Start a QB to cancel out opposing WR's

[H-man 12]

Tanatastic: Let's say you have a 20 point lead over your opponent, with you having 3 players left to play, 2 WRs and 1 QB, and he has 2 who are both WRs. His remaining players are locked in, he has T.Y. Hilton, and Reggie Wayne. You have comparable WRs. At QB you have the option of starting Luck or P. Manning, and based on the matchups you think Manning will produce slightly better. In this case, you will get more wins in the long run if you start Luck, even if you think he will do worse. It's basically like buying win insurance.

[jerryskids 5,212]

I am now dumber for having read this train wreck of a thread. May god have mercy on my soul.

 

Start who you guess will score the most points. That is all.

I'm dumber for reading this post. Can you read? Nobody is saying to start Orton over Peyton because your opponent has Watkins. Cripes. ..

 

Whoever talked about risk mitigation earlier hit the nail on the head. There are scenarios in which it makes sense to consider your opponent's lineup. To think otherwise is to not understand statistics.

[Quickolas1 80]

It's incredibly dumb to say "start who you think will score the most points.

No, the responses in this thread are incredibly dumb (or better said, lacking simple logic).

 

As stated by one or two, the only time your opponent's QB or WR(s) would matter is when you already know the production of the rest of your lineup. In other words, either you or your opponent has a big lead and it's down to an isolated case of QB vs WR(s) only. And that would assume there is still a choice at QB.

[Buttmonkey 8]

I see these responses every year to "start the player you think will score the most points" This is perfectly logical only if you know WHO will score the most points. While you never truly know in some cases it's pretty obvious. For example, considering your opponents lineup should never come into play if you are selecting between someone like Drew Brees vs Tampa's pass defense or Romo vs Houston's Defense. In the majority of game scenarios that could play out, Brees is going to amass more points than Romo, so even if your opponent has Dez, Bryant, you aren't starting Romo over Brees because Brees is highly statistically likely to score more points than Romo this week. Now it may not work out that way but you almost have to assume it will.

 

However as the OP mentioned, he has two like QB's in Romo and Flacco. Flacco has a slightly better matchup on the road playing an indy team that allows fantasy QB's to score slightly above average points at that position. Romo is home to a Houston that holds fantasy QB's to about 10% below average production. There is very little statistical data to support one of these players significantly outperforming the other. FF today ranks Romo as the #13 QB start this week and Flacco as the #15 start, both at the top end of Tier 3.

 

So because you don't know who will score more points before you play, considering your opponents roster isn't a bad idea when your starting options are nearly equal. If I feel that my opponent has a particularly strong play at WR and one of my options is to play that WR's QB, I will factor this in to my decision on whom to start. It's a risk mitigation strategy. If his WR, who I can see has a good matchup goes off, my QB keeps pace. This is something I know BEFORE the game is played, barring a fluke injury of course. Again, I'm only doing this if I feel i really don't have much to gain by starting the other option I have at QB.

 

Cancel out is really a bad term for this strategy. In the end, if you start Romo and he throws every pass to Whiten and Williams, but Flacco scores more points than Romo it's a bad decision. What you are doing by starting Romo is mitigating the risk that Williams and/or Whiten have a big game thus carrying Romo along with them to some degree because you know prior to the game that if Williams/Whiten have big days, than Romo will have a portion of those points to help offset that.

 

So yes, start who you think scores the most is correct, but when your decision comes down to two very similar players, your opponents lineup can, in my opinion, be factored into the equation.

This!

[Quickolas1 80]

So because you don't know who will score more points before you play, considering your opponents roster isn't a bad idea when your starting options are nearly equal. If I feel that my opponent has a particularly strong play at WR and one of my options is to play that WR's QB, I will factor this in to my decision on whom to start. It's a risk mitigation strategy. If his WR, who I can see has a good matchup goes off, my QB keeps pace. This is something I know BEFORE the game is played, barring a fluke injury of course. Again, I'm only doing this if I feel i really don't have much to gain by starting the other option I have at QB.

