Furd Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 This article makes no sense to me. What am I missing? Seems like another poor article to me (See The Case for Peyton Manning). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I don't buy into the QB/WR combo either. It totally defeats the purpose of going after value in a draft. Going after Manning/Harrison or Palmer/Johnson pretty much guarantees you are stuck with losing RBs. I think the only way the strategy works is if you get lucky with a RB or two getting into the lineup when a #1 goes down to injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 21, 2006 Author Share Posted August 21, 2006 Well, my point is, other than your QB and WR scoring their points at the same time, what difference is there if your FF QB and WR are from the same NFL team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Double Points! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Misfit Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 The only time it makes sense to me -- besides the fun of watching your QB throw a bomb to your WR, which I do enjoy -- is when you are in a league that gives money to the highest-scoring team each week. Having a QB-WR from the same team will produce a bit of a feast-or-famine with your team, but that includes spiking the numbers on a good week that could give you a big edge in winning the money for that week. At least, I've found that to be true. Of course, you're more likely to lose games in a "famine" week, too. Otherwise, I gotta think that coming up with a new twist on fantasy football articles in this day is really, really hard to do. You want unique content for subscribers, but really, what can be said about fantasy football that hasn't been said about a million times before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I've never been a fan of this approach. Personally to go out of your way in a draft to get the "hook up" is a waste unless they happen to fall into your lap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selly Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I've never been a fan of this approach. Personally to go out of your way in a draft to get the "hook up" is a waste unless they happen to fall into your lap. I agree with cliaz here. I don't go out of my way to get the "hook up", if it falls to me though and both players are good, I'll take it. I do have have Peyton and Marvin in one league, but I got Peyton in the 3rd and Marvin in the 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I have been pressed into doing this before, but only when I percieve the value of both players to exceed their draft position. It also is an acceptable strategy in a cumulative points league. But in head to head leagues it is definitely something I strive to avoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I have been pressed into doing this before, but only when I percieve the value of both players to exceed their draft position. It also is an acceptable strategy in a cumulative points league. But in head to head leagues it is definitely something I strive to avoid. cumulative points league ? that is a new one to me. are there many of these around ? never heard of them before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Men In Tights Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I usually do the opposite of the hook and draft/start the WR to "offset" my opponents QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 The only time I do that is coincidence as the other part of the combo is the top rated available at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 i really see it as slightly more of a negative than a positive. you're basically doubling-up your wager on your QB's health and effectiveness. i guess if you really believe in a guy, it may be worthwhile...like if you're totally convinced culpepper is going to have a big bounceback year, it makes sense to put a high price on chambers and try and pair the two up. i think it's generally a little better to diversify, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Well, my point is, other than your QB and WR scoring their points at the same time, what difference is there if your FF QB and WR are from the same NFL team? It doesn't. Points are points regardless who they come from. I actually rather having players from different solid offensive units so if one has a bad day that doesn't negate other players I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlas Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 So let me take it one step further... I took S.Jackson last night with my first pick, Willie Parker with my second and Tory Holt was best reciever available by round three. Later, the best QB available was Bulger. (There was an early QB run in rounds 1&2) We debated the pros and cons, but decided to take him and deal with it later.(Did end up with Vick later, although I'm not sure how much good that's going to do). So I'm in the position of either trying to trade for a different QB and/or move Jackson/Holt to break up the possible situation of taking a hit when they both have a poor outing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 The whole debate is so silly to me. I just don't care if I have a tandum WR/QB combo or not. I take each player as they come based on their merit. I happen to have Holt/Bulger in OUTRAGED, but that wasn't something I actively sought or avoided. It no more appealing to me than Chad Johnson/Bulger or Holt/Hasselebeck as I'd expect all 3 of those combos to score a similar total number of points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 This has been debated many times in the Huddle. I thought the concensus was, going out of your way to get a hook-up was totally insane. There's just no logical argument for it, unless your league gives extra points for it in some way, which is also ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziachild007 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 (edited) Nevermind...........I am dumb. Edited August 21, 2006 by Ziachild007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 cumulative points league ? that is a new one to me. are there many of these around ? never heard of them before. The Huddle Writers league is a cumulative points league. You don't play head to head games, the champ is the team that has the most points at the end of the season. In that format having a QB/WR combo is much less risky. The reason people are opposed to this method in head to head leagues is the fact that if your combo has a bad day, you probably lose that week. Whereas individual bad days have little effect in a cumulative points league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 This article makes no sense to me. What am I missing? Seems like another poor article to me (See The Case for Peyton Manning). Yeah- like stated above there are only so many fresh, original articles you can write on FF. The Manning article was ridiculous, and was just written for arguments sake I have to believe. The QB/WR combo thing works once in a while, but is so high risk high reward I don't go that route. Diversify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 The only time I do that is coincidence as the other part of the combo is the top rated available at that time. exactly... if I draft players on the same team...it's because they were good value at the spot I was picking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 (edited) Personally I don't like the hit or miss aspect of it. If your QB has a bad week so does your WR most of the time. With my teams I usually strive for consistancy. Unless you somehow manage to get Manning & Harrison or Wayne but it doesn't affect your RB position then I would stay away from that scenario. Not to mention you end up with two of your top players with the same bye week. Edited August 21, 2006 by rajncajn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 22, 2006 Author Share Posted August 22, 2006 Otherwise, I gotta think that coming up with a new twist on fantasy football articles in this day is really, really hard to do. You want unique content for subscribers, but really, what can be said about fantasy football that hasn't been said about a million times before? Maybe. But I wouldn't expect an article like that at this site. This seems about right to me: The only time I do that is coincidence as the other part of the combo is the top rated available at that time. What's next? An article about starting players from the same teams as your opponent's players to "nullify" their points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 This has been debated many times in the Huddle. I thought the concensus was, going out of your way to get a hook-up was totally insane. There's just no logical argument for it, unless your league gives extra points for it in some way, which is also ridiculous. Word. I thought someone had done a statistical breakdown here that showed in your standard perf league, a QB/WR hookup would in most cases slightly underperform a "non-hookup" tandem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh B Tool Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 I have witnessed much better teams over the years that had a QB/RB from the same team rather than a QB/WR from the same team. In fact many a team that did have the QB/RB combo won the whole friggin' tamale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 I don't buy into the QB/WR combo either. It totally defeats the purpose of going after value in a draft. Going after Manning/Harrison or Palmer/Johnson pretty much guarantees you are stuck with losing RBs. I think the only way the strategy works is if you get lucky with a RB or two getting into the lineup when a #1 goes down to injury. I played in a league years ago that gave two-point bonuses to QB-WR hookups. In that case, there is some value. Otherwise, it's not worth pursuing at the expense of a RB. But I imagine that taking Burress in the 5th or Shockey in the 6th and Eli a couple rounds later is a solid strategy, since the Giants offense pass offense is likely to be pretty freaking good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts