WR: Consistent Production or Explosive Production (1 Viewer)

[rascal]

Obviously if you can't predict when they will go off their value is affected, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume that you can predict (50% accuracy) when a WR is going to go off (see Steve Smith) based on the SOS. If you believe this % to be ludicrous please state a more accurate number and your analysis off that. Also assume that their year end fantasy point totals are similar.

So...would you rather take a consistent performer at WR or a WR who is a boom or bust?

 

[MLBrandow]

Consistency.

Think of it another way. If you have a QB/WR from the same team on your squad, it's the same principle.

Well, when they hook up, you get big points x2 . When they get shut down, you get a pair of ugly stats.

To me, I'd rather take the consistent performer, a few circumstances excluding.

Remember up until last year, Shaun Alexander was just like this. He'd end up a top RB1, but most of his yearly TDs would come in like 4 or 5 games, and the rest are loaded with goose eggs.

What good does 50 points do you when you win by 41

Then the next week you get 4 when you needed 9.

I'd rather take a guy who puts up a consistent floor/ceiling that I can pencil in each week, and then can lower my collective risks.

Now, it's great to have at least one explosive guy on your team, but I am not a big fan of loading up on a bunch of hit or miss players.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Consistently explosive.

 

[rascal]

LOL...not a choice.

I was trying to do an analysis on who would have been predictably explosive last year (to try and get an idea on who we could predict this year). Has anybody done a similar type analysis? And does anybody have the SOS from the beginning of the year (2005, 2004, etc)?

 

[tytyty]

Consistency.

Think of it another way. If you have a QB/WR from the same team on your squad, it's the same principle.

Well, when they hook up, you get big points x2 . When they get shut down, you get a pair of ugly stats.

To me, I'd rather take the consistent performer, a few circumstances excluding.

Remember up until last year, Shaun Alexander was just like this. He'd end up a top RB1, but most of his yearly TDs would come in like 4 or 5 games, and the rest are loaded with goose eggs.

What good does 50 points do you when you win by 41

Then the next week you get 4 when you needed 9.

I'd rather take a guy who puts up a consistent floor/ceiling that I can pencil in each week, and then can lower my collective risks.

Now, it's great to have at least one explosive guy on your team, but I am not a big fan of loading up on a bunch of hit or miss players.

Good point. Is there something out there that shows you last years stats week by wek by FP? That would be a useful tool.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I think Drinen had an article about this that showed consistency does not carry from year to year.

So the only guys you can really count on to be "consistent" from game to game would be the consistently explosive or consistently bad players.

 

[smetankafanclub]

i am a fan of the explosive guy. Most folks i think have been burned so many times on risky WRs that they end up settling for only solid consistant guys. On your roster, or in your lineup, you need a mix. That little something extra you can get from a riskier WR may help if your stud RB or QB has an off game. And it gives you a little more firepower potential in the event u play someone with a stud player

 

[Bri]

Obviously if you can't predict when they will go off their value is affected, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume that you can predict (50% accuracy) when a WR is going to go off (see Steve Smith) based on the SOS. If you believe this % to be ludicrous please state a more accurate number and your analysis off that. Also assume that their year end fantasy point totals are similar.

So...would you rather take a consistent performer at WR or a WR who is a boom or bust?

a purposely nice mix of both