Jrick35 Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 (edited) I guess you are damn glad your opponent didn't start McNair that week. 614420[/snapback] Actually I just looked at what might have happened had my opponent started McNair and thereby casing me to maybe decide to go with Mason, using the same strategy that caused me to start Walker. In week 3 I scored 146.3 points of which I got 35 points from Walker Mason scored 4.3. If I had started Mason instead of Walker my score would have been 115.6 My opponent scored 117.2 of which he got 42 from Favre McNair scored 5.95 Had my opponent started McNair instead of Favre his score would have been 81.15. At 146.3 - 117.2 I won by 29.1 points At 115.6 - 81.15 I would have won by 34.45, actually increasing my margin of victory. So either way would have worked out. But as we all know the object is to score the most points and as I said I liked Favres chances to go big against Indy better than I liked McNairs chances to go big against JAX. And since I was facing Favre that caused me to go with Walker to get the matchup. Now obviously if I had started Walker and my opponent had started McNair then I would have won 146.3 - 81.15 but I did not know going in that Walker was going to put up 35 points or that Mason would be held to 4.3. I just knew that by playing Walker against my opponent who was starting Favre, that if Favre did go off against Indy that I would rather have Walker playing than Mason. And since I was unable to distinguish one of these WR's over the other based on their own merits or matchups I went for the QB matchup and, it worked. Edited December 18, 2004 by Jrick35 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 20, 2004 Author Share Posted December 20, 2004 Benching Mason this weekend for Walker because your opponent had Favre would have worked out soooooo well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Men In Tights Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 I am not sure if I should start another topic, and this is off this topic since I already replied and just curious how anyone works this. Do you pick up a free agent just so someone else can't pick them even if there isn't a chance they will start. Example, I have D Davis, Edge, and Pittman, and picked up J Jones just so another team weak at RB couldn't pick them up. There was a cost for the transaction and since he will never play does this make sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 I am not sure if I should start another topic, and this is off this topic since I already replied and just curious how anyone works this. Do you pick up a free agent just so someone else can't pick them even if there isn't a chance they will start. Example, I have D Davis, Edge, and Pittman, and picked up J Jones just so another team weak at RB couldn't pick them up. There was a cost for the transaction and since he will never play does this make sense? 622868[/snapback] YES Good strategy! Especially if you win and the cost is absorbed by the cay$h! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I may need to do the QB cancel against Drew Bennett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I am not sure if I should start another topic, and this is off this topic since I already replied and just curious how anyone works this. Do you pick up a free agent just so someone else can't pick them even if there isn't a chance they will start. Example, I have D Davis, Edge, and Pittman, and picked up J Jones just so another team weak at RB couldn't pick them up. There was a cost for the transaction and since he will never play does this make sense? 622868[/snapback] Yes, I have done this. If it is someone I strongly feel will become a large contributor to the game (and some other owner's weekly score), I do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I may need to do the QB cancel against Drew Bennett. 623032[/snapback] Do you really think that is a QB cancel move? Derrick Mason is healthy now so Volek has more weapons to throw to. If you have another QB that is not a stud or you are worried about their playing time (or lack thereof) this week if their team have clinched a playoff spot, then these are the factors you might think of for starting Volek anyway? I don't know enough about your situation, I probably shouldn't have posted this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Benching Mason this weekend for Walker because your opponent had Favre would have worked out soooooo well 622507[/snapback] You're a complete ass! Not only do you simply translate what you read into whatever it is you want it to say but you are so afraid of being wrong that even now you have to revisit this more than 48 hours after the last previous post in the thread. And you are still skewing what I said to fit your point. Again I must say that your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 I am not sure if I should start another topic, and this is off this topic since I already replied and just curious how anyone works this. Do you pick up a free agent just so someone else can't pick them even if there isn't a chance they will start. Example, I have D Davis, Edge, and Pittman, and picked up J Jones just so another team weak at RB couldn't pick them up. There was a cost for the transaction and since he will never play does this make sense? 622868[/snapback] Yup ... right here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duarte5451 Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 In a recent discussion with another Huddler we discussed the "strategy" of starting a WR from your team to "cancel out" points for your opponent's starting QB. I absolutely can not see how this strategy has any merit what-so-ever. I believe you should ALWAYS start the players you believe will score the most points in a given week regardless of who your opponent is going to start against you. It does you absolutely no good to "cancel out" your opponent's QB points with that QBs WR ... if you left a higher scoring WR on the bench. Inevitably somebody will say well if you have 2 equivalent players then this strategy should be used. Again I say if you have 2 equivalent players that their respective matchups are MUCH more important than the fact that your opponent has the QB for one of them. So ... am I in left field on this one? How many of you really look at who your opponent is starting and let that impact your own starters? 