 

Cancel out is really a bad term for this strategy. In the end, if you start Romo and he throws every pass to Whiten and Williams, but Flacco scores more points than Romo it's a bad decision. What you are doing by starting Romo is mitigating the risk that Williams and/or Whiten have a big game thus carrying Romo along with them to some degree because you know prior to the game that if Williams/Whiten have big days, than Romo will have a portion of those points to help offset that.

 

So yes, start who you think scores the most is correct, but when your decision comes down to two very similar players, your opponents lineup can, in my opinion, be factored into the equation.

The only logic that makes any sense here is the if>then statement that if Flacco outscored Romo, then it was incorrect to start Romo.

 

Lets say in your FF league, you only start 1 QB, 1 WR and 1 TE. It is Thursday afternoon and you have a choice of Romo vs Flacco. Your opponent is starting T.Williams and J.Witten.

 

Now prove with logic that you have a point differential advantage based on the Romo to pass catcher dependency. Keep in mind you are starting an unnamed WR and TE. Opponent is starting an unnamed QB. Remember your first sentence: you said you do not know who will score more before they play.

Go.

[Buttmonkey 8]

The only logic that makes any sense here is the if>then statement that if Flacco outscored Romo, then it was incorrect to start Romo.

 

Lets say in your FF league, you only start 1 QB, 1 WR and 1 TE. It is Thursday afternoon and you have a choice of Romo vs Flacco. Your opponent is starting T.Williams and J.Witten.

 

Now prove with logic that you have a point differential advantage based on the Romo to pass catcher dependency. Keep in mind you are starting an unnamed WR and TE. Opponent is starting an unnamed QB. Remember your first sentence: you said you do not know who will score more before they play.

Go.

You really don't understand? Re-read it and try harder to comprehend it.

[jerryskids 5,212]

The only logic that makes any sense here is the if>then statement that if Flacco outscored Romo, then it was incorrect to start Romo.

 

Lets say in your FF league, you only start 1 QB, 1 WR and 1 TE. It is Thursday afternoon and you have a choice of Romo vs Flacco. Your opponent is starting T.Williams and J.Witten.

 

Now prove with logic that you have a point differential advantage based on the Romo to pass catcher dependency. Keep in mind you are starting an unnamed WR and TE. Opponent is starting an unnamed QB. Remember your first sentence: you said you do not know who will score more before they play.

Go.

This is a bad scenario. I'll change it to say that you do know who is starting in each position, you have determined the expected points, your QBs have the same expected points, and you have an expected advantage of 15 points. In this scenario it makes sense to start Romo because his points will tend to track Witten's and Williams' points, thus reducing the variability.

[Hawkfin 32]

Nobody can ever say they have a point differential advantage or concrete plan of a perfect science. Even if you had the best RB and I had the worst. Nobody knows the outcome until they've played. So to state otherwise would be a trap.

Also, this theory has everything to do with who the supporting players are. So not letting me know who I have at WR & TE and the other guy's QB is not fair. The OP does in fact know this info.

 

If the guy has a stud (P. Manning type) QB maybe it's not the right move to match point for point or "mitigation" tactic with your QB. Instead going Flacco and hope for Dallas to suck might be the better option.
However, if he's starting a weaker QB and say you have Graham & Maclin. Then I would want to trade point for point with Romo against his two. And then I have Graham & Maclin who should easily beat his average QB. Just examples.
There are many other players in this fold other then the 3 man layout you proposed. But that is the idea that seems logical to me when playing head to head.

But my complete logic behind this "in hopes to gain an advantage" is that you balance out 2 of his guy's with the QB points. There are not many ways where Romo would not produce great stats IF Williams/Witten produce big. You in a sense are protecting yourself from his two players going off on you. If they do, you have Romo who will of course also have big stats himself.

 

The other part of this tactic is that Romo doesn't necessarily have to have these 2 guy's to produce. He could actually outpoint them on his own using other players. (i.e. Dez)
To me this is an advantage even though no one really knows the outcomes. Also, Flacco could suck while Dallas is in a shootout.
Sure Flacco could be in a shootout and Dallas suck. But, then he has 2 sucky guy's most likely.

