TDS by 1 pt.

2. Drive within FG range, pass TD attempts fail, FG made. You get 3 pts (maybe 4 or 5). Opponent gets zero. A potential 6 pt swing for you each time.

The worst case scenario is a 4 pass TD game where opponent gets 16 pts for TDS and you only get 4 for XPs.

If the whole team has a bad game, you both suffer, but I'd rather have a bad game from my kicker than a bad game from my QB.

Unless of course you could predict that your other kicker would do better. But it's so random, how can you know?

This is just another variation of the cancellation theory which does not work in any circumstance.You can and talk about how cliche it is, but fantasy football really is as simple as playing the best players who you think will score you the most points every single week.

Sorry to disappoint you. Good luck in the championship.

I know picking on these kinds of arguments is way too easy and there are tons of these threads, but it always amazes me when someone makes this argument here, because the reason it's wrong is implicit in that really old essay on VBD written by Joe. It seems like it should be elementary reading before posting in the so-called shark pool.

 

[gheemony]

In general I agree that you don't pay attention to canceling out your opponent and to play your best players, but if you truly feel that both opinions are equal then I would go with the canceling opinion.I did this last week with my kickers. I started Hartley b/c my opponent had Brees. My other kicker was Kaeding and I felt that both of them were equals. I too thought that if Brees went off then I would at least cut into his points with Hartley and and I would be willing to have a bad kicker day for a bad QB day.

Funny, my choice is similar. I have Kaeding and Hartley. Opponent has Brees. Hartley is more highly ranked/projected by Herman, Dodds, and others because they play TB. The team matchup is nearly dead-even, so no favorite. I'm looking for solid reasons to make a choice, but may just go with my gut.

 

[Nugget]

This is just another variation of the cancellation theory which does not work in any circumstance.

That is a horrible statement. Things in an NFL game don't happen in a vacuum. Please point to any game this seaon where the number of TD passes thrown did not equal # of TD passes caught. Or where there where more XP attmepts than TD's.TIA.

 

[GiantsRule]

I was wondering if it is a good strategy to start the kicker from the same team as your opponent's QB, assuming your other choice at kicker is equally good (or even marginally better)? In a 4 point per pass TD league, the outcomes I see:

1. QB throw pass TD: 4 pt for other team, 1 pt for you. You have effectively cut the value of pass TDS by 1 pt.

2. Drive within FG range, pass TD attempts fail, FG made. You get 3 pts (maybe 4 or 5). Opponent gets zero. A potential 6 pt swing for you each time.

The worst case scenario is a 4 pass TD game where opponent gets 16 pts for TDS and you only get 4 for XPs.

If the whole team has a bad game, you both suffer, but I'd rather have a bad game from my kicker than a bad game from my QB.

Unless of course you could predict that your other kicker would do better. But it's so random, how can you know?

This is just another variation of the cancellation theory which does not work in any circumstance.You can and talk about how cliche it is, but fantasy football really is as simple as playing the best players who you think will score you the most points every single week.

Sorry to disappoint you. Good luck in the championship.

I know picking on these kinds of arguments is way too easy and there are tons of these threads, but it always amazes me when someone makes this argument here, because the reason it's wrong is implicit in that really old essay on VBD written by Joe. It seems like it should be elementary reading before posting in the so-called shark pool.

Again, I'm not looking to get into another debate on this because the result is always the same. But if you set your lineup according to your opponent's instead of just playing your best players, you will lose more often than you win. It's overthinking your lineup which may be fine in a random week 3 matchup, but not in the championship.

Here's a challenge to you: Show me an example where the cancellation theory, in any form, actually worked. Forget your lengthy essays or MENSA math diagrams, or lame statements like "I started Robert Meachem and my opponent started Drew Brees. I cancelled out his points ... and won by 50." Show me actual proof where it worked.

Explain an actual real-life scenario where you were able to cancel out points of your opponent vs. just playing your best possible lineup and I'll never argue against it again.

 

[gheemony]

Has anybody researched whether there is an advantage to starting the kicker form the team of your opponent's QB? seems like so possible advantages.

Haven't researched anything regarding that. I've never been a fan of altering my "strongest" lineup to counter the opponents lineup. Plus, messing with your kicker can only lead to bad times.

