Seems crazy to ask, but start Rodgers or Watson?

[KingOfTheJungle 3]

I've got both, and with Watson playing cupcake Cleveland at home and Rodgers playing at tough-defense Minnesota, I can't make up my mind.

[weepaws 2,452]

Rodgers

[tanatastic 2,061]

Dont sit the guy who just had back to back 5td games. Rodgers is safer, but Watson is arguably the QB1 overall till he shows otherwise. Sounds nutty but thats the facts, cant argue with the scoreboard.

[Antiramie 50]

Watson

[SpenceToons 70]

Zimmer's Vikings have had a history of keeping half-a-lid on Rodgers' production.

 

Be bold and go with Watson.

[Phil Simms 11 127]

Starting Watson over Cam, but I may change my mind again.

[Phil Simms 11 127]

Starting Watson over Cam, but I may change my mind again.

[Challenger 72]

Really, you need to ask? You used top 3 picks on Rogers and now have to carry another QB for rest of the season, ouch.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Really, you need to ask? You used top 3 picks on Rogers and now have to carry another QB for rest of the season, ouch.

 

Guys emerge out of nowhere, happens every year and those are the guys that end up on the winning teams. Its a real decision. Sometimes you have to jump on guys who break out. I drafted Wilson, didnt expect to carry 2 QBs. But then Wilson started sucking and Alex smith is blowing up so I am now starting Smith who is the QB2 in my league 2 point behind Brady. Things happen.

[Challenger 72]

Yup, happens, but just unfortunate. For Wilson, you didn't spent a top pick on, def move on anytime.

 

If I have Rogers tho, I just think bench spot is too valuable. But that is different in every league.

[cavern 70]

it's rodgers in your lineup every week. luckily you are in great shape if you lose rodgers or have bye week

[KingOfTheJungle 3]

I love Rodgers more than the dog in the commercial.

 

That's why I spent a high draft pick to grab him as the first QB off the board.

 

But I'm asking about this specific weekend ...

 

Rodgers is playing at Minnesota, where he was held to just 212 last year, and has done even worse in the past there.

 

Meanwhile, Watson (who I spent my 20th and final pick on) has back-to-back 5 TD games and is playing at home against Cleveland!

 

It if weren't for these two extreme scenarios I wouldn't even be asking.

 

Just wondered what you experts thought.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

No way I could sit Rodgers for him...but Matt Ryan? I am willing to make that move.

[TennisMenace 156]

I'm benching Brady for......the kid.

[wizbang 10]

I have Watson and am very high on him this year and for his career. His matchup is clearly better so if you're going to take the bench Rodgers risk, this is the week. With that said, Watson WILL post a single digit week or two. If it burns you, it could be ugly. I guess it depends, Rodgers is a safer bet with lower upside this week. Watson has very high upside but will come down to earth eventually.

 

If I need the win and need a good QB weekend, Rodgers. If I'm feeling like a big underdog or favorite with some room to spare, Watson.

[weepaws 2,452]

I would start Rodgers.

 

But in no way is it crazy to bench him for Watson.

 

He's on fire.

[KingOfTheJungle 3]

BTW, this is a 2K ante league and I am tied for 1st at 4-1.

[snatchit 108]

Rogers always has ho hum numbers at Minny. Watson is playing the Browns

[IMMensaMind 459]

BTW, this is a 2K ante league and I am tied for 1st at 4-1.

One thing to consider is: how much will HOU have to score on CLE? How well will GB move the ball against MIN on the ground?

 

I think that GB only wins with passing TDs. I can see HOU winning with rushing TDs, and Miller/Foreman grinding the clock.

[tanatastic 2,061]

One thing to consider is: how much will HOU have to score on CLE? How well will GB move the ball against MIN on the ground?

I think that GB only wins with passing TDs. I can see HOU winning with rushing TDs, and Miller/Foreman grinding the clock.

I agree with this. They might not need a big day with multiple tds from Watson to win.

I would start Rodgers.

But in no way is it crazy to bench him for Watson.

He's on fire.

Thank you for this take, well said.

[SpenceToons 70]

One thing to consider is: how much will HOU have to score on CLE? How well will GB move the ball against MIN on the ground?

 

I think that GB only wins with passing TDs. I can see HOU winning with rushing TDs, and Miller/Foreman grinding the clock.

 

CLE is a lot stronger against the run than they are against the pass.

 

In wk3 HOU played TEN with a porous defense and they piled on the points. The final was 57-14 and Watson threw for 4 TDs and ran for a 5th.

[vuduchile 1,940]

This isn't crazy to consider. Its nearly a coin flip.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Trade one of them and roll with the other.

