Two WR's from same team? (1 Viewer)

[LionsPride]

Guys - I have been presented with a trade opportunity which would result in my having Boldin added to my roster that already has Fitzgerald. I don't want to tuen this into an assistant coach topic - just curious if having both the Arizona WR's could pay dividends. The most recent examples of somelike this I can think of would have been Holt/Bruce, Harrison/Wayne or Moss/Carter. Has anybody done this before and if so what kind of results did you get? Thanks & please don't flame me if this should have been in the Assistant Coach.

 

[MLBrandow]

No, because your weeks will be hit or miss.

Granted, they will be more hit than miss, but you are looking at almost sure losses if the passing game is shut down.

Unless you can trade one of the WRs as well, I'd say no.

For me, I try to get the best value I can, but one of the important factors I consider is diversification of teams.

I try not to have more than 2 guys from the same team. An obvious exception is the handcuff rule.

 

[LionsPride]

No, because your weeks will be hit or miss.

Granted, they will be more hit than miss, but you are looking at almost sure losses if the passing game is shut down.

Unless you can trade one of the WRs as well, I'd say no.

For me, I try to get the best value I can, but one of the important factors I consider is diversification of teams.

I try not to have more than 2 guys from the same team. An obvious exception is the handcuff rule.

Thanks for the input, I also could probably get Regie Wayne instead of Boldin which would be a good compliment to Peyton who I have @ Qb - Thanks again - anybody else??

 

[diesel7982]

No, because your weeks will be hit or miss.

Granted, they will be more hit than miss, but you are looking at almost sure losses if the passing game is shut down.

Unless you can trade one of the WRs as well, I'd say no.

For me, I try to get the best value I can, but one of the important factors I consider is diversification of teams.

I try not to have more than 2 guys from the same team. An obvious exception is the handcuff rule.

Id like to see some statistics applied to this.Drinen?

 

[MLBrandow]

It is just common sense. If your team looks like this:

QB: Peyton Manning

RB: Edgerrin James

WR: Marvin Harrison

WR: Reggie Wayne

You're going to lose more than if you had

QB: Carson Palmer

RB: Rudi Johnson

WR: Torry Holt

WR: Donald Driver

(IMO, arguably very similar players)

For the simple fact that when Palmer is shut down, it doesn't mean that Holt and Driver are shut down.

However, if Manning is shut down, by default you lose WR1 and WR2 production.

 

[Gandalf]

This came up recently in one of my posts. Wannabee found the article written by Drinen. I'll try to find it. Basically, the stats suggest that having 2 really good WRs from the same team actually provides more consistency (except on the bye week) and could be beneficial to the fantasy team.

I'm off to find the link...

 

[hove]

Fellow in our league (12 team) last year drafted the following WR's:

Johnson, Chad - 3.01

Boldin, Anquan - 5.01

Fitzgerald, Larry - 8.12

Houshmandzadeh, T.J. - 10.12

Last year was though for him when picking WR's to play each week, but in the end he rode Johnson and Fitz to the title. I wouldn't say it's the best plan to have wr's on the same team (and in this case two sets from two teams) but in this case it worked out.

-Hove

 

[Kit Fisto]

Redraft or dynasty?

If dynasty, I'd say go for it. Fitz and Boldin won't play together forever.

Used to own Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell. Worked out OK for me.

 

[wannabee]

No, because your weeks will be hit or miss.

Granted, they will be more hit than miss, but you are looking at almost sure losses if the passing game is shut down.

Unless you can trade one of the WRs as well, I'd say no.

For me, I try to get the best value I can, but one of the important factors I consider is diversification of teams.

I try not to have more than 2 guys from the same team.  An obvious exception is the handcuff rule.

Id like to see some statistics applied to this.Drinen?

I had it in the wannabee thread in acf. Here you gor. Doug Drinen had an article in 2002, with a follow up, about WR consistency when both are on the same time.

Here is the first article. Next post to include the follow up.

http://www.footballguys.com/drinennotebook3.cfm

Drinen's Notebook: September 19, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a question that gets asked a lot, both before and during the season:

Is it a bad idea to have two starting WRs on your fantasy team come from the same NFL team?

I did a very brief and inconclusive study on this a couple of years ago, and have been meaning to revisit the topic ever since. I finally got around to doing that study right, and I'm here to report the results. I'll let the cat out of the bag and state my conclusion first, because it's such an interesting one.

To the extent that it matters (which is not much), starting two WRs from the same NFL team is the safe play, not the risky one. Same-team WR duos have historically been more consistent, as a pair, than different-team WR duos of similar quality. That conclusion, as usual, comes with a caveat or two, and raises a few other questions, which I'll detail at the end of the article.

To give you a feel for how I set up the study, I'll open with an example that's near and dear to my heart: the Torry Holt/Isaac Bruce combo, a combo that formed the starting WR unit on my keeper league team for 2000 and 2001 (not anymore though, I dealt Bruce in the offseason). In 2001, the Holt/Bruce pair's week-by-week fantasy point totals looked like this:

T Holt (178) 9 2 17 13 8 4 13 8 15 14 13 7 6 9 32 10

I Bruce (149) 9 20 4 8 5 4 24 10 13 8 5 5 27 1 8 1

TOTAL 17 22 21 21 13 8 37 18 28 21 17 12 32 9 40 10

That's their scores by week, along with the weekly total in the bottom row. The number in parentheses is the player's yearly fantasy point total. And the question is: Was the Holt/Bruce duo, as a duo, consistent? The answer is: they were more consistent than some duos and less consistent than others. For the purposes of this discussion, it only makes sense to compare them to duos like this one:

J Horn (181) 5 5 4 8 7 24 22 15 10 21 20 9 18 1 4

I Bruce (149) 9 4 8 5 4 24 10 13 8 5 5 27 1 8 1

TOTAL 13 9 12 13 11 48 32 28 17 26 25 36 18 9 5

Here I've thrown out both Horn's and Bruce's bye weeks, which is why you only see 15 scores there. But the point is, Horn and Holt had nearly identical fantasy point totals for the season, so Horn/Bruce vs. Holt/Bruce is a fair comparison. So which line of totals is more consistent: the Horn/Bruce line or the Holt/Bruce line? Using standard deviation as my measure of consistency, the answer is: the Holt/Bruce pair (standard deviation: 9.3) was more consistent than the Horn/Bruce pair (standard deviation: 11.6).

On the other hand.....

Qadry Ismail and Isaac Bruce had about the same total production last year, so we could also compare Holt/Bruce to Holt/Ismail. In this case, the Holt/Bruce team comes out looking less consistent:

T Holt (178) 9 2 17 13 8 4 13 8 15 14 13 6 9 32 10

Q Ismail (148) 9 6 10 15 8 15 15 19 7 4 14 11 3 4 3

TOTAL 17 8 28 29 16 19 28 27 22 18 26 17 12 36 13

Standard Deviation: 7.4

So I looked at all pairings of Holt or Bruce with a receiver whose fantasy point total was within 10 points of the other (also, I'm only including WRs who played 16 games). There turned out to be 10 such pairs, including the two you've already seen. Here they are:

T Holt (178) 9 2 17 13 8 4 13 8 15 14 13 7 6 9 32 10

I Bruce (149) 9 20 4 8 5 4 24 10 13 8 5 5 27 1 8 1

TOTAL 17 22 21 21 13 8 37 18 28 21 17 12 32 9 40 10

Standard Deviation: 9.3

COMPARABLE DUOS:

