Can we finally end this debate?!

[GridironGuzzlers 3]

In fantasy football you have zero control over what your opponent scores. ZERO So start your guys who you think will score the most, period!

[SameSongNDance 0]

In fantasy football you have zero control over what your opponent scores. ZERO So start your guys who you think will score the most, period!

 

...but..but I can cancel out my opponents Matt Ryan with a savvy plug and play of Harry Douglas. This is scientific fact.

[nikki2200 4]

U mad, bro?

[Doozer 0]

...but..but I can cancel out my opponents Matt Ryan with a savvy plug and play of Harry Douglas. This is scientific fact.

Don't sleep on Harriet Tubman bro.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

No because sometimes its beneficial if there isnt a large gap between your "stud" and the next guy.

[steel827 2]

I disagree. Whatever position I am sitting in, if my opponent is not doing well, I don't move. I have that kind of control. It seems to work.

 

Just my two pennies

[kmbryant09 1]

Just something to consider with a situation like Torrey Smith & Joe Flacco (I believe that was a post on this board yesterday). QB's and WR's production are at least somewhat related.

 

Certainly you want to start your best players who will score the most points. But there are a few situations that merit further consideration. If Joe Flacco throws for 350 yards and 4 TD's, you can bet your ass that Torrey Smith also went off. It does basically negate the "blow-up" game from your opponent.

 

But its a rare situation. I'd say its limited to a true, #1 WR in a mediocre offense with an average QB. The reason is other elite QB's can spread it around (Brady-Welker/Gronk/Hernandez/Lloyd, Rodgers-Jennings/Finley/Nelson, Brees-Graham/Sproles/Colston/Moore). And obviously you can't counter RB's, since their production is isolated.

 

Other guys I can think of?

 

Brandon Marshall - Jay Cutler?

Percy Harvin - Christian Ponder?

 

Basically, I just can't see Jay Cutler or Christian Ponder putting up big games without Marshall/Harvin also putting up big games. Then again, you're probably already starting Marshall & Harvin.

 

So maybe this is a unique situation with Torrey Smith and Joe Flacco

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

I won a league in 2008 where in the championship game ibstarted colston while the opposing team started brees. Brees had around 300 yards and 2 td. Both went to colston and colston ended up scoring more than brees. Dont know if this example helps at all.

[jerryskids 5,206]

In fantasy football you have zero control over what your opponent scores. ZERO So start your guys who you think will score the most, period!

 

I agree in principle. I could see exceptions though, like a Monday night game where you can start one of two WRs who are comparable and your opponent has one of the QBs. If you have a slight lead you might start the matching WR to cancel out, and if you are losing you would start the other WR in hopes that the other QB/WR combo do poorly.

[RLLD 3,455]

Generally though I don't look at my opponent's lineup when choosing mine.

 

That's because you know that starting the players likely to put up the most points is the best way to "cancel out" your opponents scoring.

[SameSongNDance 0]

I won a league in 2008 where in the championship game ibstarted colston while the opposing team started brees. Brees had around 300 yards and 2 td. Both went to colston and colston ended up scoring more than brees. Dont know if this example helps at all.

 

It doesn't because as kmbryant pointed out, you would have probably started Colston anyway. Now, if you had started Deverey Henderson and he blew up and won you the ship, we'd have something here.

[Matt Mueller 146]

I agree in principle. I could see exceptions though, like a Monday night game where you can start one of two WRs who are comparable and your opponent has one of the QBs. If you have a slight lead you might start the matching WR to cancel out, and if you are losing you would start the other WR in hopes that the other QB/WR combo do poorly.

 

Yeah. That's somewhere I'd consider it.

 

You are up 10 and facing Romo.

 

You can start Maclin or Dez. Maybe you are starting Dez anyway but I can certainly see how that is some insurance against Romo going off.

[GreenTD 56]

I won a league in 2008 where in the championship game ibstarted colston while the opposing team started brees. Brees had around 300 yards and 2 td. Both went to colston and colston ended up scoring more than brees. Dont know if this example helps at all.

 

I know this supports the "countering your opponents player" theory but the real question is this: Would you have started Colston even if your opponent didn't have Brees? More than likely, yes you would have. Colston was probably your WR1 or WR2 so he was gonna start anyways.

 

Even though it was a sarcastic remark earlier, it makes the point that this theory is incorrect. Would you start Harry Douglas if your opponent is starting Matt Ryan? Which is essentially, would you start a guy you normally wouldn't if your opponent didn't have Matt Ryan? Obviously, if you have Julio or Roddy, you're gonna start them.

 

So basically, start the players who you believe are going to score the most points. Not who could "possibly" counter your opponents points.

[hellfish21 1]

Yeah. That's somewhere I'd consider it.

 

You are up 10 and facing Romo.

 

You can start Maclin or Dez. Maybe you are starting Dez anyway but I can certainly see how that is some insurance against Romo going off.

 

I agree. And if you are down 10, you should start Maclin because it's unlikely that Dez has a big game without Romo also putting up numbers.

But this only works for late games. You shouldn't go into the week with this plan.

[Quickolas1 80]

it was never a debate in the first place to anyone with an IQ above 50

HTH

 

[steelers2101 7]

You guys have it all wrong. The real cancel out theory has nothing to do with starting a WR of the QB your opponent has or vice versa. You're thinking of players whose values are tied together in a positive way (one scores, the other is likely to score). The cancel out theory is all about reducing or increasing the variance of your matchup based on how you view your team with respect to your opponent's team. This is about benching guys whose numbers are negatively tied to a player your opponent is starting (e.g. a WR or TE who competes with your opponent's WR or TE for yards/TDs)

 

If you have 2 players you value the same and can't decide, for example, whether to start someone like Emmanuel Sanders or some comparable WR, and your opponent has Mike Wallace or Antonio Brown, do the following: First decide if you are the favored team, or at least not a big underdog. If you think you're favored or not a big underdog and don't need a huge swing in points to win, start the other WR and not Emmanuel Sanders, as starting Sanders going up against Wallace/Brown only increases the possible variance with respect to your WR3 vs Brown/Wallace; meaning, you're putting yourself at risk if Brown/Wallace has a huge day because that likely means you'll be getting nothing out of your WR3 to counter that in any way. As the favored team, you don't want to create these opportunities for your opponent to get big swings in points. Moreover, if your opponent has Brown/Wallace, Sanders is already working for you, so even if he does well on your bench, it means he's taking away from your opponent. But if you're the favored team, you don't need Sanders to do well when Brown/Wallace are mediocre; you need only avoid Brown/Wallace blowing up and you getting nothing out of Sanders.

 

On the other hand, if your opponent is favored, enough so that you think you need something like Sanders having as good, or even better, a game as Brown/Wallace, then start Sanders. That said, unless I'm a big underdog, since Sanders is already working for me as he's competing with Brown/Wallace for yards/TDs, I would be prone to benching him.

 

That is the real cancel out theory. Benching the guy that is already working for you (because his value is negatively tied to your the value of a player your opponent is starting) when you have an equivalent player to start and can't decide, and only starting that player when you think you need a huge swing in points to beat your opponent.

[rallo 132]

I always completely disagree with this topic.

 

You want to start the team that scores the most points PERIOD

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

It doesn't because as kmbryant pointed out, you would have probably started Colston anyway. Now, if you had started Deverey Henderson and he blew up and won you the ship, we'd have something here.

 

 

I know this supports the "countering your opponents player" theory but the real question is this: Would you have started Colston even if your opponent didn't have Brees? More than likely, yes you would have. Colston was probably your WR1 or WR2 so he was gonna start anyways.

 

Even though it was a sarcastic remark earlier, it makes the point that this theory is incorrect. Would you start Harry Douglas if your opponent is starting Matt Ryan? Which is essentially, would you start a guy you normally wouldn't if your opponent didn't have Matt Ryan? Obviously, if you have Julio or Roddy, you're gonna start them.

 

So basically, start the players who you believe are going to score the most points. Not who could "possibly" counter your opponents points.

Yeah Colston was my WR2 so I was starting him no matter what. I was just giving an example of a WR actually countering a stud QB. I think the theory can be successful, but really if it is successful it is because of pure luck. I do not in any way agree with benching someone like Julio for Jason Avant just because the other team has Ryan going. I would only do it if the guys you have to replace your studs are good themselves and have a great situation to play in. The other example I gave (maybe other similar thread?) was if the weather conditions were a factor. Like torrential down pour + sustained 50 MPH winds with ice mixed in. If I have Brady and Matt Ryan and Tom is playing in these conditions I am probably going to bench him as long as Ryan is in good conditions.

 

So there are very few times when I think this could be applied. In reality if you try to bench your studs for match ups you are probably going to get burned a lot more often than you succeed.

[Coach McGuirk 0]

One time I started a WR that cancelled out my opponent's QB and it gave me extra special magic points. I was not only able to cancel out their QB with my crafty move, but it actually lowered the point totals of their other players by cancelling them out as well.

 

You can show me a million examples that prove me wrong, but I know in my heart that I will get magical special points by starting a WR who cancels out their own QB.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

One time I started a WR that cancelled out my opponent's QB and it gave me extra special magic points. I was not only able to cancel out their QB with my crafty move, but it actually lowered the point totals of their other players by cancelling them out as well.

 

You can show me a million examples that prove me wrong, but I know in my heart that I will get magical special points by starting a WR who cancels out their own QB.

I have been looking for a league like this that has magical canceling points. Do you have any openings?

[murf74 461]

In fantasy football you have zero control over what your opponent scores. ZERO So start your guys who you think will score the most, period!

You have no control over how many points your guy scores either....

[BufordT 371]

One time I started a WR that cancelled out my opponent's QB and it gave me extra special magic points. I was not only able to cancel out their QB with my crafty move, but it actually lowered the point totals of their other players by cancelling them out as well.

 

You can show me a million examples that prove me wrong, but I know in my heart that I will get magical special points by starting a WR who cancels out their own QB.

LOL....Have another drink Coach?

 

BTW...What is Coach McGuirk's theory on benching your stud players?

[tanatastic 2,061]

Best not to try OP, year in and year out I post long examples trying to show people that there is no cancel out. It's just impossible to reason with people who lack simple concept comprehension and minor mathematic situations.

 

It's like trying to explain to people that Noah's animals couldn't have fit on the ark, it's just not going to sink in.

[Stewburtx8 67]

You guys have it all wrong. The real cancel out theory has nothing to do with starting a WR of the QB your opponent has or vice versa. You're thinking of players whose values are tied together in a positive way (one scores, the other is likely to score). The cancel out theory is all about reducing or increasing the variance of your matchup based on how you view your team with respect to your opponent's team. This is about benching guys whose numbers are negatively tied to a player your opponent is starting (e.g. a WR or TE who competes with your opponent's WR or TE for yards/TDs)

 

If you have 2 players you value the same and can't decide, for example, whether to start someone like Emmanuel Sanders or some comparable WR, and your opponent has Mike Wallace or Antonio Brown, do the following: First decide if you are the favored team, or at least not a big underdog. If you think you're favored or not a big underdog and don't need a huge swing in points to win, start the other WR and not Emmanuel Sanders, as starting Sanders going up against Wallace/Brown only increases the possible variance with respect to your WR3 vs Brown/Wallace; meaning, you're putting yourself at risk if Brown/Wallace has a huge day because that likely means you'll be getting nothing out of your WR3 to counter that in any way. As the favored team, you don't want to create these opportunities for your opponent to get big swings in points. Moreover, if your opponent has Brown/Wallace, Sanders is already working for you, so even if he does well on your bench, it means he's taking away from your opponent. But if you're the favored team, you don't need Sanders to do well when Brown/Wallace are mediocre; you need only avoid Brown/Wallace blowing up and you getting nothing out of Sanders.

 

On the other hand, if your opponent is favored, enough so that you think you need something like Sanders having as good, or even better, a game as Brown/Wallace, then start Sanders. That said, unless I'm a big underdog, since Sanders is already working for me as he's competing with Brown/Wallace for yards/TDs, I would be prone to benching him.

 

That is the real cancel out theory. Benching the guy that is already working for you (because his value is negatively tied to your the value of a player your opponent is starting) when you have an equivalent player to start and can't decide, and only starting that player when you think you need a huge swing in points to beat your opponent.

 

 

Mr. Steelers2101, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

Sorry I had to.

[ralphster 274]

hth league tonight:

 

I have Murray

 

He has Dez

 

Murray 10.60 pts. Dez 10.50 (currently)

[tanatastic 2,061]

hth league tonight:

 

I have Murray

 

He has Dez

 

Murray 10.60 pts. Dez 10.50 (currently)

 

It would be the same situation if u got that 10 points from gore, or hillis, or anyone. Your player choice had no effect on his. It's just a name on a piece of paper an a stat line!

