Wr's are a dime a dozen (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.

Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing.

In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

 

[ffnut]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing. In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

Yeah, because all of the RB's have been so solid this year.

 

[NatronIsMean]

I must agree. Every year I like to get one reliable WR and let the rest work themselves out.

I had Steve Smith in a two player keeper, waited til late to grab Berrian, Curtis, and DJ Hackett. Now, I'm doing well with pickups Crayton, Jennings, and Bowe.

You can ALWAYS recover value at WR. That's what convinced me to grab Bulger early... :X

 

[Max Power]

very true...I drafted 3 RBs first 3 rounds. Sitting pretty right now.

You can fill out your WR with WW guys...D.Bowe, B.Marshall, D.Mason, Curry, Porter, Crayton and so on...

You live, you learn

 

[LordHusker]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing. In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

Yeah, because all of the RB's have been so solid this year.

Are we just now realizing that fantasy football is about 90 percent luck, guys?

 

[faux_bear]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing. In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

I hear ya. Now I'll sit and :X for the inevitable ointtotheshirt:

 

[Team Legacy]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing. In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

Yeah, because all of the RB's have been so solid this year.

Are we just now realizing that fantasy football is about 90 percent luck, guys?

This has got to be the STUPIDEST thing I've ever read on these boards. If its 90% luck, why are you even reading FBG material?

 

[eom]

my draft was crap, but toward the bottom I got santonio holmes.

somewhere I got crayton --- maybe bottom draft or fa.

picked up brandon marshall off waivers.

grabbed bowe off fa pool.

and picked up v-jax early when someone dropped him.

so, I got 5 guys from the dollar store who have been producing --- I totally agree w/you.

although, it may have been a bit lucky when hines and javon got hurt.

 

[eom]

You can ALWAYS recover value at WR. That's what convinced me to grab Bulger early...

hahahahaha......

 

[SSOG]

Next year do the smart thing and grab Gates.

 

[killease]

Depends on your league I guess. Alot of those value WRs (Bowe, Marshall, Crayton, Jones, etc) were snatched up by different owners in my league, but im still undefeated having drafted Reggie Wayne, TJ Housh, Roy Williams in the early rounds and picked up value RBs in Lamont Jordan, Ronnie Brown, and Adrian Peterson. Jason Witten has been a super stud only because of the injury to Terry Glenn. Picked up Kenton Keith to squeak by this week. With all the injuries this year and some major hype behind questionable RBs, i think Fantasy Football is 60% luck/40% strategy.

P.S. For those questioning the skill level of the rest of my league, our draft is right before PreSeason.

 

[NatronIsMean]

Next year do the smart thing and grab Gates.

Funny! I remember my 4.01 pick actually came down to Bulger or Gates. I'm slightly comforted by having picked up Witten in the 12th...

 

[EBF]

This is funny because it's the exact opposite of what people were saying after week 2.

It's a long season. Sometimes good players have bad games. I can't understand why people are surprised by this each year.

 

[Avery]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.

Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing.

In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

Yeah, because all of the RB's have been so solid this year.

Are we just now realizing that fantasy football is about 90 percent luck, guys?

This has got to be the STUPIDEST thing I've ever read on these boards. If its 90% luck, why are you even reading FBG material?

Maybe going for the 10% advantage.

 

[OU#1]

WR's are like light switches. That's why RB's are far more valuable in FF. They don't need people to throw them the ball to get their touches.

If you have TO and SS you should be very happy. Two Top 5 WR's is a very strong foundation to a FF team.

Just because these WW picks are lighting it up this week doesn't mean they will be winning people championships.

If you don't draft WR1's and draft a bunch of RB's you will just end up trading for WR's during the season. Under normal circumstances you will pay more in trades than if you just drafted solid WR's. How good of a WR are you going to get for a RB2/3 type like Jamal Lewis anyways? Even a solid backup like Sammy Morris won't get you a WR1.

Do what you want, but you're selling yourself short if you don't grab at least one WR in the first four rounds of your draft.

 

[SKribbles]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing. In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

I hear ya. Now I'll sit and for the inevitable ointtotheshirt:

 

[Ripley]

Are we just now realizing that fantasy football is about 90 percent luck, guys?

this guy gets it

 

[shadow2k]

This is funny because it's the exact opposite of what people were saying after week 2. It's a long season. Sometimes good players have bad games. I can't understand why people are surprised by this each year.

People are like that. I like to trade with those people as often as possible.

 

[Biabreakable]

This is funny because it's the exact opposite of what people were saying after week 2. It's a long season. Sometimes good players have bad games. I can't understand why people are surprised by this each year.

People are like that. I like to trade with those people as often as possible.

Agreed.BTW the RB still have not caught up to the WRs yet.

 

[Johnny Ice]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing. In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

I agree, I went RB-WR-WR and ended up with Wayne and S.Smith. Production from those two has not been horrible but definitely not worth the price. In the future I'll probably get one reliable guy somewhere in the early rounds and ignore the position until the 7th/8th round. Then I will fill in any missing pieces with free agents. Undrafted WRs always emerge, might as well take advantage of it when it happens.

 

[zamboni]

BTW the RB still have not caught up to the WRs yet.

True - not yet. But I have little doubt they will before long - especially when the weather starts to get cold.

 

[Butters]

If its 90% luck, why are you even reading FBG material?

Because we all have giant egos.

 

[comfortably numb]

This is funny because it's the exact opposite of what people were saying after week 2. It's a long season. Sometimes good players have bad games. I can't understand why people are surprised by this each year.

 

[greyone]

If you drafted any tandem or Menag a trois of MJD, Caddy, Deuce, Ahman, Lamont, Steven Jackson, Rudi, Brandon Jacobs, Maroney, and GB rb, Cedric Benson, LJ, Warrick Dunn, Julius Jones,Tatum Bell, Dang Williams, Foster, Norwood, Fred Taylor, Droughns, Chester Taylor, etc...you would be singing a different tune.

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing. In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

Why didn't you bring this up after week 2?

Sort by:Fantasy Points/Receiving Yardage--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------									 Rush Rush Rush  Num  Rec  Rec  Fum  Fan  # Pos Wide Receiver		 NFL GP  Att  Yds  TDs  Rec  Yds  TDs Lost  Pts--- --- --------------------- --- -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----  1 WR  Smith,Steve		   CAR  2	1	2	0   15  271	4	0 51.3  2 WR  Johnson,Chad		  CIN  2	1	2	0   16  304	3	0 48.6  3 WR  Moss,Randy			NE   2	0	0	0   17  288	3	0 46.8  4 WR  Johnson,Andre		 HOU  2	0	0	0   14  262	3	1 44.2  5 WR  Burress,Plaxico	   NYG  2	0	0	0   10  176	4	0 41.6  6 WR  Owens,Terrell		 DAL  2	1	5	0	8  184	3	0 36.9

Thats why. -Steve Smith losing Delhomme is huge. He has fallen out of the Top 15 in Targets. Panthers will continue losing games when he doesn't get the ball.-Week 3 TO became a decoy opening huge holes opposite of him while Crayton caught 2 tds. Week 4 more of the same. TO has been targeted 47 times in 5 weeks. Only catching 19. Which should improve. And he Ranks in the top 10-12 in yards and yards per catch. Hasn't really shown the receptions or TDs...yet.;

 

[Sabertooth]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing. In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

Yeah, because all of the RB's have been so solid this year.

Are we just now realizing that fantasy football is about 90 percent luck, guys?

This has got to be the STUPIDEST thing I've ever read on these boards. If its 90% luck, why are you even reading FBG material?

Because he's willing to fight and DIE for that inch!

 

[-OZ-]

Next year do the smart thing and grab Gates.

This is what I was saying before the season.Sadly, I was only able to grab Gates in one league. :(

 

[Sabertooth]

Next year do the smart thing and grab Gates.

This is what I was saying before the season.Sadly, I was only able to grab Gates in one league. :(

Very few sure things at wideout. This is why I had Reggie Wayne rated number 1. He is probably the safest wideout in terms of production. I could think of warts on every other guy in the top 10.

 

[faux_bear]

If you drafted any tandem or Menag a trois of MJD, Caddy, Deuce, Ahman, Lamont, Steven Jackson, Rudi, Brandon Jacobs, Maroney, and GB rb, Cedric Benson, LJ, Warrick Dunn, Julius Jones,Tatum Bell, Dang Williams, Foster, Norwood, Fred Taylor, Droughns, Chester Taylor, etc...you would be singing a different tune.

I dunno, I drafted Rudi, MJD, and Lamont Jordan and I'm 5-0 and leading my league in points and have an all-play record of 50-5.Tony Romo, TJ Housh and Antonio Gates have helped me out here. I do agree though that for some reason, there have been a ton of players at the top of the draft that have either really disappointed, or not played well enough to help their teams.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing. In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

Yeah, because all of the RB's have been so solid this year.

Are we just now realizing that fantasy football is about 90 percent luck, guys?

Try 100%.

 

[ImTheScientist]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.

Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing.

In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

Yeah, because all of the RB's have been so solid this year.

Are we just now realizing that fantasy football is about 90 percent luck, guys?

This has got to be the STUPIDEST thing I've ever read on these boards. If its 90% luck, why are you even reading FBG material?

Could it be because we love football?

 

[Umojamon]

Are we just now realizing that fantasy football is about 90 percent luck, guys?

Since there's a lot of quant info on this site, there must be an equation for success. Here's my stab at it:Let S = Your Fantasy Football Success

Let S' = Your Opponent's Fantasy Football Success

Let B = Bad Luck (Your #1 pick for the 2007 Draft was Steven Jackson.)

Let G = Good Luck (You couldn't draft Steven Jackson as your #1 pick only because when you drew lots you got fifth overall pick.)

Let L = G / B = Luck

Let B' = Bad analytical skillz (You saw Randy Moss as a stud in 2006.)

Let G' = Good analytical skillz (You saw Randy Moss as a stud in 2007.)

Let Z = G' / B' = Skillz

Assume that Fantasy Football Success (i.e., winning) is dependent on the number of points scored. Assume further that the more luck and skillz you've got, the more points you'll score. So here's my equation:

S = (G / B) + (G' / B'), or S = L + Z; Likewise, S' = (G / B) + (G' / B'), or S' = L + Z

Thus if S > S', we can conclude the following:

You're more likely to win if you've got more luck and skillz than your opponent.

I'll leave it for the geniuses to come up with the correct proportion of luck versus skillz.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

My two starting WR's are T.O. and Steve Smith. I was pretty happy to draft them, but both guys have been bad so far more often than not. Yet I can't ever see myself benching them.Wr's are such a crapshoot; there's just no consistency at all. Unlike QB's and RBs, it seems like defensive matchups mean less than nothing. In future drafts, I'm simply going to get as many potential RB starters as I can, even backups, and draft WR's towards the end. I honestly think it won't make much of a difference.

Yeah, because all of the RB's have been so solid this year.

Are we just now realizing that fantasy football is about 90 percent luck, guys?

This has got to be the STUPIDEST thing I've ever read on these boards. If its 90% luck, why are you even reading FBG material?

Not as stupid as going 2-3 after winning every game on the cheatsheet this year and then having to come in here and spend all your time in the Venting Thread having fellow fantasty players blast you with the universal icon of truth. Nope. We love football was the right answer and it's all luck is also the right answer.

 

[KoolKat]

Stupidest thread of all time.

 

[Butters]

Stupidest thread of all time.

And you and I both contributed to it. Congrats!

 

[SSOG]

Nope. We love football was the right answer and it's all luck is also the right answer.

That's ludicrous. If fantasy football were 100% luck, then no fantasy football player could ever maintain a sustained rate of success. I guarantee you that if you put a FBGs staff member in 100 leagues with monkeys who made personnel decisions by throwing darts at a board, the FBGs would win at least 95+% of those leagues, which is clear and conclusive proof that there is SOME degree of skill involved. How much can be argued, but its presence cannot.Sounds like someone's just moaning because football games aren't played on paper. Maybe this particular season was an indication of bad luck on your part, or maybe it's an indication that you aren't as skilled as you think- there's no way to tell without a *LOT* more data points. Just because you're losing doesn't mean there's no skill involved, though.I'm personally of the opinion that, in terms of a single season, you're looking at probably 70% luck and 30% skill. In terms of sustained success over a dozen years (especially in redraft), you're looking at 90% skill and 10% luck. The people who make the playoffs every year only to get eliminated in the first round manage to do so because they're simply better than everyone else, while the people who win two championships in 10 years and don't make the playoffs in any other season just got lucky.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Nope. We love football was the right answer and it's all luck is also the right answer.