T Brown (174) 20 2 5 11 15 4 15 12 24 20 4 5 3 8 6

I Bruce (149) 9 20 4 8 5 24 10 13 8 5 5 27 1 8 1

TOTAL 29 22 8 19 19 28 25 25 31 25 9 31 4 15 6

Standard Deviation: 9.0

T Holt (178) 9 2 13 8 4 13 8 15 14 13 7 6 9 32 10

J Morton (140) 11 16 4 13 17 7 6 15 7 1 6 7 3 10 15

TOTAL 20 18 17 21 22 21 14 30 21 14 12 13 11 42 25

Standard Deviation: 7.7

T Holt (178) 9 2 17 13 4 13 8 15 14 13 7 6 9 32 10

P Price (141) 6 14 0 16 1 21 12 20 2 2 11 7 7 14 5

TOTAL 15 16 17 30 5 34 20 35 16 14 17 12 16 47 15

Standard Deviation: 10.5

T Holt (178) 9 2 17 13 8 13 8 15 14 13 7 6 9 32 10

D Jackson (157) 2 1 13 5 4 18 16 5 6 8 16 9 3 23 19

TOTAL 10 2 30 18 12 31 24 20 20 20 23 14 11 56 29

Standard Deviation: 12.0

T Holt (178) 9 2 17 13 4 13 8 15 14 13 7 6 9 32 10

K McCardell (147) 1 5 8 10 3 12 12 9 8 8 15 6 10 19 15

TOTAL 9 6 25 23 8 25 20 24 22 21 22 12 18 52 25

Standard Deviation: 10.4

R Moss (188) 3 8 10 11 8 7 11 16 37 3 20 22 26 3 2 2

I Bruce (149) 9 20 4 8 5 4 24 10 13 8 5 5 27 1 8 1

TOTAL 12 29 13 18 13 11 35 25 50 10 25 27 53 4 10 3

Standard Deviation: 14.5

J Horn (181) 5 5 4 8 7 24 22 15 10 21 20 9 18 1 4

I Bruce (149) 9 4 8 5 4 24 10 13 8 5 5 27 1 8 1

TOTAL 13 9 12 13 11 48 32 28 17 26 25 36 18 9 5

Standard Deviation: 11.6

T Holt (178) 9 2 17 13 8 4 13 8 15 13 7 6 9 32 10

L Coles (140) 11 2 6 9 20 2 10 4 10 12 2 4 6 12 17

TOTAL 20 4 23 23 28 6 23 12 25 25 9 10 15 44 27

Standard Deviation: 10.1

J Smith (185) 25 9 9 7 5 18 12 7 12 12 18 11 12 5 12

I Bruce (149) 9 20 4 8 4 24 10 13 8 5 5 27 1 8 1

TOTAL 34 29 12 15 9 42 22 20 20 16 23 38 13 13 13

Standard Deviation: 9.8

T Holt (178) 9 2 17 13 8 4 13 8 15 14 13 6 9 32 10

Q Ismail (148) 9 6 10 15 8 15 15 19 7 4 14 11 3 4 3

TOTAL 17 8 28 29 16 19 28 27 22 18 26 17 12 36 13

Standard Deviation: 7.4

In seven of the 10 cases, Holt/Bruce was more consistent than the comparable pair, which indicates that, at least in this instance, the same-team pair is a more conservative, more consistent, less risky tandem.

But one case does not a study make. Oh no. I searched the database for all same-team pairs of WRs since 1995 such that both WRs played 16 games and both WRs finished among the top 20 receivers in terms of total fantasy points. I found, including Holt/Bruce 2001, 20 such pairs, from Conway/Graham of the 1995 Bears to Johnson/Chrebet of the 1998 Jets to Brown/Rice of the 2001 Raiders. Here is the full list:

TM Year WR #1 Rank WR #2 Rank

----------------------------------------------------------

min 1998: Randy Moss 1 Cris Carter 7

det 1996: Herman Moore 6 Brett Perriman 20

jax 1997: Jimmy Smith 11 Keenan McCardell 17

den 2000: Rod Smith 4 Ed McCaffrey 8

oak 1997: Tim Brown 8 James Jett 14

min 1999: Randy Moss 2 Cris Carter 3

det 1997: Herman Moore 7 Johnnie Morton 18

atl 1998: Terance Mathis 6 Tony Martin 16

min 2000: Randy Moss 1 Cris Carter 10

chi 1995: Curtis Conway 12 Jeff Graham 19

jax 2001: Jimmy Smith 6 Keenan McCardell 19

det 1995: Herman Moore 3 Brett Perriman 8

oak 2001: Tim Brown 9 Jerry Rice 10

ram 2000: Isaac Bruce 6 Torry Holt 7

ram 2001: Torry Holt 8 Isaac Bruce 17

nyj 1998: Keyshawn Johnson 5 Wayne Chrebet 13

min 1995: Cris Carter 4 Jake Reed 13

sfo 1998: Terrell Owens 3 Jerry Rice 8

min 1996: Cris Carter 7 Jake Reed 9

min 1997: Cris Carter 4 Jake Reed 16

Then I took each of those 20 pairs and looked for comparable pairs just like we did with Holt and Bruce. Some of the duos had numerous comps, while others had few. Some of these duos turned out to be very consistent (Carter/Reed 96, for example) and some of were not (Brown/Jett 97). The following table summarizes the results. In it, the "More" column indicates the number of instances in which the same-team tandem was more consistent than the comparable pair and "Less" indicates the number of cases where the same-team tandem was less consistent. If you're interested in viewing the week-by-week scores for each and every set of comps, they're right here.

Comparable

Team Pairs More Less

--------------------------------------------

min 1996 9 9 0

jax 2001 8 8 0

min 1995 3 3 0

det 1995 1 1 0

det 1996 11 10 1

min 1998 5 4 1

min 2000 4 3 1

oak 2001 9 7 2

sfo 1998 5 4 1

det 1997 11 7 4

ram 2001 10 7 3

nyj 1998 8 5 3

jax 1997 10 6 4

min 1999 2 1 1

ram 2000 2 1 1

min 1997 10 4 6

atl 1998 7 3 4

den 2000 4 1 3

oak 1997 10 2 8

chi 1995 4 0 4

On 13 occasions, the same-team pair was more consistent than the majority of its comparables, and only 5 times was the same-team pair less consistent than the majority of its comps (and two "ties" makes 20).

Takeaway lessons

You're free to examine the above data and methodology and conclude what you may. But here, inside a neat little box, is what I'm taking from all this:

If you've got two good WRs, do not worry if they come from the same NFL squad. At all. Not even a little. I would certainly stop short of advocating that you actively try to acquire same-team receiving pairs, but if anything, this kind of stacking will make your team more consistent, not less. And if your team is strong in general (which I'm assuming it is for most of you reading this), consistency is a good thing.

Finally, a few things to ponder:

1. The if clause that leads off the above paragraph is a crucial one. The study I ran focused only on pairs of WRs that were known after-the-fact to be top-20 WRs. If you're sitting on Peerless Price and Eric Moulds, for instance, it's not clear right now whether this study applies to them or not. If they both turn in good years, then there's no reason to be worried about pairing them. But the question is: might the presence of Moulds actually inhibit Price from turning in a good year (and/or vice versa)? In other words, this study seems applicable to cases where you've got two no-questions-asked top-20 WRs. That's not a particularly rare situation, but the glory days of Moss/Carter and Rice/Owens are gone. Bruce/Holt still looks like a strong pair, and there are tons of duos with the potential, including some of the old lions like Smith/McCaffrey, but it's tough to say right now which of them will emerge.

2. Will we get similar results for other kinds of indirect pairings, like QB/RB or RB/WR? I suppose that, for completeness' sake, I should run the numbers on QB/WR pairs as well, but I'd be stunned if that didn't turn out the way we expect it to. Unless I hear complaints, I'll address those questions next week.

 

[Musesboy]

This came up recently in one of my posts. Wannabee found the article written by Drinen. I'll try to find it. Basically, the stats suggest that having 2 really good WRs from the same team actually provides more consistency (except on the bye week) and could be beneficial to the fantasy team.

I'm off to find the link...

That makes some sense.Ward/Burress produced well a few years ago. The combination of two good receivers on the same team can give better consistency than two from different teams.

 

[Duckboy]

This came up recently in one of my posts.  Wannabee found the article written by Drinen.  I'll try to find it.  Basically, the stats suggest that having 2 really good WRs from the same team actually provides more consistency (except on the bye week) and could be beneficial to the fantasy team.

I'm off to find the link...

Pretty sure this is correct. It actually stabilizes the points; you don't get the highs where both go off, but you also don't get the low's where they both get shut down.Edit: too slow...

 

[wannabee]

And, here is the follow up:

The follow up article looks at RB/WR consistency and RB/QB consistency. Here is the follow up article:

http://www.footballguys.com/drinennotebook4.cfm

Drinen's Notebook: Thursday, September 26, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll open with a table of contents, so you can skip to whatever you consider the good stuff (if any):

Reader mail: a reader wrote in with some interesting thoughts on last week's column, so I'll discuss them here.

Same team QB-RB and RB-WR pairs: I promised last week to take a look at this.

Random notebook entries: just some quick thoughts about the season's first three weeks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In last week's column, I discussed the advisability of having two starting WRs from the same NFL team. I concluded that doing so does not introduce any extra risk; quite the opposite, in fact.

A reader named Joseph Lorenc wrote in, however, with a thought that's worth mentioning. While my study showed that if two receivers from the same NFL team did well, then using them as a tandem on your fantasy team is not risky. But there may be a risk on a higher level. Namely, the chances of them failing to perform well might be tied together.

Here's a study that would determine how much (if any) of a concern this is:

Look at all teams who had a pair of top 20 WRs in the preseason consensus rankings.

Track each of the two receivers through the season and give him a "+" if he outperforms expectations and a "-" if he underperforms.

If we see significantly more "++" and "--" pairs than we see "+-" and "-+" pairs, then that would say that there is risk, on the season level, in drafting a same-team pair.

