At what point do you look past the name?

[keggerz]

Last night while I was trying to come up with the topics of what to write about in Beyond TDs and Tackles I came up with the idea to see how Peyton Manning had fared of late compared to his early season success. If you look at the chart in 1st down in that article you'll see his last three weeks has him around the likes of Blake Bortles, Colt McCoy, Drew Stanton and Geno Smith.

 

Manning is just the example here but when do you "look past the name/upside?" Another example could be Cordarrelle Patterson and how I'm sure many kept plugging him into their lineups due to his upside/expected return.

 

Lately, I started to refer to Manning, Jimmy Graham and even Aaron Rodgers (vs BUF) as "you made your bed, now lie in it" type players. In a sense you are damned if you do or damned if you don't when it comes to starting them...and if you are giving out advice you are really in a no win situation.

[whomper]

Im a big get hung up on the name guy and not quick to jump on the next big thing. It has plagued me over the years

[Gopher]

When it starts to become a trend. Patterson had a good Week 1, followed by so-so Weeks 2 and 3. When he did next to nothing in Weeks 4, 5, and 6, it became apparent that it was time to look for other options. One week (Rodgers vs BUF) does not make a trend. Same with Graham. Had he done nothing in Week 15, I'd be concerned about Week 16. But, in watching the game last week, he was obviously involved (and therefore I have very little concern about him against ATL in Week 16).

 

Manning is interesting. I don't own him in any leagues, so I haven't been paying that close of attention. But, I would say that it's definitely a trend. Of course, could he break out of that trend and throw 5 TD's this week? Absolutely.

 

Timing also plays a part in this. People (myself included) were far more patient when Rodgers started the season slowly, than they probably are now with Manning. I knew Rodgers would break out of it eventually, and the reward (of when he had that first huge game) outweighed the risk of him throwing for only 175 yards and only one TD. So, I started him every single week, and didn't think twice. Same thing with Graham now, IMO. The reward of him having a "Graham-like" game outweighs the risk of him putting up a dud. He's gradually recovering from a shoulder injury, and I think it's safe to say that there is almost no chance that he does nothing in Week 16 (like he did in Week 13, and to a lesser extent, Week 14).

[keggerz]

When it starts to become a trend. Patterson had a good Week 1, followed by so-so Weeks 2 and 3. When he did next to nothing in Weeks 4, 5, and 6, it became apparent that it was time to look for other options. One week (Rodgers vs BUF) does not make a trend. Same with Graham. Had he done nothing in Week 15, I'd be concerned about Week 16. But, in watching the game last week, he was obviously involved (and therefore I have very little concern about him against ATL in Week 16).

 

Manning is interesting. I don't own him in any leagues, so I haven't been paying that close of attention. But, I would say that it's definitely a trend. Of course, could he break out of that trend and throw 5 TD's this week? Absolutely.

 

Timing also plays a part in this. People (myself included) were far more patient when Rodgers started the season slowly, than they probably are now with Manning. I knew Rodgers would break out of it eventually, and the reward (of when he had that first huge game) outweighed the risk of him throwing for only 175 yards and only one TD. So, I started him every single week, and didn't think twice. Same thing with Graham now, IMO. The reward of him having a "Graham-like" game outweighs the risk of him putting up a dud. He's gradually recovering from a shoulder injury, and I think it's safe to say that there is almost no chance that he does nothing in Week 16 (like he did in Week 13, and to a lesser extent, Week 14).

 

That's pretty much what I've been saying about Graham on the pod and radio interviews I do...but at QB, where options are generally plentiful, moving on from Manning makes much more sense.

[Gopher]

Im a big get hung up on the name guy and not quick to jump on the next big thing. It has plagued me over the years

 

There's a very fine line between making knee-jerk reactions, and sticking with a player too long (based on their reputation).

 

I think what's helped me is this... I set my lineup, based on a combination of my gut feeling, as well as some projections (from a site, or maybe two). Then, I look at what the player has actually done, as of late (maybe the last 3-6 weeks/games). If the projections are too high (or too low), in my opinion, I'll factor in all of the above.

 

In other words, if a guy hasn't surpassed 20 points in six weeks, yet he's projected to score 22 this week, I'll put my money on him not hitting that number, regardless of how good the matchup may appear to be. Sometimes, players are projected too high (or too low) for way longer than they should be. Eventually, the prognosticators figure it out, but it takes a while. Take RG3 last year... Kept seeing him in the top 5-10 QB's, and he kept failing to come anywhere close. On the flipside, there are guys who consistently outperform their projections, and continue to be ranked lower than they should be.

[Gopher]

That's pretty much what I've been saying about Graham on the pod and radio interviews I do...but at QB, where options are generally plentiful, moving on from Manning makes much more sense.

 

Depends on the league, but in general, I would agree. If you have Graham, and your next best option at TE is a guy in the 15-20 range (or even top 10-15), I think you have to roll with Graham.

 

On the other hand, if you have Manning, and your backup is decent, I think you'd be hard-pressed not to at least think about benching Peyton. I'm not saying that I would (I think I'd still play him, in most cases), but I'd think twice about it, for sure.

[IrishPride]

I'd have to say I had two players that fall into you category, Ball and Garcon, I plugged them in way to many line ups based on who they were, not how they played. Its your shiny object that you think is "Gold" but its actually fools gold. Now match ups and Injuies are factors but ultimately each player has your perceived value and thats how people go broke mining/gambling. Finally after weeks of dissapointment I woke up, stepped out of the fog and dropped both players, after "REALITY" crushed my perception.

Edited December 19, 2014 by IrishPride

[Big John]

Josh Gordon with his reputation but not numbers since he returned.