Even when "messing with your kicker" means putting in Hartley for Kaeding? Do I sit Hartley even though he's number one on your list and kicking indoors? Kaeding's been money for my team.Better question: any concerns about Kaeding at TEN? Weather? Field conditions?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

RT @clevelanddotcom: This Day in Browns History: Lou Groza's FG gives Cleveland Browns their first NFL championship. http://bit.ly/4OoywX about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

Kickin' it over the holidays: Barth family follows its kickers (Connor and Casey) http://bit.ly/5wQq6E #NFL #NCAA about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

New Orleans Saints head coach Sean Payton praises kicker John Carney for role http://bit.ly/8p659s #NFL about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

If NO wins the championship, would Carney get a ring?

 

[Chunky Soup]

RT @clevelanddotcom: This Day in Browns History: Lou Groza's FG gives Cleveland Browns their first NFL championship. http://bit.ly/4OoywX about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

Kickin' it over the holidays: Barth family follows its kickers (Connor and Casey) http://bit.ly/5wQq6E #NFL #NCAA about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

New Orleans Saints head coach Sean Payton praises kicker John Carney for role http://bit.ly/8p659s #NFL about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

If NO wins the championship, would Carney get a ring?

...why would he?

 

[Mike Herman]

Has anybody researched whether there is an advantage to starting the kicker form the team of your opponent's QB? seems like so possible advantages.

Haven't researched anything regarding that. I've never been a fan of altering my "strongest" lineup to counter the opponents lineup. Plus, messing with your kicker can only lead to bad times.

Even when "messing with your kicker" means putting in Hartley for Kaeding? Do I sit Hartley even though he's number one on your list and kicking indoors? Kaeding's been money for my team.Better question: any concerns about Kaeding at TEN? Weather? Field conditions?

What I meant by "messing with the kicker" is playing one that you think will score less than another, but that happens to counter an opponents player. I do advocate changing starting kickers based on the weekly matchup.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

RT @clevelanddotcom: This Day in Browns History: Lou Groza's FG gives Cleveland Browns their first NFL championship. http://bit.ly/4OoywX about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

Kickin' it over the holidays: Barth family follows its kickers (Connor and Casey) http://bit.ly/5wQq6E #NFL #NCAA about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

New Orleans Saints head coach Sean Payton praises kicker John Carney for role http://bit.ly/8p659s #NFL about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

If NO wins the championship, would Carney get a ring?

...why would he?

for playing in a certain number of games on a championship winning team? I don't know how they give them out. That's why I asked.

 

[Nugget]

Explain an actual real-life scenario where you were able to cancel out points of your opponent vs. just playing your best possible lineup and I'll never argue against it again.

Here is a small, real life example that I'll be using this week. I can choose between Eli Manning and Vince Young at QB this week. According to MFL, Young is a 1.4 pt better play. According to Dodds, Eli is a .5 better play. According to Bloom, Young is the favorite by 1.1 points. I'd say it is a toss up.I'm the favorite in the game, and my opponent is starting Hakeem Nicks and no Titans players.For my opponent to have a good chance at beating me, Hakeem Nicks has to have a good game. If he has a good game, Eli has to have a decent game as well (barring injury). As the favorite, it makes sense for me to start Eli, so even if Nicks has two TD catches, Eli will have at least two TD passes. If Eli throws no TD's, Nicks didn't catch any and I am still the favorite. I'm lowering my risk of losing by keeping the players tied together no matter how they actually perform.If he benches Nicks and goes with a different player, I may swap to Vince Young.

 

[PoolShark]

I know picking on these kinds of arguments is way too easy and there are tons of these threads, but it always amazes me when someone makes this argument here, because the reason it's wrong is implicit in that really old essay on VBD written by Joe. It seems like it should be elementary reading before posting in the so-called shark pool.

Please explain how the argument is wrong based on that VDB article...

 

[GiantsRule]

Explain an actual real-life scenario where you were able to cancel out points of your opponent vs. just playing your best possible lineup and I'll never argue against it again.