Frankly, I have no idea how the above study would turn out. But I'd be interested to find out. I'll add it to the growing list of studies I'd like to do, but can't because I don't have enough data on preseason rankings. Fortunately, people like Michael Zangrilli and others are working to change this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, last week I also promised to check on QB-RB pairs and RB-WR pairs, and that's what I'll do now.

I used the same methodology I used last week, with one minor exception (which you can read about on the data page), so I won't bore you with details. Here's what I found:

Since 1995, there have been 35 instances where a team's top RB and top WR both played 16 games and both finished in the top 20 at their positions. In 32 of those 35 cases, the same-team RB-WR pair was a more consistent game-to-game than the majority of their comparable pairs. In most cases, they were overwhelmingly more consistent.

Since 1995, there have been 22 instances where a team's QB has been in the top 10 and their top RB has been in the top 20 (again, with both playing 16 games). In 18 of the 22 cases, the same-team RB-QB pair was more consistent than the majority of their comparable pairs.

Here are the data sets: [RB-WR] [QB-RB]

These two results are stronger than the WR-WR results from last week, and I also believe they're more applicable. Same-team pairs of top-20 WRs are not rare, but they're not that common. Elite same-team QB-RB pairs and RB-WR pairs are all over the place. Further, I think that, since QB-RB pairs and RB-WR pairs encompass both the passing and running games of a team, as opposed to WR-WR pairs (which only involve one aspect of the offense), they are less risky in the sense we talked about in the opening paragraphs. For example, if the coaching staff decides to go more conservative, that hurts your WR, but helps your RB. If a team's top WR gets injured, that may hurt your QB, but it may help your RB (more red-zone looks, or more receptions).

So, while I've backtracked a little bit on the strong statements I made last week about WR-WR pairs, I'm going to make those same strong statements about QB-RB and WR-RB pairs: do not worry at all about having a same-NFL-team QB-RB or WR-RB pair. If anything, they will make your team more, not less, consistent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Random Notebook Entries

You knew Donovan McNabb was having a good year, but did you know he has the highest first-three-week fantasy point total since 1995 (and possibly for awhile before that, but my game-by-game data only goes back to 95)? Here are the top 10:

First 3 Wks End-of-season

Name Year G FPT rank

----------------------------------------------------------

Donovan McNabb 2002 3 97

Steve Young 1995 3 95 10

Tom Brady 2002 3 87

Drew Bledsoe 1997 3 86 5

Brett Favre 1996 3 84 1

Donovan McNabb 2001 3 83 5

Brian Griese 2000 3 81 11

Kurt Warner 2001 3 78 2

Brett Favre 2002 3 74

Neil O'Donnell 1997 3 74 16

Priest Holmes is having a similarly "historic" start, but no WR is doing anything special at this point:

First 3 Wks End-of-season

Name Year G FPT rank

----------------------------------------------------------

Emmitt Smith 1995 3 89 1

Marshall Faulk 2000 3 89 1

Priest Holmes 2002 3 87

Stephen Davis 1999 3 82 4

Ricky Williams 2002 3 71

Marshall Faulk 2001 3 70 1

Terrell Davis 1998 3 68 1

Tiki Barber 2000 3 67 13

LaDainian Tomlinson 2001 3 66 7

Lamar Smith 2002 3 62

First 3 Wks End-of-season

Name Year G FPT rank

----------------------------------------------------------

Marvin Harrison 1999 3 78 1

Jerry Rice 1995 3 64 1

Jimmy Smith 2000 3 62 12

Tim Brown 1997 3 58 8

Rod Smith 2001 3 56 4

Irving Fryar 1995 3 49 21

Cris Carter 1997 3 47 4

Keyshawn Johnson 1998 3 46 5

Peerless Price 2002 3 46

Marty Booker 2002 3 46

Much has been made of the abundance of impressive early-season performances by rookie WRs this year (this Jason Wood article of a couple weeks ago discusses the issue nicely, for instance). It has also not gone unnoticed that the rookie RBs have been terrible. Here is a table showing the total number of fantasy points scored by all rookie RBs in the first three weeks of each season since 1995 (along with the top 5 rookie RBs through three weeks):

Total

Year FPT Top 5

-----------------------------------------

2002 131

Clinton Portis 21

T.J. Duckett 13

Jonathan Wells 13

Marcel Shipp 13

Najeh Davenport 12

2001 221

LaDainian Tomlinson 66

Correll Buckhalter 27

Travis Henry 23

Michael Bennett 21

Kevan Barlow 21

2000 162

Mike Anderson 45

Ron Dayne 25

Frank Moreau 13

Thomas Jones 13

Travis Prentice 12

1999 119

Edgerrin James 45

Ricky Williams 12

J.J. Johnson 11

Rob Konrad 10

Sedrick Irvin 10

1998 145

Robert Edwards 42

Fred Taylor 31

Curtis Enis 22

Ahman Green 20

Jon Ritchie 8

1997 177

Tiki Barber 45

Warrick Dunn 41

Jay Graham 21

Antowain Smith 17

Troy Davis 13

1996 218

Karim Abdul-Jabbar 58

Eddie George 33

Stanley Pritchett 22

Ki-Jana Carter 20

Lawrence Phillips 18

1995 187

Terrell Davis 53

Rashaan Salaam 31

Curtis Martin 27

Napoleon Kaufman 21

Rodney Thomas 19

A couple of things to notice here. First, look at the top rookie (through three weeks) of each season and 2002 sticks out like a sore thumb. This year's top rookie has 21 fantasy points. All the other years have at least one back over 40. Second, note that the total rookie production was slightly lower in 1999 than it has been in 2002, but there were fewer games being played then. On a per-game basis, I'm not sure which year is worse.

Here is a brief snapshot of the WR numbers, to see just how anomalous this rookie class has been so far:

1st 3 weeks

tot fant pts

Year by rook WRs

--------------------

2002 216

2001 103

2000 199

1999 114

1998 95

1997 35

1996 107

1995 134

The 2000 crop was actually quite close to this group through three weeks. They (the 2000 crop) did not turn out well, for whatever that's worth.

Also for what it's worth, I do not in any way believe that this season of great rookie WR production and terrible rookie RB production is the beginning of a trend. Time will tell, of course, but good rookie RBs have existed since the dawn of time. And production by rookie WRs has been steadily declining for the last three decades. I'll need to see a lot more than one year's worth of data to believe that this is anything but a blip.

I'm always hesitant to proclaim players to be "undervalued" or "overvalued" because value, to steal a phrase, is in the eye of the beholder. And I have no idea what your league's beholders of Derrick Mason or Ike Hilliard have to say about it. But I do believe this: at this point in the year, players with a lot of yards and few TDs are likely to be undervalued.

For instance, Derrick Mason currently sits as the #31 WR in fantasyland. But in terms of total yardage, he ranks 10th. That differential of 21 is the highest such differential among WRS and, to me, it means that Mason might represent good value right now. The ability to rack up yards is a much more sustainable skill than the ability to score TDs, which tend to come and go more sporadically. If your league's Mason owner is getting antsy because his 5th-round pick is only WR 31 right now, see if you can pry Mason from him. The TDs will come.

With that, here are lists of the WRs and RBs with the biggest differential between their yardage rank and their overall rank. There's a good chance that some of these guys are undervalued by some of the folks in your league right now.

--ranks--

Name YD FPT Differential

------------------------------------------------

Derrick Mason 10 31 21

Darrell Jackson 15 36 21

Ike Hilliard 20 40 20

Antonio Bryant 25 42 17

Isaac Bruce 30 47 17

Keyshawn Johnson 29 46 17

Torry Holt 4 17 13

Amani Toomer 3 14 11

Terry Glenn 24 32 8

Rod Gardner 21 29 8

Antonio Freeman 22 30 8

--ranks--

Name YD FPT Differential

------------------------------------------------

Najeh Davenport 39 49 10

Curtis Martin 38 48 10

Ahman Green 8 17 9

Corey Dillon 12 20 8

James Allen 30 38 8

Michael Pittman 18 26 8

Jonathan Wells 36 44 8

T.J. Duckett 35 43 8

 

[wannabee]

and the 3rd in the series:

Another Drinen gem was an article trying to find the predictability of RBs/WRs/QBs using data from previous year and using data from week one -> to predict weeks 2-17.

http://www.footballguys.com/drinennotebook2.cfm

When the dust settles on the first Sunday of the NFL year, almost all of us are disappointed by the performance of at least one of the players we drafted. Disappointment can turn to panic, and panic can cause us to make decisions we might later regret.

This column is an effort to step back, count to ten, and take an objective and unemotional look at what week one performance generally means in the grand scheme of things. So step away from the ledge, at least for long enough to read this. There may still be hope.

Running Backs

I took a look at all running backs from 1995-2001 who fit the following profile:

1. top 20 RB from the previous year;

2. got at least one carry in week one;

That amounted to 127 running backs. I looked at each of their week one performances and sorted them from best (Emmitt Smith 1995) to worst (Marcus Allen 1997) in terms of fantasy points. Then I cut the list in half. The guys at the top of the list were said to have had a "good week one" and the guys at the bottom were labelled as "bad week one."

So what happened to these two groups for the rest of the year?

----- fantasy points ---

Prev yr Wk 1 Wk 2-17

----------------------------------------------------------

Avg RB who had "good week one" 214 17 184

Avg RB who had "bad week one" 204 5 137

The first column (previous year fantasy points) is there to demonstrate that the two groups had been roughly comparable the previous year, with the "good week one" group being just a shade better. The second column tells you the obvious: that the "good week one" group did better in week one. But the interesting thing is that it didn't stop there. The "good week one" group, on average, went on to outscore the "bad week one" backs by 47 points over the rest of the season.

According to the raw data, a bad start by your star RB just might be something to be concerned about.

A glance through the complete data set, though, should ease your mind a bit. In particular, you'll notice that a lot of the "bad week one" backs who went on to bomb for the rest of the year were marginal backs for whom the dropoff was actually quite predictable. Even though Rodney Thomas had a pretty good season in 1996, for example, everyone knew that he didn't have a job in 1997. The fact that he followed up his unproductive week one with an unproductive season tells us nothing about what to expect from Corey Dillon this year. And the bottom of the list seems to be populated with similar stories: Derrick Loville, Ironhead Heyward, Lewis Tillman, etc.

I'm definitely abandoning my promise to be objective, and possibly using too much hindsight, but my impression is that, even though their numbers were similar in the previous year, the "good week one" backs were actually significantly better than the "bad week one" backs. And I'd bet that that explains the difference in the week 2-17 performances of the two groups. My general impression is that most of the backs who had bad week ones did about as well as they were expected to do (barring inury).

But don't take my word for it. Browse the data set yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Wide Receivers

This is a much easier case. It's clear that an established WR's week one perforance should not affect your opinion of him. Using the same methodology, we have the following:

----- fantasy points ---

Prev yr Wk 1 Wk 2-17

----------------------------------------------------------

Avg WR who had "good week one" 182 16 136

Avg WR who had "bad week one" 170 4 124

The "good week one" WRs were, on average, 12 points better than the "bad week one" WRs in the previous year, and they were 12 points better over the rest of the test year.

So my default opinion is that, for WRs, a bad week one is absolutely no cause for concern. I may override the default in special cases, but I'd make sure I had a very compelling reason to downgrade a WR after week one.

Just to highlight one quick example, consider the Big 3 [TM] receivers: Terrell Owens, Marvin Harrison and Randy Moss. All three had uninspiring openers last week. But note that they are, as a group, ahead of where they were at this time a year ago.

Big 3 combined numbers in week 1:

Year REC YD TD fantasy points

-------------------------------------------------

2001 12 156 0 16

2002 14 133 2 25

Quarterbacks

With QBs, I only considered those who were top 10 the previous year, rather than the top 20. Other than that, the methodology was the same for QBs as it was for RBs and WRs.

----- fantasy points ---

Prev yr Wk 1 Wk 2-17

----------------------------------------------------------

Avg QB who had "good week one" 298 24 231

Avg QB who had "bad week one" 285 10 162

This looks like the RB data, but is more extreme. The previous year, the two groups were, at least statistically, very comparable. Their post-week-one performance though, differed by an average of 69 points. That's a serious chunk.

Can I wave my hands and explain this away like I did with the RBs? I'm not so sure. It's far from universal, but a quick pass through the list indicates to me that a bad week one has foreshadowed an unexpectedly bad season in a lot of cases. Again, I'll invite you to examine the data and draw your own conclusions, but I am not going to offer any reassuring words to Jeff Garcia owners (a group to which I belong, by the way).

One last thing

I can't resist asking one last question:

If you took all these piles of data to a numbers-whiz who knew absolutely nothing about football (many people fitting that exact description reside in offices right down the hall from mine), what would he or she conclude about the importance of week one? In particular, there are specific statistical tests that can be run to answer questions like "is week one performance a significant indicator of week 2-17 performance?" and "is week one performance a better indicator than last year's performance?"

Those tests, obviously, are blind to things like 40 times and injuries on the offensive line. Thus, they fail to take into account lots of relevant factors. On the other hand, they fail to include the biases that we all bring to whatever we're trying to analyze. And yes, we all do bring biases, some of which we're aware of and some of which we're not. I don't pretend that some sophisticated statistical tests are going to answer anything definitively. They simply provide one more viewpoint.

That said, here is what the number-savvy footballaphobe would tell you about the data.

For running backs, previous year fantasy points and week one fantasy points are both unquestionably useful in predicting week 2-17 points. Roughly, they are equally useful.

For wide receivers, previous year points are useful in predicting week 2-17 points. But, if you know last season's points, then week one points are not useful at all in predicting week 2-17 points.

For quarterbacks, week one fantasy points are useful in predicting week 2-17 points. But, if you know week one points, incorporating last season's points does nothing to improve your predictions of week 2-17 points.

It's interesting that you get three very different answers for the three positions.

 

[wannabee]

I will add that I am thankful to Doug to give me those articles. I thought those were very good reading. They are from a few years ago and I had remembered them .... barely.

Thanks again, Doug.

 

[Doug Drinen]

I had both Bruce and Holt on a keeper league team for many years. As the above-cited study suggests, they were pretty consistent as a duo.

One thing I will tell you though, if you decide to do this trade, be prepared to hate Bryant Johnson more than you've ever hated anyone in your life.

FOX music....

Let's go to JB for an update....

Warner drops back to pass at around the 30 yard line.....

Touchdown........

Bryant Johnson

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I swear, if Ricky Proehl had been murdered back in those days, I would have been a prime suspect. Other than that, I say go for it.

 

[imeimex]

Last year in my point per reception leagues the combo of Fitzgerald/Boldin in games that they were not injured combined for the following point totals:

Wk 1: 45.7

Wk 2: 33.5

Wk 3: 23.5

Wk 4: 48.9

Wk 5: 59.1

Wk 11: 52.8

Wk 12: 35.4

Wk 13: 53.5

Wk 14: 27.4

Wk 15: 47.9

Wk 16: 42.9

Wk 17: 36.1

Granted Larry Fitzgerald finished first in points for Wide Receivers and Boldin had amongst the most points per game for receivers which will probably not happen this year, but I can insure you that that combo of wide receivers never lost me a game. The bye week hurts and as has been mentioned I doubt that the Cardinals will be throwing as much this year, but I would not automatically dismiss the theory of 2 wide receivers from the same team. I am sure there were teams with Harrison/Wayne or CJ/Housh who have performed very well, especially because most leagues have start 3 WRs these days.

 

[diesel7982]

This came up recently in one of my posts. Wannabee found the article written by Drinen. I'll try to find it. Basically, the stats suggest that having 2 really good WRs from the same team actually provides more consistency (except on the bye week) and could be beneficial to the fantasy team.

I'm off to find the link...

This is what I am thinking also. But Id like to see the numbers, rather than throwing out an uninformed opinion as Brandow is doing.

 

[Buckna]

I look at it similar to the QB/WR same team hookup. It's a theory that can pay dividends, but it all depends on how well you predict that teams offense. If you are confident enough to predict that the passing game is going to be lights out all season long, then do it.

It's easy to look back and say Harrison/Wayne or Peyton/Harrison the year Peyton breaks the TD record. But what if you had gone McNabb/TO last year? Or Culpepper/Moss 2 seasons ago? Ward/Plaxico was a great combo one year and stunk it up the next when Pittsburgh returned to its running game roots. Drinen's own article mentioning Moulds/Price a few seasons back is another great example.

 

[LionsPride]

I will add that I am thankful to Doug to give me those articles. I thought those were very good reading. They are from a few years ago and I had remembered them .... barely.

Thanks again, Doug.

Much thanks to Wannabee & Doug "D" - makes me feel better about it for sure - now what about Warner, Boldin, & Fitz ? - not that I'm going to get rid of Peyton for Warner anytime soon. But I do have Palmer & C. Johnson in another league and was offered R. Johnson to complete the trio - We had a guy dominate our league back a couple of years after he managed to package Warner, Faulk & Bruce during their prime seasons in the "Greatest Show on Turf". People in our league have been trying to get their own set of triplets ever since & I think last year Manning, Harrison & James would have been solid - now Ironically it seems to be going full circle so to speak in Arizona with Warner, James & either Boldin/Fitz - could even go for Quads with all four of them and put all your eggs in one proverbial basket. Food for thought. Thanks again for all the great input Guys.