 

To me it's pretty simple. And IMO you have to live in a card board box if you just want to say: Start your best guy's.

There's no clear cut best guy here anyway. And it might be Romo if we were to choose anyway.
Others have explained this to death. If you don't get it - Then you don't get it. That's what's fun about F.F. Different strategy's.

[Quickolas1 80]

 

Others have explained this to death. If you don't get it - Then you don't get it.

 

 

Your presumptions come true. Flacco is awful. Terrance Williams and Jason Witten go absolutely nuts and Romo gets their yardage and TD's. We'll strengthen your argument by giving passing TD's 6 points so they straight cancel out the WR's TDs. Let's make this simple and say no-PPR (helps QB) and QB gets 1 pt per 25 pass which is common.

Romo - 400 yards, 4 TD's = 40 points

T.Williams - 200 yards, 2 TD's = 32 points

J.Witten - 200 yards, 2 TD's = 32 points

You were worried about T.Williams & Witten and have negated them with Romo.

Jeremy Maclin and Jimmy Graham each get 60 yards and a TD. Is that fair?

You were worried about T.Will/Witten out-producing Maclin/Graham because you already guaranteed your QB is better than your opponent's QB.

You are tied 64 to 64.

His crappy QB needs 1 point to win.

What have you proven?

What have you cancelled out?

What risk has been mitigated?

What truth has been found?

The defense rests.

[TimHauck 1,804]

No, the responses in this thread are incredibly dumb (or better said, lacking simple logic).

 

As stated by one or two, the only time your opponent's QB or WR(s) would matter is when you already know the production of the rest of your lineup. In other words, either you or your opponent has a big lead and it's down to an isolated case of QB vs WR(s) only. And that would assume there is still a choice at QB.

 

In OP's situation it is still mitigating risk. Plain and simple. If he starts Romo, it is highly unlikely for both Witten/Williams to have huge games and Romo to have a bad game. If he starts Flacco, it's possible that Witten/Williams have huge games and Flacco has a bad one, putting him in a huge whole.

 

Yes, it depends on the rest of the rosters and I'd use this only as a tiebreaker when debating between guys that you think will score around the same amount of points. But it is certainly something that can be considered when deciding on who to start if you're not sure.

[murf74 461]

Do we have to have this thread every year? No such thing as canceling out. Play guys that score the most

[BigMilk 40]

Some people say dipping your weiner in listerine before copulating turns you into a sexual Tyrannosaurus.

 

Bottom line: start the player who will score the mos points, and keep your weiner out of mouthwash.

 

Let's goooooooo McKinnon!

[TimHauck 1,804]

 

 

 

Your presumptions come true. Flacco is awful. Terrance Williams and Jason Witten go absolutely nuts and Romo gets their yardage and TD's. We'll strengthen your argument by giving passing TD's 6 points so they straight cancel out the WR's TDs. Let's make this simple and say no-PPR (helps QB) and QB gets 1 pt per 25 pass which is common.

Romo - 400 yards, 4 TD's = 40 points

T.Williams - 200 yards, 2 TD's = 32 points

J.Witten - 200 yards, 2 TD's = 32 points

You were worried about T.Williams & Witten and have negated them with Romo.

Jeremy Maclin and Jimmy Graham each get 60 yards and a TD. Is that fair?

You were worried about T.Will/Witten out-producing Maclin/Graham because you already guaranteed your QB is better than your opponent's QB.

You are tied 64 to 64.

His crappy QB needs 1 point to win.

What have you proven?

What have you cancelled out?

What risk has been mitigated?

What truth has been found?

The defense rests.

 

 

LOL dumbest post in the thread.

 

So you really think it's possible that 2 guys on the same team are going to get 200 yards and 2 TD's? And not only that, but Romo isn't going to throw a single pass to someone besides those two?

 

Probably worst case scenario using your example:

 

I'll stick with your Romo, Graham and Maclin numbers so 64 points.

 

But a more likely scenario even for Witten and Williams "going off" is them both getting 150 yards and 2 TD's. So a total of 54 points. His QB then needs 10. Obviously possible, but not guaranteed.