[KingOfTheJungle 3]

NFFC ... no trading in these leagues.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

keep in mind, last week Watson had one of the biggest garbage time games I have ever seen

 

that opportunity won't exist this week

[SpenceToons 70]

One point that I'll concede in regards to Watson is that he's been operating with clean pockets the past few games and defenses may start scheming creative ways to attack and fluster him. That's not an issue with Rodgers since he's been around long enough that every angle of attack has been considered and we know he'll be able to tap dance around it. My money is on Watson ultimately finding his own way to use his feet to dispel tricky schemes.

 

And it's because of those clean pockets that i first began regarding Watson as more attractive than the QB I happened to draft - Russell Wilson - who's no slouch himself as the current QB8.

[LoOnAtIk 75]

Zimmer's Vikings have had a history of keeping half-a-lid on Rodgers' production.

 

Be bold and go with Watson.

Are you sure..?

 

I could be wrong here but I always thought historically Rodgers TORCHES the Vikings...

 

No chance i bench Rodgers here and this thread alone is why I'm high on him in DFS also.

[brotherbock 349]

It's not crazy, but at the same time, think of sample size. Watson is on fire. But the history of the league is full of guys who went on absolute tears...for four or five or six weeks. Do you bench an Aaron Rodgers for a Billy Volek? Watson has been tearing it up...for two games. One game before that which was 'pretty good'.

 

Not saying he doesn't outproduce Rodgers for the rest of the season. Just saying that there aren't a lot of data points for Watson yet.

[brotherbock 349]

Zimmer's Vikings have had a history of keeping half-a-lid on Rodgers' production.

 

Be bold and go with Watson.

 

 

Are you sure..?

 

I could be wrong here but I always thought historically Rodgers TORCHES the Vikings...

 

No chance i bench Rodgers here and this thread alone is why I'm high on him in DFS also.

 

To this point, Rodgers went 560/5 in two games against the Vikes last year, with 42/1 on the ground.

[SpenceToons 70]

Are you sure..?

 

I could be wrong here but I always thought historically Rodgers TORCHES the Vikings...

 

No chance i bench Rodgers here and this thread alone is why I'm high on him in DFS also.

 

I was going off my general impressions, which also happened to be backed up by the two gurus I read on a weekly basis. Of course, that's not good enough for the purposes of this post so I went back and checked.

 

GB and MIN have faced off six times in the regular season since Zimmer took over and here is how Rodgers fared for those particular weeks according to the FFtoday standard scoring QB page for those six games:

 

2014 wk 5......QB15

2014 wk 12 ...QB10

2015 wk 11....QB17

2015 wk 17....QB17

2016 wk2.......QB14

2016 wk16.....QB1

 

lol....that last game is a significant outlier ! Rodgers threw for 347 yds and 4 TDs. Since it is the most recent outcome, I wouldn't begrudge any Rodgers proponent from shaking a finger and saying, "See there ! "

 

But to anyone who is leaning heavily Rodgers over Watson for the question this thread poses, I ask if you've watched the YouTube highlights for Watson's last 3 games. If you haven't, spend the 15 minutes to view them and then you may well come back thinking, "Doggone, this is not as easy a call as I thought !"

[brotherbock 349]

 

 

But to anyone who is leaning heavily Rodgers over Watson for the question this thread poses, I ask if you've watched the YouTube highlights for Watson's last 3 games. If you haven't, spend the 15 minutes to view them and then you may well come back thinking, "Doggone, this is not as easy a call as I thought !"

 

I for one agree with you on this point. I would personally (I don't own Watson anywhere) still have the back of one foot out of the water at the moment. Or at least still be wading in the shallow end. I and probably everyone have been burned by going all in on a guy who has a couple or a few great games and then is never heard from again.

 

Watson looks good, and not just his stats. But again, it's still a small sample size. Not 'crazy' to start him over Rodgers. But certainly the riskier of the two options, I'd say.

[LoOnAtIk 75]

 

I was going off my general impressions, which also happened to be backed up by the two gurus I read on a weekly basis. Of course, that's not good enough for the purposes of this post so I went back and checked.

 

GB and MIN have faced off six times in the regular season since Zimmer took over and here is how Rodgers fared for those particular weeks according to the FFtoday standard scoring QB page for those six games:

 

2014 wk 5......QB15

2014 wk 12 ...QB10

2015 wk 11....QB17

2015 wk 17....QB17

2016 wk2.......QB14

2016 wk16.....QB1

 

lol....that last game is a significant outlier ! Rodgers threw for 347 yds and 4 TDs. Since it is the most recent outcome, I wouldn't begrudge any Rodgers proponent from shaking a finger and saying, "See there ! "

 

But to anyone who is leaning heavily Rodgers over Watson for the question this thread poses, I ask if you've watched the YouTube highlights for Watson's last 3 games. If you haven't, spend the 15 minutes to view them and then you may well come back thinking, "Doggone, this is not as easy a call as I thought !"