Here is a small, real life example that I'll be using this week. I can choose between Eli Manning and Vince Young at QB this week. According to MFL, Young is a 1.4 pt better play. According to Dodds, Eli is a .5 better play. According to Bloom, Young is the favorite by 1.1 points. I'd say it is a toss up.I'm the favorite in the game, and my opponent is starting Hakeem Nicks and no Titans players.For my opponent to have a good chance at beating me, Hakeem Nicks has to have a good game. If he has a good game, Eli has to have a decent game as well (barring injury). As the favorite, it makes sense for me to start Eli, so even if Nicks has two TD catches, Eli will have at least two TD passes. If Eli throws no TD's, Nicks didn't catch any and I am still the favorite. I'm lowering my risk of losing by keeping the players tied together no matter how they actually perform.If he benches Nicks and goes with a different player, I may swap to Vince Young.

I meant an example where it actually has worked in the past, but I'll take this and say...it's still majorly flawed.Eli is your QB. Hicks is his WR. Even though on the field one "feeds" the other, it doesn't work in fantasy. Your opponent still has his QB who could outscore Eli no matter what he does. You still have your #2 (or #3) WR vs. Hicks. Just because Eli throws to Hicks doesn't cancel anything out. He's getting points for his WR while you're getting points for your QB. If he has a QB who puts up 40, who cares if Eli got 15 or even 20? You didn't mitigate risk.Further, your example is one of overthinking. Eli does not have a solid matchup this week at home vs. Carolina who is still strong against the run (they almost shut down Tom Brady 2 weeks ago). Meanwhile, Vince Young is playing for his playoff life at home against a team that can be passed and run on. In fact, the only real risks with Vince is injury and Chris Johnson ripping 80 yard runs all day (which he won't do to the Chargers). Even as a bit of a risk, he's a stronger play than Eli (and that's coming from a hardcore Giants fan!) So why would you bench a solid option at QB in the championship week for a QB who alternates between hot and cold performances week-to-week just to try and offset the performance of your opponent's secondary receiver?Finally, let's say your league prevented you from seeing your opponent's roster until kickoff (as one of my leagues does). Who would you play Sunday? Whoever you could honestly say would get the start regardless of who your opponent plays is who you should go with on Sunday.

 

[DropKick]

Well... I play in a league with 6 points per passing TD, so If Brees were to throw for 350 yards and 6 scores, I should be stoked to get 6 PATs from Hartley... "effectively canceling out" one TD!

Aye Carumba!

 

[J R]

I know picking on these kinds of arguments is way too easy and there are tons of these threads, but it always amazes me when someone makes this argument here, because the reason it's wrong is implicit in that really old essay on VBD written by Joe. It seems like it should be elementary reading before posting in the so-called shark pool.

Please explain how the argument is wrong based on that VDB article...

Sure. From the article:
In Summary, if you only remember two things, remember this:

1. The object of the game is not to score a ton of points, but to outscore the opponent.

Implicit here is that those are two different things.

 

[GiantsRule]

I know picking on these kinds of arguments is way too easy and there are tons of these threads, but it always amazes me when someone makes this argument here, because the reason it's wrong is implicit in that really old essay on VBD written by Joe. It seems like it should be elementary reading before posting in the so-called shark pool.

Please explain how the argument is wrong based on that VDB article...

Sure. From the article:
In Summary, if you only remember two things, remember this:

1. The object of the game is not to score a ton of points, but to outscore the opponent.

Implicit here is that those are two different things.

Nobody's arguing that. How does that tie in to the faulty cancellation theory? Are we supposed to read more into this statement like it's an episode of The Sopranos?If that's the case, much like the finale was simply a dislikeable Italian family eating onion rings, fantasy football is simply putting forth the best roster possible regardless of who your opponent starts.

 

[Nugget]

Explain an actual real-life scenario where you were able to cancel out points of your opponent vs. just playing your best possible lineup and I'll never argue against it again.

Here is a small, real life example that I'll be using this week. I can choose between Eli Manning and Vince Young at QB this week. According to MFL, Young is a 1.4 pt better play. According to Dodds, Eli is a .5 better play. According to Bloom, Young is the favorite by 1.1 points. I'd say it is a toss up.I'm the favorite in the game, and my opponent is starting Hakeem Nicks and no Titans players.For my opponent to have a good chance at beating me, Hakeem Nicks has to have a good game. If he has a good game, Eli has to have a decent game as well (barring injury). As the favorite, it makes sense for me to start Eli, so even if Nicks has two TD catches, Eli will have at least two TD passes. If Eli throws no TD's, Nicks didn't catch any and I am still the favorite. I'm lowering my risk of losing by keeping the players tied together no matter how they actually perform.If he benches Nicks and goes with a different player, I may swap to Vince Young.