That's ludicrous. If fantasy football were 100% luck, then no fantasy football player could ever maintain a sustained rate of success. I guarantee you that if you put a FBGs staff member in 100 leagues with monkeys who made personnel decisions by throwing darts at a board, the FBGs would win at least 95+% of those leagues, which is clear and conclusive proof that there is SOME degree of skill involved. How much can be argued, but its presence cannot.Sounds like someone's just moaning because football games aren't played on paper. Maybe this particular season was an indication of bad luck on your part, or maybe it's an indication that you aren't as skilled as you think- there's no way to tell without a *LOT* more data points. Just because you're losing doesn't mean there's no skill involved, though.I'm personally of the opinion that, in terms of a single season, you're looking at probably 70% luck and 30% skill. In terms of sustained success over a dozen years (especially in redraft), you're looking at 90% skill and 10% luck. The people who make the playoffs every year only to get eliminated in the first round manage to do so because they're simply better than everyone else, while the people who win two championships in 10 years and don't make the playoffs in any other season just got lucky.

Ludicrous my ###.Poker has a lot of luck as well. I watch a lot of it. Phil Hellmuth is probably the smartest player on the planet and wins more consistently than anyone and still loses a large chunk of the time.Poker has a finite set of variables.Fantasy Football has an infinite set of variables.It's 100% luck. No doubt about it. Math doesn't lie and infinity means infinity.

 

[SSOG]

Nope. We love football was the right answer and it's all luck is also the right answer.

That's ludicrous. If fantasy football were 100% luck, then no fantasy football player could ever maintain a sustained rate of success. I guarantee you that if you put a FBGs staff member in 100 leagues with monkeys who made personnel decisions by throwing darts at a board, the FBGs would win at least 95+% of those leagues, which is clear and conclusive proof that there is SOME degree of skill involved. How much can be argued, but its presence cannot.Sounds like someone's just moaning because football games aren't played on paper. Maybe this particular season was an indication of bad luck on your part, or maybe it's an indication that you aren't as skilled as you think- there's no way to tell without a *LOT* more data points. Just because you're losing doesn't mean there's no skill involved, though.I'm personally of the opinion that, in terms of a single season, you're looking at probably 70% luck and 30% skill. In terms of sustained success over a dozen years (especially in redraft), you're looking at 90% skill and 10% luck. The people who make the playoffs every year only to get eliminated in the first round manage to do so because they're simply better than everyone else, while the people who win two championships in 10 years and don't make the playoffs in any other season just got lucky.

Ludicrous my ###.Poker has a lot of luck as well. I watch a lot of it. Phil Hellmuth is probably the smartest player on the planet and wins more consistently than anyone and still loses a large chunk of the time.Poker has a finite set of variables.Fantasy Football has an infinite set of variables.It's 100% luck. No doubt about it. Math doesn't lie and infinity means infinity.

If I played a million hands against Phil Hellmuth, how much do you want to bet he's going to win more of my money than I'm going to win of his? If I played a million seasons of fantasy football against a monkey that drafted by flipping a coin, how much do you want to bet I'm going to win more often than I lose? If either activity was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT LUCK, then when repeated infinite times, the winning percentage of both parties will approach 50%. Now, I can't speak for you- a coinflipping monkey very well MIGHT win 50% of games against you, I don't know- but I can personally attest to the fact that I think I could beat a coinflipping monkey more than 50% of the time. 55% of the time, at the very least.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Nope. We love football was the right answer and it's all luck is also the right answer.