 

Your stats are pretty biased and they don't paint the entire picture..

 

For example that 2014 week 5 game at the top of your list he went 12 for 17 for 156 and 3 TDs with 0 INTs... and the packers won 42-10.

 

In my book that qualifies as torched. How he compared to other QBs on that particular day in history is irrelevant IMO.

[SpenceToons 70]

 

In my book that qualifies as torched. How he compared to other QBs on that particular day in history is irrelevant IMO.

 

Not if your opponent played the QB4 for that week and you lost the matchup because you left the QB2 on your bench.

 

This "QB15 for wk5" business is the most relevant stat there is for FF. It's why I didn't say anything about the 42-10 victory or his 156 yd and 3 TD performance even though I was aware of it as I was drafting the post. If you play in a 10 or 12 team league and start the QB15, I'd say there's well over a 50% chance that you will be outplayed at the QB slot for that week.

[cavern 70]

well, if your point is that Minn keeps him in check then this is not a good data point. if your point is that GB will beat the living crap out of minnesota and they will stop Rodgers from throwing early, then this is a good data point

 

Not if your opponent played the QB4 for that week and you lost the matchup because you left the QB2 on your bench.

 

This "QB15 for wk5" business is the most relevant stat there is for FF. It's why I didn't say anything about the 42-10 victory or his 156 yd and 3 TD performance even though I was aware of it as I was drafting the post. If you play in a 10 or 12 team league and start the QB15, I'd say there's well over a 50% chance that you will be outplayed at the QB slot for that week.

[brotherbock 349]

 

Not if your opponent played the QB4 for that week and you lost the matchup because you left the QB2 on your bench.

 

This "QB15 for wk5" business is the most relevant stat there is for FF. It's why I didn't say anything about the 42-10 victory or his 156 yd and 3 TD performance even though I was aware of it as I was drafting the post. If you play in a 10 or 12 team league and start the QB15, I'd say there's well over a 50% chance that you will be outplayed at the QB slot for that week.

 

I dunno about that 50% estimate. I just started looking that week up, and the first performance I saw was Austin Davis putting up 375/3 for the Rams. He wasn't starting for anyone. The Cleveland version of Hoyer put up 291/3/1. Cutler threw 289/2/2 and ran 1TD in (!), Glennon with 249/2/1. That's 4 guys who were very possibly not near starting lineups. Davis had had one good game before that. Hoyer maybe...he'd been doing okay early that season before he got hurt. But I still don't remember people starting him in large numbers. If they had Hoyer, they also likely had one of these other guys too. No one went into the draft targeting Hoyer. No one I know was starting Cutler in 14. Or Glennon.

 

After that, I've found P. Manning, Rivers, Wilson (201/2 and 122/1 rushing), maybe Romo (324/2/1), maybe Brady (292/2), maybe Luck (threw 1, ran 1, so depending on scoring), maybe Brees (371/2/3), maybe Cousins (283/2). Those maybes depend on scoring. In standard Yahoo (25yds/pt, 4 pt TDs, -1INTs), then Brees did about 2 pts better. Romo, Cousins and Brady scored about a point more than Rodgers.

 

The stats look to me like Rodgers would have been significantly beaten by Peyton, Rivers, and Wilson in terms of QBs who significantly outscored him and were likely to be in starting lineups. Add in that some of those guys are going to be rostered for the same teams.

 

So a 12 team league, 12 starting QBs, Rodgers is outscored by 7 of them (the starters). How many are rostered by the same team? Does the Rodgers guy have Rivers as his backup, for example?

 

Eh, maybe the 50% is about right.

 

But. Are you really warning people away by saying "Look, I know the guy has a history of some 3 TD games against the Vikes...but in a week where a lot of other guys do well too, that might not win you your matchup"?

[SpenceToons 70]

Heh, heh....I was taking a stroll on what's turned out to be the nicest Autumn afternoon we've had for a few days and was wondering if that 50% was too low !

 

Manning - Wilson - Luck - Brees - Rivers - Romo - Brady - Newton all fell above that line and would be reasonable choices for starters. I can't count Cousins since he hadn't become chic yet. Myself, I may have started Dalton that week (I saved stuff for most of my weeks that year but wk5 wasn't one of them) because I was growing weary of Stafford and that would make another. I agree with your point about some teams potentially rostering two of the above. So let's subtract Romo and Rivers as potential 2nd string QBs, add in my Dalton, and you get 7 names. 7/11 would make for a 64% chance you're outplayed that week.