[Quickolas1 80]

But a more likely scenario even for Witten and Williams "going off" is them both getting 150 yards and 2 TD's. So a total of 54 points. His QB then needs 10. Obviously possible, but not guaranteed.

 

I gave up each assumption made and now you're banking on your opponent's QB not putting up 250 yards with zero touchdowns OR 100 yards and 1 touchdown...

...and my post is the dumbest? Okay.

[Buttmonkey 8]

 

 

 

Your presumptions come true. Flacco is awful. Terrance Williams and Jason Witten go absolutely nuts and Romo gets their yardage and TD's. We'll strengthen your argument by giving passing TD's 6 points so they straight cancel out the WR's TDs. Let's make this simple and say no-PPR (helps QB) and QB gets 1 pt per 25 pass which is common.

Romo - 400 yards, 4 TD's = 40 points

T.Williams - 200 yards, 2 TD's = 32 points

J.Witten - 200 yards, 2 TD's = 32 points

You were worried about T.Williams & Witten and have negated them with Romo.

Jeremy Maclin and Jimmy Graham each get 60 yards and a TD. Is that fair?

You were worried about T.Will/Witten out-producing Maclin/Graham because you already guaranteed your QB is better than your opponent's QB.

You are tied 64 to 64.

His crappy QB needs 1 point to win.

What have you proven?

What have you cancelled out?

What risk has been mitigated?

What truth has been found?

The defense rests.

 

Uh, how bad would it be if he had started Flaco - hahahahahahaaaa. You actually just proved why you would start Romo.

[TimHauck 1,804]

 

I gave up each assumption made and now you're banking on your opponent's QB not putting up 250 yards with zero touchdowns OR 100 yards and 1 touchdown...

...and my post is the dumbest? Okay.

 

Yes, yes it was.

 

What I posted was basically worst case scenario and still not that likely to happen (albeit more likely to happen than your ridiculous scenario). The 2 receivers have great games, with no TD's going to anyone else. And yet you'd still have a chance to win.

[Law 220]

Whoooooole lotta stupid in this thread.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Tanatastic: Let's say you have a 20 point lead over your opponent, with you having 3 players left to play, 2 WRs and 1 QB, and he has 2 who are both WRs. His remaining players are locked in, he has T.Y. Hilton, and Reggie Wayne. You have comparable WRs. At QB you have the option of starting Luck or P. Manning, and based on the matchups you think Manning will produce slightly better. In this case, you will get more wins in the long run if you start Luck, even if you think he will do worse. It's basically like buying win insurance.

 

Depends.........in a PPR league you could have those WRs outscore your QB. Especially if they get tackled at the one and the RB runs in the TDs. Most leagues do 1 point per 10 yards receiving to 1 point per 25 yards passing. So Luck completes 5 passes to your opponent's WR. Both get 75 yards but Luck on gets 3 points versus 10 points to the WR (5 recs + 5 points on yardage).

 

It's not a guarantee of anything. Points are points.

[Quickolas1 80]

Uh, how bad would it be if he had started Flaco - hahahahahahaaaa. You actually just proved why you would start Romo.

 

Not too bright.

If Flacco does worse than you still have no win and 1 loss for the week.

[TimHauck 1,804]

Whoooooole lotta stupid in this thread.

 

Yup especially people saying "start who will score the most points." Is anyone saying to do otherwise?

 

 

 

 

Depends.........in a PPR league you could have those WRs outscore your QB. Especially if they get tackled at the one and the RB runs in the TDs. Most leagues do 1 point per 10 yards receiving to 1 point per 25 yards passing. So Luck completes 5 passes to your opponent's WR. Both get 75 yards but Luck on gets 3 points versus 10 points to the WR (5 recs + 5 points on yardage).

 

It's not a guarantee of anything. Points are points.

 

Who said it was is a guarantee? Mitigating risk by definition is saying it's not a guarantee, you're just trying to reduce the probability of something.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

It's basically like buying win insurance.

 

 

Who said it was is a guarantee? Mitigating risk by definition is saying it's not a guarantee, you're just trying to reduce the probability of something.