That's ludicrous. If fantasy football were 100% luck, then no fantasy football player could ever maintain a sustained rate of success. I guarantee you that if you put a FBGs staff member in 100 leagues with monkeys who made personnel decisions by throwing darts at a board, the FBGs would win at least 95+% of those leagues, which is clear and conclusive proof that there is SOME degree of skill involved. How much can be argued, but its presence cannot.Sounds like someone's just moaning because football games aren't played on paper. Maybe this particular season was an indication of bad luck on your part, or maybe it's an indication that you aren't as skilled as you think- there's no way to tell without a *LOT* more data points. Just because you're losing doesn't mean there's no skill involved, though.I'm personally of the opinion that, in terms of a single season, you're looking at probably 70% luck and 30% skill. In terms of sustained success over a dozen years (especially in redraft), you're looking at 90% skill and 10% luck. The people who make the playoffs every year only to get eliminated in the first round manage to do so because they're simply better than everyone else, while the people who win two championships in 10 years and don't make the playoffs in any other season just got lucky.

Ludicrous my ###.Poker has a lot of luck as well. I watch a lot of it. Phil Hellmuth is probably the smartest player on the planet and wins more consistently than anyone and still loses a large chunk of the time.Poker has a finite set of variables.Fantasy Football has an infinite set of variables.It's 100% luck. No doubt about it. Math doesn't lie and infinity means infinity.

If I played a million hands against Phil Hellmuth, how much do you want to bet he's going to win more of my money than I'm going to win of his? If I played a million seasons of fantasy football against a monkey that drafted by flipping a coin, how much do you want to bet I'm going to win more often than I lose? If either activity was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT LUCK, then when repeated infinite times, the winning percentage of both parties will approach 50%. Now, I can't speak for you- a coinflipping monkey very well MIGHT win 50% of games against you, I don't know- but I can personally attest to the fact that I think I could beat a coinflipping monkey more than 50% of the time. 55% of the time, at the very least.

You're not playing a coin flipping monkey and you're not playing 1,000,000 hands.Infinity cannot be less than the whole.

 

[SSOG]

You're not playing a coin flipping monkey and you're not playing 1,000,000 hands.

Doesn't matter. If something were 100% luck, then any one party would have a 50% expected winning percentage against any other party, no matter what. So, as I said, unless you think a coinflipping monkey could beat you 50% of the time, then fantasy football is *NOT* 100% luck. Obviously, however, you do believe that a coinflipping monkey could beat you 50% of the time.Edit: I also have no idea what you mean with that "infinity cannot be less than the whole" comment, but I think you're talking about topics that you don't fully understand. Just because there's SOME luck present does not mean that something is 100% luck.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

You're not playing a coin flipping monkey and you're not playing 1,000,000 hands.

Doesn't matter. If something were 100% luck, then any one party would have a 50% expected winning percentage against any other party, no matter what. So, as I said, unless you think a coinflipping monkey could beat you 50% of the time, then fantasy football is *NOT* 100% luck. Obviously, however, you do believe that a coinflipping monkey could beat you 50% of the time.

A coin flipping monkey can't play fantasy football.But, if you want to concede that I could get my wife to play and just sign her up for footballguys service and tell her to follow DD and the cheatsheets every week she will beat me 50% of the time without having to think herself for 5 minutes.Infinity is 100%. Sorry, that's just the way it is.But just for you to end this charade I'll give a little. It's 99% luck. Given the number of variables involved that gives you a lot of warm fuzzies.

 

[Brewzers]

Seems to me, skill comes in the form of trading, mining the waivers and WDIS decisions.

As an example, last week I had to make a decision to start either SAlexander (noon game) or KKeith (3pm game). Seems easy in hindsight, but there were many dynamics to consider in that decision, including the timing of the games. In the end, the decision was the difference between a Win and a Loss.

I'm sure everyone has examples, but good FF players will make better moves/decisions on those three tasks.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Seems to me, skill comes in the form of trading, mining the waivers and WDIS decisions. As an example, last week I had to make a decision to start either SAlexander (noon game) or KKeith (3pm game). Seems easy in hindsight, but there were many dynamics to consider in that decision, including the timing of the games. In the end, the decision was the difference between a Win and a Loss.I'm sure everyone has examples, but good FF players will make better moves/decisions on those three tasks.

I started Brandon Jacobs over Travis Henry on Sunday despite the cheatsheets saying otherwise. Does that make me a fantasy football guru? No, that means I got lucky.

 

[happy_donut]

Infinity cannot be less than the whole.

Isn't half of infinity, like, infinity?ETA:

Infinity is 100%. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Keep digging, you are almost there.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Infinity cannot be less than the whole.