 

[wannabee]

I look at it similar to the QB/WR same team hookup. It's a theory that can pay dividends, but it all depends on how well you predict that teams offense. If you are confident enough to predict that the passing game is going to be lights out all season long, then do it.

It's easy to look back and say Harrison/Wayne or Peyton/Harrison the year Peyton breaks the TD record. But what if you had gone McNabb/TO last year? Or Culpepper/Moss 2 seasons ago? Ward/Plaxico was a great combo one year and stunk it up the next when Pittsburgh returned to its running game roots. Drinen's own article mentioning Moulds/Price a few seasons back is another great example.

The article w/ Price and Moulds is one the posts above.

 

[tex]

I like to make it simple. If you have for example, Fitz and Boldin both on your team, and they both end up as top 5 WR's, then you have 2 top 5 WR's on your team. If you have 2 top 5's then you're going to win more games than if you have a top 5 and say WR 20.

 

[MLBrandow]

This came up recently in one of my posts.  Wannabee found the article written by Drinen.  I'll try to find it.  Basically, the stats suggest that having 2 really good WRs from the same team actually provides more consistency (except on the bye week) and could be beneficial to the fantasy team.

I'm off to find the link...

This is what I am thinking also. But Id like to see the numbers, rather than throwing out an uninformed opinion as Brandow is doing.

It looks to me as if we're both right and wrong, depending on what you're trying to do.Clearly, my short proof is correct, regarding a team being shut down and both players being shut down.

But, contrastingly, if you have two solid WRs on the same team, they are solid for a reason, and it's because they don't get shut down.

The problem I have is that I want to win every single week. I shoot for undefeated every year.

While Getting Boldin/Fitz on my team helps me win much more than it makes me lose, considering that it is undeniable that there WILL be at least one or two games when Arizona's passing game is shut down, that is almost a guaranteed loss, because both of your prime WRs are shut down.

What are the odds that both of your top two receivers will be shut down on separate teams? Fundamentally, it is lower.

Now, as the study concludes, it's actually slightly the opposite (to the tune of 13-5), but for me, since the goal is to win every game, you don't tank two games for the sake of winning the other 12. At least I don't.

For me, I'll diversify and shoot for that 5/13 that ends up being better, which, since I win most of my leagues, I am confident I can be in the smaller portion that correctly predicts the top pairs.

In other words, if you are satisfied with a definite ceiling and floor (other factors aside), there's nothing wrong with going WR WR from the same team.

If, like me, your goal is not just to win your championship but try to win every single game every week, then WR WR from the same team is a bad idea, because you are severely handicapping your chances to win when inevitably the team those WRs play on has a bad week.

And while it is likely not any easier to predict which weeks certain WRs will struggle, and since you're not likely to bench your WR1/2 drafted that high under any circumstances (injuries aside), having WRs on different teams will give you the chance that their off weeks don't coincide.

 

[Buckna]

I look at it similar to the QB/WR same team hookup. It's a theory that can pay dividends, but it all depends on how well you predict that teams offense. If you are confident enough to predict that the passing game is going to be lights out all season long, then do it.

It's easy to look back and say Harrison/Wayne or Peyton/Harrison the year Peyton breaks the TD record. But what if you had gone McNabb/TO last year? Or Culpepper/Moss 2 seasons ago? Ward/Plaxico was a great combo one year and stunk it up the next when Pittsburgh returned to its running game roots. Drinen's own article mentioning Moulds/Price a few seasons back is another great example.

The article w/ Price and Moulds is one the posts above.

Sorry, didn't read it all. I seem to remember them being golden one year, and not so golden another but I would need to check my stats.If you can predict that two WR's on the same team will be top 5-15, I think it's intuitive that they will generally be more consistent than two top 5-15's from seperate teams. Afterall, 1 WR's smaller game will be balanced out by the other WR having a big game. Two WR's on seperate teams score completely indenpendent of each other and there would be no correlation.

 

[Marc Levin]

It is just common sense.  If your team looks like this:

QB: Peyton Manning

RB: Edgerrin James

WR: Marvin Harrison

WR: Reggie Wayne

You're going to lose more than if you had

QB: Carson Palmer

RB: Rudi Johnson

WR: Torry Holt

WR: Donald Driver

(IMO, arguably very similar players)

For the simple fact that when Palmer is shut down, it doesn't mean that Holt and Driver are shut down.

However, if Manning is shut down, by default you lose WR1 and WR2 production.

maybe - but this was CERTAINLY NOT true for the Harrison/Wayne pairing in 2004 or the Fitz/Boldin pairing in 2005 - or the Holt/Bruce or Moss/Carter pairings back in the day.I'd roll the dice on one of Fitz or Boldin having a HuGE game some weeks and the other putting up very good numbers so that AGGREGATELY (<--- word?) you outscore every other WR pairing in the league - and some weeks, you will get one performing like a WR1 should and the other performing like a WR2 should and you will at least keep pace with all other WR pairings.

Under that scenario, your WRs wil successfully stack up against any just about other WRs on almost every week.

Now, I would NOT go for a Galloway/Clayton pairing or a Keyshawn/SS pairing or a TO/Glenn pairing or a Moss/Porter pairing. You want a team that tosses the ball a LOT and tends to incluide both WRs throughout the game to equal levels.

I WOULD go for a Holt/Bruce pairing or a Walker/Smith pairing - esp, since BOTH pairings can be had pretty cheaply and work AWESOME in start-3 WR leagues and in PPR leagues.

 

[Marc Levin]

While Getting Boldin/Fitz on my team helps me win much more than it makes me lose, considering that it is undeniable that there WILL be at least one or two games when Arizona's passing game is shut down, that is almost a guaranteed loss, because both of your prime WRs are shut down.

Really? Where's that guarantee? It certainly was not apparent last year - even if the QB only throws for 200 yards, one or the other of those WRs can still be big - getting near 100 and a TD.I think you need to examine the facts with the Cards' situation before making these assertions.

You may be speaking the truth about having WRs from the same team GENERALLY, but you need to look at this individual situaiotn before making such blanket assertions.

Edit to add - having both your WRs shut down is NOT a guaranteed FF loss by any stretch of the imagination - and in ANY league. I don't even need to pull numbers to disprove it - that is a patently erroneous assertion.

 

[The Jerk]

The problem I have is that I want to win every single week.  I shoot for undefeated every year.

If this is true, then you should embrace the two WRs from the same team concept, as it has been demonstrated to produce greater consistency.Since you like short proofs, here you go:

Let's suggest that the typical NFL team features 12 games in which WR1 produces the most WR fantasy points, three games where WR2 has the most points, and one game where WR3 scores the most fantasy points.

If you draft players from different NFL teams, then each week you have a 1 in 4 chance that either of these WR will have a down week. on average, then 1 out of 8 weeks BOTH have an off week. That's twice in 16 games.

If you draft WRs from the same team, then you would have 1 bad game out of 16.

The actual ratios may be different. But under almost any ratio, greater consistency is achieved with two WRs from the same team.

The key is to get two good WRs from a good passing team, not just any pair of WRs from the same team.

Edit to add, Would your results be more or less consistent to be able to draft "TEAM WR" if it was allowed in your league in place of having 2 different WRs listed? The expectation would be that you'd have fewer highs and fewer lows.

 

[MLBrandow]

Really? Where's that guarantee?  It certainly was not apparent last year - even if the QB only throws for 200 yards, one or the other of those WRs can still be big - getting near 100 and a TD.

I think you need to examine the facts with the Cards' situation before making these assertions.

You may be speaking the truth about having WRs from the same team GENERALLY, but you need to look at this individual situaiotn before making such blanket assertions.

Edit to add - having both your WRs shut down is NOT a guaranteed FF loss by any stretch of the imagination - and in ANY league.  I don't even need to pull numbers to disprove it - that is a patently erroneous assertion.

I guess we'll have to disagree.ARI is not going to throw 670 times this season. That's why they signed Edge.

You do realize that QBs are bound to have off games, and if the QB is not passing for yards, then the WRs aren't catching for yards?

I wanted to take this moment to explain another concept further as well, because this makes for a great debate.

When you have two top-10 receivers on a team, it is usually because that team is an above average team (above .500). If this is the case, their offense isn't likely to be shutdown more than a few times a year.

That said, if you have a top-10 WR on a bad team or on a team with no real No.2, that WR is more likely to be shut down because he could be triple covered one week, or his QB could suck the next week. Say this happens five times out of 16 (shut down = under 50 yards and no TD). Last year, Steve Smith would have been considered "shut down" about 5 times. He finished as the #1 fantasy WR.

Now, when you have a pair of top-10 receivers, you can't triple cover both of them, so that part is off. But the QB can still have bad games, say he has 2-3 bad games a year. When he's on, at least one of your receivers will have a great game, so it balances out.

Say that the average for a top-10 receiver is being shut down 7 times. Over a 16 game period, two WRs being shut down 7 times have a slightly less than 20% chance of that being on the same week.

Using some ballpark figures, you get something like 1/5-6 games that your duo is shut down, versus 1/7.5-8 for your top duo.

By definition, the WR duo on the same team is more consistent. This is pretty logical.

However, there is a 100% chance that they will have those 2-3 off games (barring that their team doesn't pass a 670 times).

With the Split WR's, (without boring you with a lot of calculus) there is something like a 1/3 chance that those 7 games will not overlap.

What does that equate to?

The 13-5 split finding in favor of the top-10 duo.

Now, what did I just prove? Both of our points (I guess).

The WR duo on the same team is more consistent, but you are guaranteed to be at a severe handicap at least 2-3 times in your fantasy season, on those games in which the QB struggles.

The other WR pair may or may not have coinciding off-games, and although they are nearly three times as likely to have those off-games (on average), they are NOT GUARANTEED to do so, and that is your difference.

Now, the key becomes drafting players that have the lowest number of off-games as possible, and in other words drafting for consistency, which is the point of FF anyway.

If you don't think you can beat the curve, drafting two top-10/12 WRs on the same team is not a bad floor to have.

But the highest ceiling by default belongs to those 5/13 that on average beat the combo.

 

[The Jerk]

Really? Where's that guarantee?  It certainly was not apparent last year - even if the QB only throws for 200 yards, one or the other of those WRs can still be big - getting near 100 and a TD.

I think you need to examine the facts with the Cards' situation before making these assertions.

You may be speaking the truth about having WRs from the same team GENERALLY, but you need to look at this individual situaiotn before making such blanket assertions.

Edit to add - having both your WRs shut down is NOT a guaranteed FF loss by any stretch of the imagination - and in ANY league.  I don't even need to pull numbers to disprove it - that is a patently erroneous assertion.

I guess we'll have to disagree.ARI is not going to throw 670 times this season. That's why they signed Edge.

You do realize that QBs are bound to have off games, and if the QB is not passing for yards, then the WRs aren't catching for yards?

I wanted to take this moment to explain another concept further as well, because this makes for a great debate.

When you have two top-10 receivers on a team, it is usually because that team is an above average team (above .500). If this is the case, their offense isn't likely to be shutdown more than a few times a year.

That said, if you have a top-10 WR on a bad team or on a team with no real No.2, that WR is more likely to be shut down because he could be triple covered one week, or his QB could suck the next week. Say this happens five times out of 16 (shut down = under 50 yards and no TD). Last year, Steve Smith would have been considered "shut down" about 5 times. He finished as the #1 fantasy WR.

Now, when you have a pair of top-10 receivers, you can't triple cover both of them, so that part is off. But the QB can still have bad games, say he has 2-3 bad games a year. When he's on, at least one of your receivers will have a great game, so it balances out.

Say that the average for a top-10 receiver is being shut down 7 times. Over a 16 game period, two WRs being shut down 7 times have a slightly less than 50% chance of that being on the same week.

Using some ballpark figures, you get something like 1/5-6 games that your duo is shut down, versus 1/7.5-8 for your top duo.

By definition, the WR duo on the same team is more consistent. This is pretty logical.

However, there is a 100% chance that they will have those 2-3 off games (barring that their team doesn't pass a 670 times).

With the Split WR's, (without boring you with a lot of calculus) there is something like a 1/3 chance that those 7 games will not overlap.

What does that equate to?

The 13-5 split finding in favor of the top-10 duo.

Now, what did I just prove? Both of our points (I guess).

The WR duo on the same team is more consistent, but you are guaranteed to be at a severe handicap at least 2-3 times in your fantasy season, on those games in which the QB struggles.

The other WR pair may or may not have coinciding off-games, and although they are nearly three times as likely to have those off-games (on average), they are NOT GUARANTEED to do so, and that is your difference.

Now, the key becomes drafting players that have the lowest number of off-games as possible, and in other words drafting for consistency, which is the point of FF anyway.

If you don't think you can beat the curve, drafting two top-10/12 WRs on the same team is not a bad floor to have.

But the highest ceiling by default belongs to those 5/13 that on average beat the combo.

Do you realize that you're basically saying that you'd rather be lucky than good?You're hoping that your results will vary from the exact mathematics you list as governing performance from two WR1s vs. a WR1 and WR2 from the same team. You're hoping that good fortune will allow you to beat the odds.

 

[MLBrandow]

Do you realize that you're basically saying that you'd rather be lucky than good?

You're hoping that your results will vary from the exact mathematics you list as governing performance from two WR1s vs. a WR1 and WR2 from the same team. You're hoping that good fortune will allow you to beat the odds.

No, this is the same debate as drafting against ADPs.The odds suggest if you draft based on ADP, you will get a very solid team.

If you draft against ADP and inserting your own predictions to adjust the rankings to how you see them playing out, you may well do worse, but you also have the capacity to be better.

 

[The Jerk]

Do you realize that you're basically saying that you'd rather be lucky than good?

You're hoping that your results will vary from the exact mathematics you list as governing performance from two WR1s vs. a WR1 and WR2 from the same team. You're hoping that good fortune will allow you to beat the odds.

No, this is the same debate as drafting against ADPs.The odds suggest if you draft based on ADP, you will get a very solid team.

If you draft against ADP and inserting your own predictions to adjust the rankings to how you see them playing out, you may well do worse, but you also have the capacity to be better.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Your statement would only be true if ADP actually equaled performance. We all know that isn't true. Last year, 10 of the top 18 RBs drafted were significant busts. Clearly, ADP predictions didn't match projections.When you draft against ADP, you're essentially stating that you can do better than the average drafter both collectively (whole draft) and individually (each pick). In my two main leagues, I've been the champion 6 times out of 12 seasons. I expect to be smarter and more informed and more prepared than average. Average is literally the first word in ADP. I don't ignore it, but I purposely challenge it, because I think I can do better than average.

Drafting two players from different teams and expecting them to perform better than two top 20 WRs from the same team is defying history. Read Drinen's article again. Out of 20 comparisons, 13 favor greater consistency from same team pairs, 5 favor different team WR1s, with two pushes.

Finally, drafting ADP infers you believe that you can draft better than the average player. If you actually are a spot on average player, you would beat ADP results exactly 50% of the time.

On the other hand, drafting WRs from different teams as you suggest will generate greater or equal consistency roughly 1/3 of the time, while drafting two top 20 WRs from the same team will create greater consistency 2/3 of the time.

Ignoring ADP = ignoring average player predictions (projections into the future)

Ignoring Drinen's article = ignoring historical performance (happened already in the past)

 

[Marc Levin]

Really? Where's that guarantee?  It certainly was not apparent last year - even if the QB only throws for 200 yards, one or the other of those WRs can still be big - getting near 100 and a TD.

I think you need to examine the facts with the Cards' situation before making these assertions.

You may be speaking the truth about having WRs from the same team GENERALLY, but you need to look at this individual situaiotn before making such blanket assertions.

Edit to add - having both your WRs shut down is NOT a guaranteed FF loss by any stretch of the imagination - and in ANY league.  I don't even need to pull numbers to disprove it - that is a patently erroneous assertion.

I guess we'll have to disagree.ARI is not going to throw 670 times this season. That's why they signed Edge.

You do realize that QBs are bound to have off games, and if the QB is not passing for yards, then the WRs aren't catching for yards?

I wanted to take this moment to explain another concept further as well, because this makes for a great debate.

When you have two top-10 receivers on a team, it is usually because that team is an above average team (above .500). If this is the case, their offense isn't likely to be shutdown more than a few times a year.

That said, if you have a top-10 WR on a bad team or on a team with no real No.2, that WR is more likely to be shut down because he could be triple covered one week, or his QB could suck the next week. Say this happens five times out of 16 (shut down = under 50 yards and no TD). Last year, Steve Smith would have been considered "shut down" about 5 times. He finished as the #1 fantasy WR.

Now, when you have a pair of top-10 receivers, you can't triple cover both of them, so that part is off. But the QB can still have bad games, say he has 2-3 bad games a year. When he's on, at least one of your receivers will have a great game, so it balances out.

Say that the average for a top-10 receiver is being shut down 7 times. Over a 16 game period, two WRs being shut down 7 times have a slightly less than 20% chance of that being on the same week.

Using some ballpark figures, you get something like 1/5-6 games that your duo is shut down, versus 1/7.5-8 for your top duo.

By definition, the WR duo on the same team is more consistent. This is pretty logical.

However, there is a 100% chance that they will have those 2-3 off games (barring that their team doesn't pass a 670 times).

With the Split WR's, (without boring you with a lot of calculus) there is something like a 1/3 chance that those 7 games will not overlap.

What does that equate to?

The 13-5 split finding in favor of the top-10 duo.