 

 

brotherbock said: "But. Are you really warning people away by saying "Look, I know the guy has a history of some 3 TD games against the Vikes...but in a week where a lot of other guys do well too, that might not win you your matchup"? :)"

 

It's not the TDs. It's the significant likelihood that your QB would underperform his peers against a tough defense.

 

(Of course we wouldn't have known that then since it was the first in a series. You'd have to have gaged whether MIN had been stingy against the pass the first 4 games and known that Zimmer as CIN DC had stymied Rodgers in a game or two he'd played against the Bengals).

 

As it turns out, in the other games sandwiched in between the first one we're discussing and that outlier from 2016 wk16, Rodgers never threw for 300 yds and his TDs varied between 1-2.

 

As far as the relative basis thing, I scanned the QBs above Rodgers for each week and there were always a few oddballs who made it above the line. But there were also usually about 7 or so who would have made reasonable choices for starters. I may have set the bar a bit too low at 50%. If I had called it out as 60%, that would have been making a stand with a little more cojones behind it !

[SpenceToons 70]

well, if your point is that Minn keeps him in check then this is not a good data point. if your point is that GB will beat the living crap out of minnesota and they will stop Rodgers from throwing early, then this is a good data point

 

Here are his yardage and TD numbers for the 6 weeks in question. The first one, which is the one you're addressing, would have netted you about 24 points in my league, which would have elicited a disappointed sigh from most Rodgers owners, especially given how many of the other QBs did better. The 2nd through 5th weeks would have induced a fair amount of posts in the FU threads. The 6th one - yeah, fist bumps. Taken as a whole, these 6 games mean that you should assess a date against the Vikings with caution.

 

2014 wk5 156 yds, 3 TDs

2014 wk12 209 yds, 2 TDs

2015 Wk 11 212 yds, 2 TDs

2015 wk 17 291 yds, 1 TD

2016 wk 2 213 yds, 1 TD

2016 wk 16 347 yds, 4 TDs

[LoOnAtIk 75]

 

Here are his yardage and TD numbers for the 6 weeks in question. The first one, which is the one you're addressing, would have netted you about 24 points in my league, which would have elicited a disappointed sigh from most Rodgers owners, especially given how many of the other QBs did better. The 2nd through 5th weeks would have induced a fair amount of posts in the FU threads. The 6th one - yeah, fist bumps. Taken as a whole, these 6 games mean that you should assess a date against the Vikings with caution.

 

2014 wk5 156 yds, 3 TDs

2014 wk12 209 yds, 2 TDs

2015 Wk 11 212 yds, 2 TDs

2015 wk 17 291 yds, 1 TD

2016 wk 2 213 yds, 1 TD

2016 wk 16 347 yds, 4 TDs

Those numbers say solid floor with extremely high ceiling IMO.

 

Oh wait it's Aaron Rodgers. That most recent game is not an outlier. He's capable of those performances at any moment. Not that vegas is never wrong but they got the O/U at 45 and Packers -3...

[SpenceToons 70]

All right....one more post.

 

 

All the numbers below are taken from the FFToday standard scoring QB pages.

 

 

 

Since the start of the 2014 season, Rodgers has played in 53 games and averaged 25.22 points per game. 6 of those 53 games were played against the Vikings, in which Rodgers scored 20.86 points per game.

 

In that span there were 21 teams vs which Rodgers played only a single game. 14 of those teams yielded more points to Rodgers than the 20.86 he's averaged vs MIN. Only 7 teams held him to less. They were....

 

HOU 20.10

TB 19.90

SF 18.50

OAK 14.10

ARI 13.50

BUF 12.00

DEN 7.00

 

There were 8 teams vs which Rodgers played 2 or more games. Here are the averages scored against each of those 8 teams....

 

ATL 32.75

CAR 31.80

PHI 29.30

CHI 28.14

DET 26.40

DAL 22.43

MIN 20.86

SEA 20.43

 

Only against SEA did Rodgers fare worse than he did against MIN and that wasn't by much.

 

So I wouldn't look at these numbers and say that Rodgers "torches" the Vikings. Instead, I'd say that he has a tougher time against MIN than he does most other teams.

 

[Edit: Most Rodgers owners are going to gladly start him regardless. But there may be a small percentage of owners whose individual situation might call for them to consider starting their QB2]

[tanatastic 2,061]

Rodgers injury aside, Watson is on fire yet again. Time to stop doubting it fellas.