[stevegrab]

I had this problem a lot with Fitz the last few years. Or even Megatron with some of the injuries and GTD burning me.

 

For somebody like Peyton I'd need to do more research, but it seems the key has been they're running a ton now and he doesn't need to throw. So I'd have to look at the defense they play, if they're prone to give up lots of rushing yards, then I'd consider Peyton to continue that trend of lower production. But I'd have to have somebody pretty damn good or with a juicy matchup to bench him late in the season or during playoffs.

[Gopher]

I'd have to say I had two players that fall into you category, Ball and Garcon, I plugged them in way to many line ups based on who they were, not how they played. Its your shiny object that you think is "Gold" but its actually fools gold. Now match ups and Injuies are factors but ultimately each player has your perceived value and thats how people go broke mining/gambling. Finally after weeks of dissapointment I woke up, stepped out of the fog and dropped both players, after "REALITY" crushed my perception.

 

I had this problem a lot with Fitz the last few years. Or even Megatron with some of the injuries and GTD burning me.

 

For somebody like Peyton I'd need to do more research, but it seems the key has been they're running a ton now and he doesn't need to throw. So I'd have to look at the defense they play, if they're prone to give up lots of rushing yards, then I'd consider Peyton to continue that trend of lower production. But I'd have to have somebody pretty damn good or with a juicy matchup to bench him late in the season or during playoffs.

 

 

Garcon and Fitz are both good examples. They've been duds more than studs, as of late. People will use the argument that they could go off on any given week, so they have upside. Well, that may be true, but there are a lot of players not worth starting who have a big week, on any given week. But, for every big week that they have, they may have 3 (or 5, or 10) bad ones.

[stevegrab]

Garcon and Fitz are both good examples. They've been duds more than studs, as of late. People will use the argument that they could go off on any given week, so they have upside. Well, that may be true, but there are a lot of players not worth starting who have a big week, on any given week. But, for every big week that they have, they may have 3 (or 5, or 10) bad ones.

 

This year I finally had some better #4 WR to use over Fitz (or Megatron with his GTD and decoy games) like Jordan Matthews, Jarvis Landry and even Eddie Royal (few weeks where he was hot). But since my WR core is big upside for my team (DemThomas, Megatron, Fitz but poor RBs) I was always hoping for the bigs scores from the studs and still a little reluctant to sit them. Just for fun I checked some stats on their starts over our 13 week regular season (no playoffs for me)

DemThomas - all 12

Megatron - only 8 (sat the 3 games he missed and week 5 one of his two "decoy" games)

Fitz - 9 (many of these were with Megatron hurt and before Matthews started producing regularly)

Matthews - 5 (including 4 of the last 5 weeks replaced Fitz down the stretch)

Landry - none but was added in week 12 for depth possible 2015 keeper

Royal - 5 pf the 8 weeks on my roster (many while Megatron was out)

 

I remember a couple years ago when Megatron was a super studd and DMD started projecting 150,2 every week, I kept thinking that would be great but just not realistic. (Though I understand his methods/reasons.)

Edited December 19, 2014 by stevegrab

[Tripleshot]

At what point do I look past names? Well, when they have boobs. Boobs > names.

 

But speaking from a fantasy standpoint, I might look past the name if I had a viable option. However, it's awfully hard to sit a Manning or Rodgers for anything less than a solid backup QB on my roster with a cherry matchup(like playing against the Bears) or knowledge of Manning playing despite taping his left arm to his body for the game.

[isleseeya]

The hardest time is championship game and over years I have benched a stud for a hotter player with good match up and other times I stuck with a stud in a bad matchup . Mixed results so I still find it very hard to have a consistent philosophy on this. This week I am sticking with forte over Lamar miller , latavius Murray and kerwynn Williams . It's a ppr league however which makes my decision a bit easier to go with forte

[NAUgrad]

Great thread! I have Manning and if I had a better option I would absolutely bench him right now. I almost picked up Anderson to do it too, but since it looks like he's not going to get the start then I didn't pull the trigger. I just think Manning has lost it and really should retire at the end of this season. Yep, I said it!

[stevegrab]

Great thread! I have Manning and if I had a better option I would absolutely bench him right now. I almost picked up Anderson to do it too, but since it looks like he's not going to get the start then I didn't pull the trigger. I just think Manning has lost it and really should retire at the end of this season. Yep, I said it!

 

Fyi

Browns game coverage locally reported Cam practiced fully and should play once he is cleared by doctors. Then they had a bit of coach Rivera's press conference, he said they should have word today.

[ts]

When talking about the FF playoff or super bowl game in H2H leagues, the fantasy matchup might also come into play, meaning if (for example) I'm playing some team that is averaging substantially more FF points per game than me, I'd be less inclined to sit a "slumping" name player for the "safe" bet of someone else ... ie, maybe swing for the fences on the slim chance for a 125/2 day from a Josh Gordon (risking him posting 25/0 or some similar debacle) rather than settle for a more likely 65/0 game from say, Brandon LaFell ... since the "sure" 65/0 output probably won't be enough for me to win my FF game anyways.

[Scorcher]

I got burned last week with Rodgers and Jordy. I honestly thought they would be okay. But looking to next year in a keeper league where I will be deciding between D Thomas and Jordy, RIght now I am leaning Jordy because of the QB play. P Manning has been mentioned; with the way things have been going, might just be the time next year to look at him as one who might be slipping which could also hit J Thomas. I don't even know who would take Manning's place or if Denver is even grooming someone right now.

[jon33km]

Manning has a terrible december.. just look at this year and last. Best tactic is to get him and trade him in november