Now, what did I just prove? Both of our points (I guess).

The WR duo on the same team is more consistent, but you are guaranteed to be at a severe handicap at least 2-3 times in your fantasy season, on those games in which the QB struggles.

The other WR pair may or may not have coinciding off-games, and although they are nearly three times as likely to have those off-games (on average), they are NOT GUARANTEED to do so, and that is your difference.

Now, the key becomes drafting players that have the lowest number of off-games as possible, and in other words drafting for consistency, which is the point of FF anyway.

If you don't think you can beat the curve, drafting two top-10/12 WRs on the same team is not a bad floor to have.

But the highest ceiling by default belongs to those 5/13 that on average beat the combo.

lots of talk, but no numbers or convincing argument.Ari does NOT need to throw 670 times for my argument to hold true - they are likely to STILL throw the ball more than 550 times - that's ALL you need.

You just need a potent passing offense - that's it.

Unless you can prove to me that Arizona will suddenly unlearn how to throw the ball to Fitz and Boldin, you have demonstrated nothing.

I won't re-hash The Jerk's argument - it stand on it's own as a

 

[Marc Levin]

Drafting two players from different teams and expecting them to perform better than two top 20 WRs from the same team is defying history. Read Drinen's article again. Out of 20 comparisons, 13 favor greater consistency from same team pairs, 5 favor different team WR1s, with two pushes.

That is an EXCELLENT idea.MLBrandow, I strongly encourage you to read that article again before attempting to debate us on this issue.

 

[The Jerk]

Now, what did I just prove? Both of our points (I guess).

The WR duo on the same team is more consistent, but you are guaranteed to be at a severe handicap at least 2-3 times in your fantasy season, on those games in which the QB struggles.

The other WR pair may or may not have coinciding off-games, and although they are nearly three times as likely to have those off-games (on average), they are NOT GUARANTEED to do so, and that is your difference.

Now, the key becomes drafting players that have the lowest number of off-games as possible, and in other words drafting for consistency, which is the point of FF anyway.

If you don't think you can beat the curve, drafting two top-10/12 WRs on the same team is not a bad floor to have.

But the highest ceiling by default belongs to those 5/13 that on average beat the combo.

lots of talk, but no numbers or convincing argument.Ari does NOT need to throw 670 times for my argument to hold true - they are likely to STILL throw the ball more than 550 times - that's ALL you need.

You just need a potent passing offense - that's it.

Unless you can prove to me that Arizona will suddenly unlearn how to throw the ball to Fitz and Boldin, you have demonstrated nothing.

I won't re-hash The Jerk's argument - it stand on it's own as a

Marc,The only thing that concerns me about drafting two WRs from the same team, (or a same team QB/RB or QB/WR duo for that matter) is that one injury can cause twice as much damage to your team.

If I own CJ and Housh, Palmer getting hurt will likely reduce both of their numbers. It could also be a problem if Rudi gets hurt or if the OL has injuries.

Other than that, I think it helps more than it hurts, especially with consistency. It's all about making sure it's a prolific offense. I still remember drafting Edge as a rookie alongside Harrison (1999). I rode that pair all the way to a title despite weak QB play (I think I had Charlie Batch as my main starter before picking up Jeff George for the stretch run.) One of my most CONSISTENT seasons. Not as dominant as some teams I've had, but solid each week.

 

[Marc Levin]

Now, what did I just prove?  Both of our points (I guess).

The WR duo on the same team is more consistent, but you are guaranteed to be at a severe handicap at least 2-3 times in your fantasy season, on those games in which the QB struggles.

The other WR pair may or may not have coinciding off-games, and although they are nearly three times as likely to have those off-games (on average), they are NOT GUARANTEED to do so, and that is your difference.

Now, the key becomes drafting players that have the lowest number of off-games as possible, and in other words drafting for consistency, which is the point of FF anyway.

If you don't think you can beat the curve, drafting two top-10/12 WRs on the same team is not a bad floor to have.

But the highest ceiling by default belongs to those 5/13 that on average beat the combo.

lots of talk, but no numbers or convincing argument.Ari does NOT need to throw 670 times for my argument to hold true - they are likely to STILL throw the ball more than 550 times - that's ALL you need.

You just need a potent passing offense - that's it.

Unless you can prove to me that Arizona will suddenly unlearn how to throw the ball to Fitz and Boldin, you have demonstrated nothing.

I won't re-hash The Jerk's argument - it stand on it's own as a

Marc,The only thing that concerns me about drafting two WRs from the same team, (or a same team QB/RB or QB/WR duo for that matter) is that one injury can cause twice as much damage to your team.

If I own CJ and Housh, Palmer getting hurt will likely reduce both of their numbers. It could also be a problem if Rudi gets hurt or if the OL has injuries.

Other than that, I think it helps more than it hurts, especially with consistency. It's all about making sure it's a prolific offense. I still remember drafting Edge as a rookie alongside Harrison (1999). I rode that pair all the way to a title despite weak QB play (I think I had Charlie Batch as my main starter before picking up Jeff George for the stretch run.) One of my most CONSISTENT seasons. Not as dominant as some teams I've had, but solid each week.

absolutely - there is also no guarantee that an injured Boldin/injured Fitz will help the other WRs' numbersThere is also no guarantee what an injured Edge would do to the pass game.

That said, I don't project injury for players unless they have an injury history - and AZ proved that it doesn't matter which stiff inexperienced or experienced QB is back there behind Krunch Warner, they'll get the ball to the wideouts.

 

[Marc Levin]

Now, what did I just prove?  Both of our points (I guess).

The WR duo on the same team is more consistent, but you are guaranteed to be at a severe handicap at least 2-3 times in your fantasy season, on those games in which the QB struggles.

The other WR pair may or may not have coinciding off-games, and although they are nearly three times as likely to have those off-games (on average), they are NOT GUARANTEED to do so, and that is your difference.

Now, the key becomes drafting players that have the lowest number of off-games as possible, and in other words drafting for consistency, which is the point of FF anyway.

If you don't think you can beat the curve, drafting two top-10/12 WRs on the same team is not a bad floor to have.

But the highest ceiling by default belongs to those 5/13 that on average beat the combo.

lots of talk, but no numbers or convincing argument.Ari does NOT need to throw 670 times for my argument to hold true - they are likely to STILL throw the ball more than 550 times - that's ALL you need.

You just need a potent passing offense - that's it.

Unless you can prove to me that Arizona will suddenly unlearn how to throw the ball to Fitz and Boldin, you have demonstrated nothing.

I won't re-hash The Jerk's argument - it stand on it's own as a

Marc,The only thing that concerns me about drafting two WRs from the same team, (or a same team QB/RB or QB/WR duo for that matter) is that one injury can cause twice as much damage to your team.

If I own CJ and Housh, Palmer getting hurt will likely reduce both of their numbers. It could also be a problem if Rudi gets hurt or if the OL has injuries.

Other than that, I think it helps more than it hurts, especially with consistency. It's all about making sure it's a prolific offense. I still remember drafting Edge as a rookie alongside Harrison (1999). I rode that pair all the way to a title despite weak QB play (I think I had Charlie Batch as my main starter before picking up Jeff George for the stretch run.) One of my most CONSISTENT seasons. Not as dominant as some teams I've had, but solid each week.

absolutely - there is also no guarantee that an injured Boldin/injured Fitz will help the other WRs' numbersThere is also no guarantee what an injured Edge would do to the pass game.

That said, I don't project injury for players unless they have an injury history - and AZ proved that it doesn't matter which stiff inexperienced or experienced QB is back there behind Krunch Warner, they'll get the ball to the wideouts.

also - dratfing Holt/Bruce - when Bulger was hurt, Holt remained a STUD - it is unclear whether Bruce would have also, considering he was also hurt - but the year before wa sno drop-off when Bulger went bye-bye - and I have every confidence in Frerotte.I love the Holt/Bruce pairing for this year if you can get it - Bruce is a bargain.

 

[Jiggyonthehut]

I see it as a half-empty, half-full situation.

In fact it can be applied to bye-week strategy. Some (minority) owners try and draft as many players to the same bye week in order be at close to full roster strength 15/16 games rather than taking minor hits every week. Sure youre guaranteed a loss on that bye week but youre putting yourself in the best position to win every other week.

So in regards to loading up on same team recievers, its a similar situation. Some weeks your team will be monstrous, others it will be a massacre. In short, it comes down to whether the good games (in your mind) outweigh the bad. Sure its an experiment but theres no other tandem in this NFL that i'd feel more sure about.

At best you have two top 5 recievers. At worst, you dont win your league. (90%+ of that happening)

 

[MLBrandow]

Drafting two players from different teams and expecting them to perform better than two top 20 WRs from the same team is defying history. Read Drinen's article again. Out of 20 comparisons, 13 favor greater consistency from same team pairs, 5 favor different team WR1s, with two pushes.