Isn't half of infinity, like, infinity?

 

[Butters]

Seems to me, skill comes in the form of trading, mining the waivers and WDIS decisions. As an example, last week I had to make a decision to start either SAlexander (noon game) or KKeith (3pm game). Seems easy in hindsight, but there were many dynamics to consider in that decision, including the timing of the games. In the end, the decision was the difference between a Win and a Loss.I'm sure everyone has examples, but good FF players will make better moves/decisions on those three tasks.

I started Brandon Jacobs over Travis Henry on Sunday despite the cheatsheets saying otherwise. Does that make me a fantasy football guru? No, that means I got lucky.

I'd say there is some diligence at play here. I came back to the computer numerous times on Sunday afternoon and started Keith over Addai with complete assurance after finally getting the word that Addai was 100% OUT. My opponent apparently was not diligent at all, because he started Maroney. Lucky? Not in that case. I was diligent, the other guy was not. I similarly sweated out a decision on Jacobs vs. Ward and went with Jacobs. Was I lucky there? Yeah, probably. Does this mean I have a life? Not so much.

 

[timschochet]

You're not playing a coin flipping monkey and you're not playing 1,000,000 hands.

Doesn't matter. If something were 100% luck, then any one party would have a 50% expected winning percentage against any other party, no matter what. So, as I said, unless you think a coinflipping monkey could beat you 50% of the time, then fantasy football is *NOT* 100% luck. Obviously, however, you do believe that a coinflipping monkey could beat you 50% of the time.

A coin flipping monkey can't play fantasy football.But, if you want to concede that I could get my wife to play and just sign her up for footballguys service and tell her to follow DD and the cheatsheets every week she will beat me 50% of the time without having to think herself for 5 minutes.Infinity is 100%. Sorry, that's just the way it is.But just for you to end this charade I'll give a little. It's 99% luck. Given the number of variables involved that gives you a lot of warm fuzzies.

If your wife signs up for Footballguys and follows DD, she is using skill, though not her own. Your argument would be more valid if your wife knew nothing about playing FF and used NO advise when making her choices, and still beat you 50% of the time. I seriously doubt that's going to happen.Luck is a large factor in FF, but it might not even be the decisive factor. In my league, the truth is I am winning because I am paying more attention than my opponents, and picking up waiver wire guys that they could of picked up had they followed more closely (Kenton Keith last week, for example.) Is that luck? I admit, however, in a league where all of the players are paying equal attention, luck becomes much more of a factor, but still not necessarily decisive.The point of this thread was to explore whether or not WR's are taken too early in the draft, because of their inconsistency. I think this is a reasonable theory, suggesting that skill does play a part in these decisions.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Seems to me, skill comes in the form of trading, mining the waivers and WDIS decisions. As an example, last week I had to make a decision to start either SAlexander (noon game) or KKeith (3pm game). Seems easy in hindsight, but there were many dynamics to consider in that decision, including the timing of the games. In the end, the decision was the difference between a Win and a Loss.I'm sure everyone has examples, but good FF players will make better moves/decisions on those three tasks.

I started Brandon Jacobs over Travis Henry on Sunday despite the cheatsheets saying otherwise. Does that make me a fantasy football guru? No, that means I got lucky.

I'd say there is some diligence at play here. I came back to the computer numerous times on Sunday afternoon started Keith over Addai with complete assurance after finally getting the word that Addai was 100% OUT. My opponent apparently was not diligent at all, because he started Maroney. Lucky? Not in that case. I was diligent, the other guy was not. I similarly sweated out a decision on Jacobs vs. Ward and went with Jacobs. Was I lucky there? Yeah, probably.

Yes, but you didn't know that Kenton Keith would do what he would do. Heck, if he had had a regular top 10 running back performance a lot of people who started him would have lost anyway this week.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

You're not playing a coin flipping monkey and you're not playing 1,000,000 hands.

Doesn't matter. If something were 100% luck, then any one party would have a 50% expected winning percentage against any other party, no matter what. So, as I said, unless you think a coinflipping monkey could beat you 50% of the time, then fantasy football is *NOT* 100% luck. Obviously, however, you do believe that a coinflipping monkey could beat you 50% of the time.

A coin flipping monkey can't play fantasy football.But, if you want to concede that I could get my wife to play and just sign her up for footballguys service and tell her to follow DD and the cheatsheets every week she will beat me 50% of the time without having to think herself for 5 minutes.Infinity is 100%. Sorry, that's just the way it is.But just for you to end this charade I'll give a little. It's 99% luck. Given the number of variables involved that gives you a lot of warm fuzzies.

If your wife signs up for Footballguys and follows DD, she is using skill, though not her own. Your argument would be more valid if your wife knew nothing about playing FF and used NO advise when making her choices, and still beat you 50% of the time. I seriously doubt that's going to happen.Luck is a large factor in FF, but it might not even be the decisive factor. In my league, the truth is I am winning because I am paying more attention than my opponents, and picking up waiver wire guys that they could of picked up had they followed more closely (Kenton Keith last week, for example.) Is that luck? I admit, however, in a league where all of the players are paying equal attention, luck becomes much more of a factor, but still not necessarily decisive.The point of this thread was to explore whether or not WR's are taken too early in the draft, because of their inconsistency. I think this is a reasonable theory, suggesting that skill does play a part in these decisions.

Not decisive ay.Tell me. How many people projected TO at almost zero, Kenton Keith with two TD's and 100 yards and Brandon Jacobs outscoring Travis Henry his first week back from injury.I'll answer for you. Nobody.

 

[fightingillini]

Nope. We love football was the right answer and it's all luck is also the right answer.

That's ludicrous. If fantasy football were 100% luck, then no fantasy football player could ever maintain a sustained rate of success. I guarantee you that if you put a FBGs staff member in 100 leagues with monkeys who made personnel decisions by throwing darts at a board, the FBGs would win at least 95+% of those leagues, which is clear and conclusive proof that there is SOME degree of skill involved. How much can be argued, but its presence cannot.Sounds like someone's just moaning because football games aren't played on paper. Maybe this particular season was an indication of bad luck on your part, or maybe it's an indication that you aren't as skilled as you think- there's no way to tell without a *LOT* more data points. Just because you're losing doesn't mean there's no skill involved, though.I'm personally of the opinion that, in terms of a single season, you're looking at probably 70% luck and 30% skill. In terms of sustained success over a dozen years (especially in redraft), you're looking at 90% skill and 10% luck. The people who make the playoffs every year only to get eliminated in the first round manage to do so because they're simply better than everyone else, while the people who win two championships in 10 years and don't make the playoffs in any other season just got lucky.

Ludicrous my ###.Poker has a lot of luck as well. I watch a lot of it. Phil Hellmuth is probably the smartest player on the planet and wins more consistently than anyone and still loses a large chunk of the time.Poker has a finite set of variables.Fantasy Football has an infinite set of variables.It's 100% luck. No doubt about it. Math doesn't lie and infinity means infinity.

Scooby, you're sounding like a broken record. You complain about Parker, Henry, and that your team should win every week on paper. Sorry, but the games decide who wins and loses. We understand that you're bitter right now about your so called bad luck.I agree that the math doesn't lie, you will at one time have the 2nd best point total and lose to the high point total. Deal with it....it happens. As SSOG stated, there are owners that constantly make the playoffs and get themselves in position to win titles. I am one of them. In my main league, in 9 years....I have won 3 titles, missed the playoffs only once, and have finished the regular season 8-5 or better in every year but the year that I missed the playoffs. According to ScoobyDoo logic, I must be eternally lucky.....I should go grab a lottery ticket. Sure, I have had my share of luck, but if it was 100% luck, then I would have a 60% chance of making my league's playoffs (6 out of 10 teams). The probability of making the playoffs 8 out of 9 years would be 6%. Sorry Scooby, it's more than just luck.I rate head-to-head FF as 60% skill, 10% injury luck and 30% schedule luck. Skillful players create their own luck. Period. Sometimes a team with the most points scored will finish the year 6-7 and miss the playoffs....but it's rare and a function of short term luck.

 

[parrot]

I took Marvin earlier than other guys who I though might outscore him in total, counting on his consistency and durability for week-in and week-out points. Yeah, that hasn't worked out so well.