 

Ugh forget it, Incant do this anymore. There's just no such thing as cancel out. I don't care if he has roddy and you have Ryan and Ryan throws 3 Tds to roddy. It's just your guy vs his. Whether he gets those 3 from roddy or from calvin, it's just a number of points on a statsheet. Your choice had nothing to do with it other than the two players happen to be on the same field at the same time.

[steelers2101 7]

Mr. Steelers2101, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

Sorry I had to.

 

Lol. You just don't understand. It's simply about reducing variance. If you're the favorite, you want to reduce variance. If you're an underdog, especially a big one, you want to increase variance. It's pretty simple. You might be dumber for having listened to it, but that's because you're not trying to learn.

 

Wait, that's a quote from something, isn't it....trying to figure it out....okay, must rely on Google...ahhh, Billy Madison! Nice one. Good use of it too.

[rallo 132]

Lol. You just don't understand. It's simply about reducing variance. If you're the favorite, you want to reduce variance. If you're an underdog, especially a big one, you want to increase variance. It's pretty simple. You might be dumber for having listened to it, but that's because you're not trying to learn.

 

Wait, that's a quote from something, isn't it....trying to figure it out....okay, must rely on Google...ahhh, Billy Madison! Nice one. Good use of it too.

 

there will be no cheating... especially with my wife... who is a dirty, dirty tramp

[Ditka vs. ______ 0]

If I post another crappy thread, will it cancel out this one?

[jgcrawfish 232]

Play the players you think will obtain the highest score at their position, period. If you have an WR core of Brandon Marshall, Percy Harvin, Pierre Garcon and Lance Moore and you just happen to be playing the guy that has Drew Brees, there's no way in hell you should be trying to "cancel out" your opponent's QB by trying to play a Saints WR unless you firmly believe that Moore will outscore your other choices. If you play Moore and bench Harvin, and you get lucky and Moore nets 80 yds and a TD, ok, you're looking at 14+ pts (depending on league rules). If Harvin sits on your bench and gets 80 yrds receiving, 40 yds rushing and 2 TD's today...what did you cancel out but Harvin's great day?! If it's a choice between two guys who are relatively equal, again, PLAY THE ONE YOU THINK WILL SCORE MORE POINTS!!!

 

I hate this topic. Every year it's the same idiocy.

[steelers2101 7]

Play the players you think will obtain the highest score at their position, period. If you have an WR core of Brandon Marshall, Percy Harvin, Pierre Garcon and Lance Moore and you just happen to be playing the guy that has Drew Brees, there's no way in hell you should be trying to "cancel out" your opponent's QB by trying to play a Saints WR unless you firmly believe that Moore will outscore your other choices. If you play Moore and bench Harvin, and you get lucky and Moore nets 80 yds and a TD, ok, you're looking at 14+ pts (depending on league rules). If Harvin sits on your bench and gets 80 yrds receiving, 40 yds rushing and 2 TD's today...what did you cancel out but Harvin's great day?! If it's a choice between two guys who are relatively equal, again, PLAY THE ONE YOU THINK WILL SCORE MORE POINTS!!!

 

I hate this topic. Every year it's the same idiocy.

 

I think this sort of response is idiotic, even though you are right. Granted, you should start who you think will score the most points, but that is irrelevant when you can't decide who will score the most points.

 

If you think they will score the same, then who do you pick? If you want to be helpful, that's the question you should answer.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

If I post another crappy thread, will it cancel out this one?

 

 

Well done!

 

 

My opponent this week started both Nicks and Cruz to offset my QB Eli Manning (non-PPR league and we roll with 3 WRs). His other WR option (besides Jordy Nelson who is also starting) was Vincent Jackson. Instead of limiting his risk by starting only Cruz with VJax in case the Giants Offense sucked (which it did somewhat), he thought he could cancel my points out. The lone TD Eli threw went to someone else and he walked away with 8 points between 2 WRs.

 

So ends the cancel out theory.

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

I don't know if this thread is solely about the cancel out theory... But I don't always play a guy who I think will score the most points at times.

 

I look at the team I am playing and forecast how they will do. If I think they're not going to put up many points... I may be more inclined to go with who I feel are safer plays... Guys who may not have a high ceiling that week as some of my other players, but also likely won't put up a goose egg.

 

If I think I need more points, then I may take a chance on a higher risk, higher reward guy because I feel I need to take a shot.