I meant an example where it actually has worked in the past, but I'll take this and say...it's still majorly flawed.Eli is your QB. Hicks is his WR. Even though on the field one "feeds" the other, it doesn't work in fantasy. Your opponent still has his QB who could outscore Eli no matter what he does. You still have your #2 (or #3) WR vs. Hicks. Just because Eli throws to Hicks doesn't cancel anything out. He's getting points for his WR while you're getting points for your QB. If he has a QB who puts up 40, who cares if Eli got 15 or even 20? You didn't mitigate risk.Further, your example is one of overthinking. Eli does not have a solid matchup this week at home vs. Carolina who is still strong against the run (they almost shut down Tom Brady 2 weeks ago). Meanwhile, Vince Young is playing for his playoff life at home against a team that can be passed and run on. In fact, the only real risks with Vince is injury and Chris Johnson ripping 80 yard runs all day (which he won't do to the Chargers). Even as a bit of a risk, he's a stronger play than Eli (and that's coming from a hardcore Giants fan!) So why would you bench a solid option at QB in the championship week for a QB who alternates between hot and cold performances week-to-week just to try and offset the performance of your opponent's secondary receiver?Finally, let's say your league prevented you from seeing your opponent's roster until kickoff (as one of my leagues does). Who would you play Sunday? Whoever you could honestly say would get the start regardless of who your opponent plays is who you should go with on Sunday.

Would it make any difference to you if my opponent was starting S. Smith, Hicks, and Kevin Boss?

 

[DropKick]

I know picking on these kinds of arguments is way too easy and there are tons of these threads, but it always amazes me when someone makes this argument here, because the reason it's wrong is implicit in that really old essay on VBD written by Joe. It seems like it should be elementary reading before posting in the so-called shark pool.

Please explain how the argument is wrong based on that VDB article...

Sure. From the article:
In Summary, if you only remember two things, remember this:

1. The object of the game is not to score a ton of points, but to outscore the opponent.

Implicit here is that those are two different things.

And within VBD context, the point is position scarcity (not cancellation). So, for example, a TE who is far above his peers is more valuable than a QB who may score more points than the TE but not necessarily many more points than other QBs.There are limited scenarios where cancellation (probably better called correlation) makes sense. Unfortunately, this idea is often misapplied and butchered.

 

[Philo]

Every freaking week there is one of these threads.

Can we, for the love of God, just pin one of 'em? One post... Maurile's variance explanation, and done with it.

 

[GiantsRule]

Explain an actual real-life scenario where you were able to cancel out points of your opponent vs. just playing your best possible lineup and I'll never argue against it again.

Here is a small, real life example that I'll be using this week. I can choose between Eli Manning and Vince Young at QB this week. According to MFL, Young is a 1.4 pt better play. According to Dodds, Eli is a .5 better play. According to Bloom, Young is the favorite by 1.1 points. I'd say it is a toss up.I'm the favorite in the game, and my opponent is starting Hakeem Nicks and no Titans players.For my opponent to have a good chance at beating me, Hakeem Nicks has to have a good game. If he has a good game, Eli has to have a decent game as well (barring injury). As the favorite, it makes sense for me to start Eli, so even if Nicks has two TD catches, Eli will have at least two TD passes. If Eli throws no TD's, Nicks didn't catch any and I am still the favorite. I'm lowering my risk of losing by keeping the players tied together no matter how they actually perform.If he benches Nicks and goes with a different player, I may swap to Vince Young.