614300[/snapback] Hey, can you rate my team? haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Weasel Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 I must be the dumbest person alive. After reading 5 pages of manhood-measuring arguments, I finally realized this thread started a year ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 I must be the dumbest person alive. After reading 5 pages of manhood-measuring arguments, I finally realized this thread started a year ago. 960922[/snapback] Oh man, I been there done that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 I must be the dumbest person alive. After reading 5 pages of manhood-measuring arguments, I finally realized this thread started a year ago. 960922[/snapback] Now, why would you even have found this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zia Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 would i sit moss for kennison just because opponent has trent on play? guess not. would i sit owens for andre johnson just because .... blabla? guess not but if you have 3 tier2 WRs on your roster, and your hunch would be to go with WRs A and B, but WR C is playing with your opponents hot QB (and is #1 taarget), then... OF COURSE. WR game down from the real Tier 1 is less science then throwing dice, so take additional merits, no matter how small. and yes, calling a tactic of someone "dumb" gets him out and angry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 OF COURSE. 960967[/snapback] Here we go again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 but if you have 3 tier2 WRs on your roster, and your hunch would be to go with WRs A and B, but WR C is playing with your opponents hot QB (and is #1 taarget), then... OF COURSE. 960967[/snapback] What if WR C were playing the Ravens (or whichever team is the best against the pass this year) and one of your other options at WR was playing the Colts (or whichever team is the worst against the pass this year)? You'd still start WR C against the best pass defense in the league rather than starting a WR against the worst pass defense in the league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 wow....I actually remember how this started and reading this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredGSanford Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Here we go again. 960970[/snapback] Not again. Please make it stop! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Men In Tights Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Not again. Please make it stop! 961082[/snapback] I want to say the original argument was about equal value WR, equal ease of defense, and equal everything else you can flipping bring up, and with all that being equal picking the WR your opponents QB is throwing to isn't a "dumb" thing. IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 I always start the player that I think will score the most points based on a number of factors including who is playing who. However... I use the cancell theory when looking at my #3 WR if there are two guys with equal match-ups who I like equally well. I draft RBs early and barring injury I usually match-up very well with the other 11 team's RBs. I draft QBs late and draft a ton of WRs as, to me, it is the most difficult fantasy position to play. Short version, anything I can get out of my #3 WR on a weekly basis is pretty much gravy. If there are two players I'm wavering on in a given week at that spot and all things are equal I use this theory. I use this theory a lot when I think your QB will outscore mine given the above perameters. In one of my leagues I will generally be starting Walker, Bruce and Mason as my #3. If you are playing Culpepper and I'm trying to decide between Mason and Williamson, all things being equal between Mason and Williamson that week, I'll start Williamson. Of course I truly believe that a parachute opening properly when you skydive is a 50-50 proposition not matter what you geniuses think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 (edited) Having read much of this thread last year, I remember thinking that it seems people's hang up on this theory is caused by the phrase "cancel out". Obviously, there is nothing(short of hacking your oponents account ) you can do to affect their lineup. His/her players are going to score what they are going to score no matter what. The idea behind starting a WR(that is equal to all your other options) that is a target of your oponent's QB is simply a way to try and hedge your bet. Its nothing more than thinking(as many have stated already) "if his QB has a hugh day, I am betting my guy will get some of that. And if their offense flopps and gets shutdown, I can live with one of my WR doing nothing matching his QB doing nothing." Edited September 1, 2005 by Delicious_bass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuckmonkey Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 My head hurts now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 I generally pick my nose, throw the booger against a wall and see how long it sticks. If it sticks for longer than 1 minute, I go with the WR to cancel out my opponent's QB. If it is not gooey enough, and falls off the wall, I play the guy who will score the most points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stimer Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 "if his QB has a hugh day, I am betting my guy will get some of that. And if their offense flopps and gets shutdown, I can live with one of my WR doing nothing matching his QB doing nothing." 961294[/snapback] Yet if his QB has a HUGH day and does not throw any of the td's to said receiver which you decide to start to "hedge your bet" ... it very well could come BRACK to bite you in you bum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.