Fantasy Strategy Question

[FenixTx972 2]

I'm having a problem playing my own players versus my own starting defense.

 

say you have westbrook, and the seahawks def for example. what do you do?

 

(assume basic scoring, fewer points for more points allowed in def and non-ppr.)

surely the correct thing to do would be sign a new defense right?

[p00h 85]

I don't know why people keep having confusion on this, but here goes...

 

 

Westy vs. a defense doesn't mean you don't start the D. How about if westy goes for a buck50 and a td. Does that mean your D didn't do anything?!? Usually, the amount of pts given up is not the main source of pts for your D, unless the scoring is a strange format. How about if westy does his thing, but the D got 4 sacks, 2 fumble recoveries and 3 Ints, 1 of which went for a touch. The only time I'd consider benching my D is if I was starting westy, McNabb and Curtis. You get the pt. If you are playing a lot of players from a team, you might want to consider benching the D. But even then, the D might have 5 sacks and 3 turnovers, with 1 going for a touch, and yet the qb can have 2 tds, the rb a td, tons of yardage etcetcetc. And if you don't do - for turnovers, then there is no issue at all. The qb can have as many picks as he feels like throwing, won't impact your offensive production, yet at the same time the D will get those pts. Now if the D is mediocre, and you want to plug someone else in, that's fine, but there really isn't a lot of logic behind it. It's more for your own sake in terms of not being conflicted watching the game or whatever. But a rb against a D, thats a no brainer. SHould have no impact. People overengineer this crap entirely too muich with the cancelling out theory and crap like that. At the end of the day, its all about how individuals on your team perform...

[RSersen 0]

Depends. What's on the WW?

[FenixTx972 2]

i was just using that westy vs seahawks as an example, saw it on another team in my money league.

 

thats good points p00h. thanks for that point of view. me point is this though, for every td a rb or wr get, say westy in this example, you automatically lose pts from the def.

 

westbrook scores a rushing td, +6

seattle def allows 7 pts, down from 10 to 4

 

overall value of the play becomes 0, minimizing the TD by your starting running back. amirite?

[p00h 85]

nope. You have to go in accepting that points are going to get scored. Are you saying the other D you start will throw a shut out?!? Like I said, the pts allowed part of a defense is usually the least relevant part of a D putting up pts. THe pts will come from the turnovers/sacks and possible tds scored...

[my_9th_season 0]

i was just using that westy vs seahawks as an example, saw it on another team in my money league.

 

thats good points p00h. thanks for that point of view. me point is this though, for every td a rb or wr get, say westy in this example, you automatically lose pts from the def.

 

westbrook scores a rushing td, +6

seattle def allows 7 pts, down from 10 to 4

 

overall value of the play becomes 0, minimizing the TD by your starting running back. amirite?

 

Thats a pretty harsh penalty against a DEF for giving up a TD. Most scoring formats allow a range of pts in several tiers (e.g. 0-6 pts allowed =10 pts, 7-13 pts allowed =8 pts. etc.) and the same for yds allowed, with the tiers being fairly close in point value.

 

I used to struggle with that same dilemma. The only way that it bothers me is when I have to make my football picks for the weeks games (e.g. had a hard time picking the Packers vs the Cowboys because I have Romo one one team). Doesn't mean he won't get great stats, and it doesn't even mean Favre will get better stats than Romo if the Pack wins. A good example of this is Kurt Warner vs San Fran last week. Warner blew up for 484 yds, 2 TD's, 2 picks, yet the Cards still lost. Not that I picked SF, but you get my point.

 

RB vs. DEF in the same game should be the least impact, followed by WR then QB. Besides, there aren't that many teams out there who's DEF doesn't give up at least 1 TD.

 

The thing that ticks me off is that when the QB of the team whose DEF I have (ex: Romo - DAL Defense) throws a Pick 6, those points go against Dallas DEF, but Dallas' defensive players were not on the field at the time. The offensive players were, and most of them suck at playing defense...offensive players in general that is, not just Dallas'.