That is an EXCELLENT idea.MLBrandow, I strongly encourage you to read that article again before attempting to debate us on this issue.

It's only defying history if you take two random WRs of similar skill level. Don't you target receivers you prefer out of a pack when given the option? Don't you study up on your high/lows of each receiver, as well as his consistency?In addition to the QB's 2-3 off weeks, you have the bye week which will also inherently hurt you.

I will just agree to disagree.

If this theory were full-proof, we'd see a lot more people targeting WR tandems rather than the way it is now.

At that though, reading that article has convinced me that it's not worth going out of my way to avoid double WRs, which is something I wouldn't have really agreed to before.

It's great analysis, I just don't agree with its cause-effect premise.

Like I said though, we can just agree to disagree. We obviously are in quarrel over facts which we do not attribute to the same set of circumstances, and I see no middle ground here.

'Twas a good debate.

 

[The Jerk]

I see it as a half-empty, half-full situation.

In fact it can be applied to bye-week strategy. Some (minority) owners try and draft as many players to the same bye week in order be at close to full roster strength 15/16 games rather than taking minor hits every week. Sure youre guaranteed a loss on that bye week but youre putting yourself in the best position to win every other week.

So in regards to loading up on same team recievers, its a similar situation. Some weeks your team will be monstrous, others it will be a massacre. In short, it comes down to whether the good games (in your mind) outweigh the bad. Sure its an experiment but theres no other tandem in this NFL that i'd feel more sure about.

At best you have two top 5 recievers. At worst, you dont win your league. (90%+ of that happening)

You're missing the point on WRs from the same team. Make sure you read Doug's article: Drinen's article on WR consistency: same team vs. different teamYou will be more consistent, meaning fewer peaks and fewer valleys, with two WRs from the same team. You will have fewer "monstrous weaks" and "massacre weeks" and more "in-between" weeks. The historical data shows greater consistency roughly 70% of the time with two WRs from the same team.

More of the same posted earlier in the thread.

 

[The Jerk]

If this theory were full-proof, we'd see a lot more people targeting WR tandems rather than the way it is now.

Assuming you meant "foolproof" here, right?Anyway, don't confuse the quantity of people following a given strategy with the quality of the strategy.

Like this:

Some (minority) owners try and draft as many players to the same bye week in order be at close to full roster strength 15/16 games rather than taking minor hits every week. Sure youre guaranteed a loss on that bye week but youre putting yourself in the best position to win every other week.

For several years, I worried about spreading my talent out during bye weeks. Now I almost prefer having one really thin week. I may still get lucky that week, but the other weeks I am relatively stronger. I don't go out of my way to achieve this, but I embrace it if it occurs. In general, I think that most people worry too much about bye weeks during the draft. I'd rather have the better back-up with the same bye week rather than drop down a tier to have them be different. That back-up is one injury away from being my full-time starter! I only worry about bye week coverage during the last few rounds of the draft and of course in free agency if I would have an empty lineup position.

So if fewer people think this way about bye weeks, I think I gain an advantage. I don't want to follow the crowd on bye weeks, nor do I want to follow the crowd on drafting two top 20 WRs from the same team.

 

[MLBrandow]

If this theory were full-proof, we'd see a lot more people targeting WR tandems rather than the way it is now.

Assuming you meant "foolproof" here, right?Anyway, don't confuse the quantity of people following a given strategy with the quality of the strategy.

Think there is both a full-proof and fool-proof, but I could be mistaken. I am not trying to use that to mitigate the strategy, but I am saying that it would seem to me that the strategy would be slightly more prominent than it is if there was an indication that drafting like-WRs would almost guarantee you an above the curve production mark.

 

[The Jerk]

If this theory were full-proof, we'd see a lot more people targeting WR tandems rather than the way it is now.

Assuming you meant "foolproof" here, right?Anyway, don't confuse the quantity of people following a given strategy with the quality of the strategy.

Think there is both a full-proof and fool-proof, but I could be mistaken. I am not trying to use that to mitigate the strategy, but I am saying that it would seem to me that the strategy would be slightly more prominent than it is if there was an indication that drafting like-WRs would almost guarantee you an above the curve production mark.

It's not about being above the curve, assuming by "above the curve" you mean greater overall fantasy point production. It's about consistency. Nowhere have I stated that drafting two WRs from the same team gives you more points for the season. My message has been that week-to-week consistency is improved.To me, consistency favors the better fantasy owner. Point being, if my team is above average, then hitting my average will see me win more games than I lose. Being wildly erratic may help me if I'm playing the best teams (sometimes), but it will also make it possible for me to lose to the worst teams.

Anyway, you may be correct that it is less prevalent because it is less important. However, many commonly-applied strategies started as minority viewpoints as well before people realized the advantages of said strategies.

MLB, good discussing this with you.

 

[MLBrandow]

you know actually... I think it's a great strategy now.

Not because you can score more points, which I doubt, but you can cross-off two positions of worry and focus on the rest of your roster.

Limiting your high/lows gives you better chances with a big play RB.

Would be cool to see some terciary studies on early drafts, but it sounds like a lot of work and would not lead to anything conclusive.

I guess the biggest thing to take from all of this is that however you draft your WRs, being on the same team is a nonfactor in terms of how it depreciates the value of the position.

I think I'm done discussing this point as well, but I'll concede defeat because I think I am starting to agree with you.

 

[The Jerk]

you know actually... I think it's a great strategy now.

Not because you can score more points, which I doubt, but you can cross-off two positions of worry and focus on the rest of your roster.

Limiting your high/lows gives you better chances with a big play RB.

Would be cool to see some terciary studies on early drafts, but it sounds like a lot of work and would not lead to anything conclusive.

I guess the biggest thing to take from all of this is that however you draft your WRs, being on the same team is a nonfactor in terms of how it depreciates the value of the position.

I think I'm done discussing this point as well, but I'll concede defeat because I think I am starting to agree with you.

MLB, there's no "victory" or "defeat" here. We're just exchanging ideas hoping to sharpen our insights. I'm more knowledgeable for having to explain my thoughts and consider yours.

 

[Marc Levin]

I had great luck last year (or was it two years ago) with DJax/Engram.

It is all a matter of picking the "right" two WRs from the same team - AND not reaching (too heavily) for the second.

It is viable to do Fitz/Bold only if it falls out that way - if Fitz falls to the mid-second, there's an excellent chance that the BPA is actually going to be Boldin.

That's why I advocate the Holt/Bruce pairing - You have to take a WR1 - and Holt's a great one - and you don't spend much to wrap iup Bruce. A 16-game Bruce probably produces solid WR2 numbers in a great number of games - and the team hedged the injured QB factor for you by signing Frerotte.

I also like the Walker-Smith combo - esp. given the problems with Lelie right now - the problem with Denver is they sometimes trail the rest of the league in pass attempts (like last year)

 

[Borat]

As a rule of thumb, you want to avoid having teammates on your team whenever possible if there is a comparable alternative for one of them.

 

[braven112]

As a rule of thumb, you want to avoid having teammates on your team whenever possible if there is a comparable alternative for one of them.

That depends what positions you are talking about. If it will make you more consistent, like pairing WR's, then it makes sense.If you are talking QB/WR then thats a different matter.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I didn't read through the whole thread, so sorry if I'm repeating someone else's comment. But having two WRs form the same team also gives you a little injury protection-- if Boldin goes down, it's pretty clear that Fitz is the man and you have him. Same if Fitz gets hurt and you've got Boldin.

Personally, I'd much rather have Wayne than Boldin because I have more confidence in Manning than Warner/Leinart. But having a little hedge against injury isn't too bad, either. It's an expensive hedge, but I think it's somewhat less risky. A good chunk of the injured guy's production might get absorbed by the other guy.

 

[wannabee]

I had great luck last year (or was it two years ago) with DJax/Engram.

It is all a matter of picking the "right" two WRs from the same team - AND not reaching (too heavily) for the second.

It is viable to do Fitz/Bold only if it falls out that way - if Fitz falls to the mid-second, there's an excellent chance that the BPA is actually going to be Boldin.

That's why I advocate the Holt/Bruce pairing - You have to take a WR1 - and Holt's a great one - and you don't spend much to wrap iup Bruce. A 16-game Bruce probably produces solid WR2 numbers in a great number of games - and the team hedged the injured QB factor for you by signing Frerotte.

I also like the Walker-Smith combo - esp. given the problems with Lelie right now - the problem with Denver is they sometimes trail the rest of the league in pass attempts (like last year)

Marc, I have done that many times in 16 team leagues. If I get a star WR early, I usually wait for WR2 and try to take the WR on the same team. A Plax/Toomer, Holt/Bruce/, or even SSmith/Keyshawn is not terribly bad in huge leagues.