 

 

Sorry.....he said win insurance not guarantee. Basically the same thing unless you're Bill Clinton.

[Law 220]

 

Yup especially people saying "start who will score the most points." Is anyone saying to do otherwise?

 

 

Yes. Yes they are.

[TimHauck 1,804]

 

 

 

Sorry.....he said win insurance not guarantee. Basically the same thing unless you're Bill Clinton.

 

That was only referring to a specific scenario.

 

 

 

 

Yes. Yes they are.

 

No they're not. The closest was someone saying to go opposite of "canceling out"

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

 

That was only referring to a specific scenario.

 

 

 

 

No they're not. The closest was someone saying to go opposite of "canceling out"

 

 

Step away from the keyboard man.

 

If you agree that you should start the guy who'll most likely get the most points, you're in agreement. Anything else and you're advocating starting someone you don't think will get the most points which is part of the aforementioned 'whole lotta stupid' in this thread.

[TimHauck 1,804]

 

Step away from the keyboard man.

 

If you agree that you should start the guy who'll most likely get the most points, you're in agreement. Anything else and you're advocating starting someone you don't think will get the most points which is part of the aforementioned 'whole lotta stupid' in this thread.

 

My (and pretty much everyone else arguing in favor of this) point is that saying "start who you think will score the most points" is obvious. This should only be considered when deciding between guys that you think will score around same amount of points.

 

If everyone knew who would score the most points, there would be no need to play out the FF season. And everyone would probably have winning lottery tickets too.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

My (and pretty much everyone else arguing in favor of this) point is that saying "start who you think will score the most points" is obvious. This should only be considered when deciding between guys that you think will score around same amount of points.

 

If everyone knew who would score the most points, there would be no need to play out the FF season. And everyone would probably have winning lottery tickets too.

 

So you agree, start the guy who you think will get the most points?

 

k.

 

/thread

[TimHauck 1,804]

 

So you agree, start the guy who you think will get the most points?

 

k.

 

/thread

 

Yes, if you are confident in who you think will get the most points.

 

But if you think two guys will score a similar amount of points, this can certainly be something to consider when breaking a tie.

 

/thread

[BigMilk 40]

If peeing yor pants is cool, consider me Knile Davis.

[jerryskids 5,212]

 

So you agree, start the guy who you think will get the most points?

 

k.

 

/thread

Seriously, put down the keyboard and grab another beer. As TimHauck said, this is stupidly obvious. Nobody is arguing against starting a person with a clear statistical advantage. If this is the point you are trying to argue, then congrats, you win.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Nobody is arguing against starting a person with a clear statistical advantage.

 

Go back and reread the thread from start to finish. There ARE people stating exactly that.

 

It all boils down to select the best option. That's what the people stating start the guy you think will get the most points are saying. Taking into account matchup, weather, opposing NFL team, etc................ANYTHING but taking into account who your opponent is starting because it doesn't matter. PERIOD.

[Serpent 51]

 

My (and pretty much everyone else arguing in favor of this) point is that saying "start who you think will score the most points" is obvious. This should only be considered when deciding between guys that you think will score around same amount of points.

 

If everyone knew who would score the most points, there would be no need to play out the FF season. And everyone would probably have winning lottery tickets too.

 

How the heck can you predict two people will score the same amount of points when people are saying you can't even figure out how many 1 player will score? In what world does it make sense to claim it's easier to project the scoring of two players than it is one player individually? To get to two you have to project at least one!

[jerryskids 5,212]

 

Go back and reread the thread from start to finish. There ARE people stating exactly that.

 

It all boils down to select the best option. That's what the people stating start the guy you think will get the most points are saying. Taking into account matchup, weather, opposing NFL team, etc................ANYTHING but taking into account who your opponent is starting because it doesn't matter. PERIOD.

It does matter in some situations. Sorry that you can't see that.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

It does matter in some situations. Sorry that you can't see that.

 

I know what you're saying.............just disagree with it.

 

I evaluate my own players; not my opponent's.

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

So what you are saying is if I am facing Marshall owner this week and I am choosing between Cutler and Romo... I should never bench Stephen Davis?