I meant an example where it actually has worked in the past, but I'll take this and say...it's still majorly flawed.Eli is your QB. Hicks is his WR. Even though on the field one "feeds" the other, it doesn't work in fantasy. Your opponent still has his QB who could outscore Eli no matter what he does. You still have your #2 (or #3) WR vs. Hicks. Just because Eli throws to Hicks doesn't cancel anything out. He's getting points for his WR while you're getting points for your QB. If he has a QB who puts up 40, who cares if Eli got 15 or even 20? You didn't mitigate risk.Further, your example is one of overthinking. Eli does not have a solid matchup this week at home vs. Carolina who is still strong against the run (they almost shut down Tom Brady 2 weeks ago). Meanwhile, Vince Young is playing for his playoff life at home against a team that can be passed and run on. In fact, the only real risks with Vince is injury and Chris Johnson ripping 80 yard runs all day (which he won't do to the Chargers). Even as a bit of a risk, he's a stronger play than Eli (and that's coming from a hardcore Giants fan!) So why would you bench a solid option at QB in the championship week for a QB who alternates between hot and cold performances week-to-week just to try and offset the performance of your opponent's secondary receiver?Finally, let's say your league prevented you from seeing your opponent's roster until kickoff (as one of my leagues does). Who would you play Sunday? Whoever you could honestly say would get the start regardless of who your opponent plays is who you should go with on Sunday.

Would it make any difference to you if my opponent was starting S. Smith, Hicks, and Kevin Boss?

Nope. Why should it? If Eli is the better play, I'm starting him. If not, Vince gets the start.

 

[GiantsRule]

I know picking on these kinds of arguments is way too easy and there are tons of these threads, but it always amazes me when someone makes this argument here, because the reason it's wrong is implicit in that really old essay on VBD written by Joe. It seems like it should be elementary reading before posting in the so-called shark pool.

Please explain how the argument is wrong based on that VDB article...

Sure. From the article:
In Summary, if you only remember two things, remember this:

1. The object of the game is not to score a ton of points, but to outscore the opponent.

Implicit here is that those are two different things.

And within VBD context, the point is position scarcity (not cancellation). So, for example, a TE who is far above his peers is more valuable than a QB who may score more points than the TE but not necessarily many more points than other QBs.There are limited scenarios where cancellation (probably better called correlation) makes sense. Unfortunately, this idea is often misapplied and butchered.

Again, show me one of these limited scenarios where cancellation/correlation makes sense. I keep hearing how it's legit, yet nobody can provide the details.

 

[Nugget]

Does it make any difference to you if my opponent was starting S. Smith, Hicks, and Kevin Boss?

Nope. Why should it? If Eli is the better play, I'm starting him. If not, Vince gets the start.

Would you agree that Smith, Hicks, and Boss point totals are dependent on Eli Manning barring injury? If those three have a great game, Manning was probably spectacular and would be a better start than Young.If Manning has a poor game, the combined efforts of those three players will probably be bad as well. But assuming we start 8 players, I have 7 left and he only has 5. I should have the advantage.I don't know who the better play is until after the game. That is why hedging my risk can be beneficial.

 

[Mike Herman]

Kickology blog: Christmas Kicks http://kickology.blogspot.com/2009/12/christmas-kicks.html less than a minute ago from TweetMeme

Redskins' Graham Gano has got the leg; Can he keep the job? http://bit.ly/5C6WJG #NFL 25 minutes ago from TweetDeck

New 49ers kicker Ricky Schmitt a picture of perseverance http://bit.ly/65c1Td #NFL 26 minutes ago from TweetDeck

Fan vote gives Vikings' Ryan Longwell a leg up in bid for first Pro Bowl http://bit.ly/4yMfYi #NFL 27 minutes ago from TweetDeck

"If they'd let me be stubborn about it, I'd be trying for this week. But I think we'll shift to next week." Neil Rackers http://bit.ly/6DXo2U 30 minutes ago from TweetDeck

Two days waiving K John Carney, Saints bring him back as a consultant http://bit.ly/5pPKud #NFL about 13 hours ago from TweetDeck

RT @fbguys: Giants | Lawrence Tynes practices Thursday: New York Daily News, reports NY Giants PK Lawrence... http://bit.ly/8xzsSH about 18 hours ago from TweetDeck

 

[PoolShark]

I know picking on these kinds of arguments is way too easy and there are tons of these threads, but it always amazes me when someone makes this argument here, because the reason it's wrong is implicit in that really old essay on VBD written by Joe. It seems like it should be elementary reading before posting in the so-called shark pool.

Please explain how the argument is wrong based on that VDB article...

Sure. From the article:
In Summary, if you only remember two things, remember this:

1. The object of the game is not to score a ton of points, but to outscore the opponent.

Implicit here is that those are two different things.

You're taking his quote out of context, though in your defense it isn't worded very well. Being an article on VDB, it should read more like "With each draft pick, the object is not to take the player who will score the most points, but the player who will outscore your opponant by the most points." But his point is made within the context of drafting, not within the context of a single fantasy football game. Irregardless, I'd argue that the entire purpose of VDB IS to score the most possible points. It's just that in order to do that, you sometimes need to draft a player who will score 50 points earlier than a player who will score 100. If you apply VDB perfectly, you WILL score a ton of points... in fact, you'll score the most possible points.

 

[dabommers]

It comes down to luck. Whether you draft the best players, pickup the K for your opponents QB, use the best VBD strategy, have the best waiver wire pickups of the week, you can't control refs who get paid to fix calls, etc ... it all comes down to your luck. The casual FF owner like you and I don't know the outcome. That's what makes it fun and frustrating. All the stratrgies in the world do not change the fact that you can draw the toughest H2H and get the most points scored against you or draw the easiest and make it to the Super Bowl without much skill at all. Again, the casual FF owner like you and I don't know the outcome. That's what makes it fun !

 

[dollarbill13]

You would need to find a situation where there is a high correlation between his player's scoring and your player scoring. You'd also want to find a situation where he has a player with a very high upside and very low downside. If you think the only way he's gonna beat you is if that one player absolutely goes off, then it might make sense. Let's say it all comes down to MNF in your game and you are up 10. . The MNF game is 49ers vs. Falcons and your opponent has Crabtree going and you have a choice of Alex Smith or Matt Ryan.

Projected stats per Dodds:

Ryan 16

Smith 12

Crabtree 8

The only way for your opponent to win is if Crabtree outscores your QB by 10. If there is a high correlation between QB scoring and WR scoring, there might only be a 5% chance that Crabtree outscores Smith but a 25% chance that Crabtree outscores Ryan. In this case you'd want to go with Smith instead of Ryan, despite that Ryan is projected for more points.

 

[thecardiackid]

Do you have any more info on Ricky Schmitt? What kind of leg does he have? Accurate, powerful? Clutch? What kind of athlete is he in general? Has he played any other positions? Injury history? How is his kickoff game?

anyone?i had just pulled Nedney off the WW, then he's out. anyone brave enough to roll w/ Schmitt this week? The matchup is solid w/ DET being the league's worst vs. points to kickers.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

After they waived their 45 year old kicker, John Carney...the coach, GM, whoever was smart enough to not leave him out there so another team could sign him and bring him in; for the sole reason of likely trying to extract information he would obviously have about their offense and game plans.

Instead the Saints hired Carney as a football consultant for the rest of the year. Brilliant on their part and certainly one of those things you have to give some kudos out to.

 

[Mark87]

Maybe Carney would rather be a consultant than keep his career going?

 

[Mark87]

I think the cancellation theory works for quarterbacks and wide receivers

 

[PoolShark]

I think the cancellation theory works for quarterbacks and wide receivers

I don't see how it could work for anyone other than QBs & WRs/TEs. Even then, only in very certain specific situations, as cited in the post by dollarbill. I definitely don't see it working with QBs & kickers, which was the original topic of the thread. The bottom line is that you still want the QB who is going to score the most points for your team, irregardless what WRs & TE the other team is starting. In the example mentioned throughout this thread, I don't want Eli Manning in my lineup throwing 3 TDs to Smith, Nicks & Boss, if I have V Young on my bench throwing for 50 more yards & 4 TDs. If you have 2 QBs who you honestly have projected to be dead even this wk, and your decision is a total toss up, I guess I can follow the logic of starting Eli in the above example. But if you think V Young is going to score ONE more point that Eli, you should start him. The object is to score as many points as you can in order to give you the best chance at winning, because the guys in your opponent's lineup are going to score or not no matter what you do.

 

[Couch Potato]

After they waived their 45 year old kicker, John Carney...the coach, GM, whoever was smart enough to not leave him out there so another team could sign him and bring him in; for the sole reason of likely trying to extract information he would obviously have about their offense and game plans.

Instead the Saints hired Carney as a football consultant for the rest of the year. Brilliant on their part and certainly one of those things you have to give some kudos out to.

Too bad Childress didn't grab him for that purpose for a possible NFC title game.He would have been Chili consultant Carney