[FenixTx972 2]

yeah those pts shouldn't go on dal defense.

 

and yes, scoring brackets but from 0-6 is one and 7-13 is one, so a td and extra pt...you get the drift.

 

p00h, you provide obvious and sensible answers. and honestly thats not what i expect from here, which has kind of thrown me off.

[Dr. Octopus 0]

i was just using that westy vs seahawks as an example, saw it on another team in my money league.

 

thats good points p00h. thanks for that point of view. me point is this though, for every td a rb or wr get, say westy in this example, you automatically lose pts from the def.

 

westbrook scores a rushing td, +6

seattle def allows 7 pts, down from 10 to 4

 

overall value of the play becomes 0, minimizing the TD by your starting running back. amirite?

 

The thing is, your starting Westbrook as no effect on what the Seattle D does or does not do (speaking to your exmaple but the same logic would apply gnerally). Sure it may create an ackward rooting interest, but bottom line is start your best option at all positions without taking anything else into consideration.

 

What if the Seattle D gets a shutout? Your RB doesn't score and you have Seattle on your bench.

 

Also like pooh states, there are many other ways for your defense to get you points, start the best one period.

[Schontak 0]

This to me just falls back to the "Start your studs" theory. You have to start the best players based upon how you feel they will do, that goes for defenses as well as position players.

 

It's just like the arguemnt of starting RB and WR from the same team. It's really irrelavant because you just have to play the match-ups no matter what.

 

If you have no better option fantasy-wise at Def. then the choice is obvious, you play the better match-up. If you do have a better option fantasy-wise then the choice is still obvious, you play the better match-up. If your best def. option happens to be playing against half of your team you're not going to go pick up a WW scrub to play just so you can "feel better about it".

 

I know where you are coming from, it sucks watching one of your players performances cause a loss in points for another one of your players but you have to do what's best match-up wise irrelavant.

[HenryChinaski 1]

The thing is, your starting Westbrook as no effect on what the Seattle D does or does not do (speaking to your exmaple but the same logic would apply gnerally). Sure it may create an ackward rooting interest, but bottom line is start your best option at all positions without taking anything else into consideration.

 

What if the Seattle D gets a shutout? Your RB doesn't score and you have Seattle on your bench.

 

Also like pooh states, there are many other ways for your defense to get you points, start the best one period.

 

I agree - this whole thing is silly.

 

Westbrook can have 200 yards with 3 TDs ... But Seattle might return two punts for TDs and an interception for a score.

 

The two have NOTHING to do with each other.

 

At the same time, sometimes you can play damage control. You can say to yourself - if Westbrook doesn't have a good game, then chances are that my defense did have a good game. That would be a positive way to look at it. Nut regardless, it shouldn't matter.

 

If you pick up a waiver wire defense - they have just as good of a chance, probably even better, of not having a good game. Why? Because there is probably a good reason why they're on the waiver wire. Who you start at RB should have absolutely NO bearing on who you start at any other position.

 

But you can't think like that.. You are going to talk yourself out of a victory with faulty logic like that.

[Slim Pickins 0]

I agree - this whole thing is silly.

 

Westbrook can have 200 yards with 3 TDs ... But Seattle might return two punts for TDs and an interception for a score.

 

The two have NOTHING to do with each other.

 

At the same time, sometimes you can play damage control. You can say to yourself - if Westbrook doesn't have a good game, then chances are that my defense did have a good game. That would be a positive way to look at it. Nut regardless, it shouldn't matter.

 

If you pick up a waiver wire defense - they have just as good of a chance, probably even better, of not having a good game. Why? Because there is probably a good reason why they're on the waiver wire. Who you start at RB should have absolutely NO bearing on who you start at any other position.

 

But you can't think like that.. You are going to talk yourself out of a victory with faulty logic like that.

 

what he said. Don't forget, unless you do IDP or something different than standard it's DST. I usually assume most will at least hang a FG negating the shutout. So instead of 10 for the shutout you get 8. Then start from there. Chicago's saving grace has been in the ST/turnover department this year.