[tanatastic 2,061]

I get that people know to start who they think will score more. My concern is that people will look at the opposing teams players and have it skew your judgement. If your opponent had Marshall and Jeffrey, you will try to find an excuse to start cutler even if he's a worse choice. You'll say, well tanatastic said to start who I think will score more, and cutler will score more! Then you will start cutler, marshall will score, Alshon will rack up the yardage and cutler will end will 22 points. A solid night and consider Marshall cancelled out! Until you see that Andrew Luck on your bench scored 27...but you cancelled out so cutler was better right? RIGHT? I let fun little things like cancel out, double dipping etc be a cherry on top. A fun thing to pay attention to once the games start. I never let it factor I to who I should start.

[TimHauck 1,804]

 

How the heck can you predict two people will score the same amount of points when people are saying you can't even figure out how many 1 player will score? In what world does it make sense to claim it's easier to project the scoring of two players than it is one player individually? To get to two you have to project at least one!

 

LOL second worst post in the thread. Did you miss the part where I said who you "think" will score "around" the same amount of points?

 

Still, others are saying "start who will score the most points" as if they already know the outcome. And in order to start who will score the most points, you need to know how many points everyone who you are deciding between will score, so it's not like those guys are only talking about predicting the scoring of 1 player either...

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

I personally like to start a receiver that will get 0 to cancel out any bad players on my opponents team.

[RedzoneMonster 102]

Start the players who will score you the most points.

THIS!

[The Muffin Man 6]

 

The short answer is play against better people.

 

If you have a league of fantasy owners that all cares and knows what they're doing, it's completely luck. There isn't that much skill, it's a low soft cap. It's like saying "well if I know how to read I have a huge advantage over all the other applicants for this job." The problem is pretty much everybody knows how to read. Now if you're applying to a job like ditch digging or something, maybe people don't know how to read for it, but really you should aim higher.

 

I'm ordinarily very dismissive of "experts" because I don't really believe in such a thing for FF. But if you look at the "experts" leagues it's all random year to year.

 

A lot of times on here I see people talk about a "hot waiver wire" pickup. Well in my competitive leagues those players are pretty much always rostered, or you have a puny chance of actually getting them based on waivers because everyone with a higher waiver wire will probably want them too. If you want an unknown player it means taking a shot in the dark in advance, and even then you might not have a shot at them because someone else had the same idea.

 

^^^^ For the TLDR crowd; "I'm bad at fantasy football so it's all luck"

[Buttmonkey 8]

I get that people know to start who they think will score more. My concern is that people will look at the opposing teams players and have it skew your judgement. If your opponent had Marshall and Jeffrey, you will try to find an excuse to start cutler even if he's a worse choice. You'll say, well tanatastic said to start who I think will score more, and cutler will score more! Then you will start cutler, marshall will score, Alshon will rack up the yardage and cutler will end will 22 points. A solid night and consider Marshall cancelled out! Until you see that Andrew Luck on your bench scored 27...but you cancelled out so cutler was better right? RIGHT? I let fun little things like cancel out, double dipping etc be a cherry on top. A fun thing to pay attention to once the games start. I never let it factor I to who I should start.

I would start Luck over Cutler all day long - but what if I did not have Luck but say Russell Wilson. I'm probably predicting very even scoring between the two, so I would probably go Cutler. Not to "cancel" my ops points, but to hedge my play in the case Marshall and Jeffrey go off - at least my QB is scoring well - it will all come down to my WRs and how they perform wether I will win or not. It's not an exact science, but if all things are considered equal (as Cutler and Wilson are in this case), then playing Cutler is the "safer" play. If Wilson outscores Cutler - well so be it. However, playing Cutler provided two scenarios out of three that favor my team. (1) Cutler sucks - probably so does Marshall and Jeffrey - that would be good for me. (2) Cutler has a stellar game - that could be good for my op, but in the end it's good for me. (3) Wilson has a better game - since I rated them about even I will just take the hit on this as sometimes you choose the wrong player - it's Fantasy Football - it happens.