Grits and Shins

Cancelling out your opponent's QB points

Is it a valid strategy to cancel your opponent's QB with your WR?  

203 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it a valid strategy to cancel your opponent's QB with your WR?

    • NO, start the WR you think will score them most
      172
    • YES, start the WR to "cancel out" your opponent's QB points
      31


Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a plausible reason can ever be given for leaving a player on the bench that you think will score the most points. It's quite simple, actually.

 

I suppose if you really felt both guys were evenly matched (including the match-up), then I suppose it wouldn't hurt to lean that way. But there's absolutely no evidence to support that you'll even cancel him out anyway. Ask Marvin Harrison or Reggie Wayne owners. How many times has Manning gone off while they had so-so totals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think a plausible reason can ever be given for leaving a player on the bench that you think will score the most points.  It's quite simple, actually.

 

I suppose if you really felt both guys were evenly matched (including the match-up), then I suppose it wouldn't hurt to lean that way.  But there's absolutely no evidence to support that you'll even cancel him out anyway.  Ask Marvin Harrison or Reggie Wayne owners.  How many times has Manning gone off while they had so-so totals?

 

614327[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

And as I have told Grits, I never sit a stud to go with a matchup.

 

This is simply a strategy that I have chosen to employ this year when faced with choosing between two players of similar abilities and points potential.

 

In our discussion of this subject he resorted to name calling and insults and now he is going for the public humiliation factor with this poll.

 

I never suggested that my strategy was better than anyone else's i was simply explaining the strategy that I use.

 

I always start my studs, but in choosing a starter between basically even players this is the strategy that I choose to use.

 

Why it is such a problem for him is beyond me.

Edited by Jrick35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is simply a strategy that I have chosen to employ this year when faced with choosing between two players of similar abilities and points potential.

614346[/snapback]

 

I have never used this to choose my starting WRs and I honestly don't see any merit to it, but have you gone back to see how well this strategy worked this year? I don't think it would prove anything either way, but it might be interesting to see the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And as I have told Grits, I never sit a stud to go with a matchup.

 

This is simply a strategy that I have chosen to employ this year when faced with choosing between two players of similar abilities and points potential.

 

In our discussion of this subject he resorted to name calling and insults and now he is going for the public humiliation factor with this poll.

 

I never suggested that my strategy was better than anyone else's i was simply explaining the strategy that I use.

 

I always start my studs, but in choosing a starter between basically even players this is the strategy that I choose to use.

 

Why it is such a problem for him is beyond me.

614346[/snapback]

 

I did not call you out in this post (you will notice I did not name you) ... I'm not trying to humiliate you either. I also didn't call you names ... I did say it was a "dumb strategy" and if this is insulting to you, so be it. It is totally beyond me how anybody can think the "cancel out" method has any validity at all. Yet vehemently you supported this method. I thought I'd see how many other Huddlers feel as you do ... and just maybe bring you to the light.

 

So for you ... if you have "basically even players" you consider your opponent's QB before you consider matchup. When with basically equal players you should be looking at their matchup and NOT who your opponent intends to start at QB.

 

If, after you have taken your two "basically even players" and determined that their matchups are equally good or equally bad, you choose to start the WR that corresponds to your opponent's QB that's a different thing. However, at that point you have decided that both players are going to score about the same amount of points so it really is irrelevant which one you choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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]

 

The point that I think you are missing is that I do start the players that I think will score the most points.

 

I do not start a WR to match up against my opponents QB over another WR whom I think will outscore the 1st WR.

 

I go for the matchup if and when I am presented with a choice of two players whom I think are of similar abilities and have the same potential for points that week.

Edited by Jrick35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never used this to choose my starting WRs and I honestly don't see any merit to it, but have you gone back to see how well this strategy worked this year?  I don't think it would prove anything either way, but it might be interesting to see the numbers.

614365[/snapback]

 

In the specific example he provided earlier he said that he decided to start Walker instead of Mason in week 3 because his opponent had Favre that week.

 

He confirmed that other factors did not enter into his decision. Factors like:

1) Mason just went off on Indy in week 2 (8 catches for 104 yards) and was facing a stiff Jacksonville in week 3.

2) Walker just went off in week 2 (7 catches for 102 yards) and was getting that Indy defense that Mason just shredded.

 

It all came down to his opponent was starting Favre that week.

 

Now if you look back at the season starting Walker over Mason (in my league where we get 1 point per reception) because your opponent had Favre would have been a "good move" weeks 3, 5, 7, 11 and 13 ... it would have been a "bad move" weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, and 14. That's 5 out of 12 correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point that I think you are missing is that I do start the players that I think will score the most points.

 

I do not start a WR to match up against my opponents QB over another WR whom I think will outscore the 1st WR.

 

I go for the matchup if and when I am presented with a choice of two players whom I think are of similar abilities and have the same potential for points that week.

614368[/snapback]

 

I have included your quote from the other thread below. You will note that you never said you considered the matchup. Surely you aren't arguing that both had equally good or equally bad matchups are you? Mason was going against Jacksonville and Walker was going against Indianapolis.

 

This may be a better example.

 

Week 3 I had R. Moss, D. Mason & J. Walker at WR. We start 2 WR.

 

R. Moss was my #1 and then I had to choose between Mason & Walker. Mason is a proven Top WR and Walker had been the talk of the off season though only average through the first 2 weeks. In fact through the first 2 weeks he and Mason were pretty much even, points wise.

 

My opponent that week had Favre so I opted to go with Walker over Mason so that Walker's points would neutralize Favre's.

That was the week that Walker scored 35 points,

Favre scored 42 and

Mason put up 4.3,

so starting Walker over Mason was a 31 point swing and

Walkers 35 turned Favre's 42 into a 7.

It worked well for me that week for sure.

 

I realize that you disagree with this strategy but that doesn't mean it is a bad strategy or that I am wrong to use it.

 

I have been using this strategy all season and I have advanced to the 2nd rd of the playoffs so it at least hasn't hurt me thus far.

Edited by Grits and Shins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW ... the vote is running 13-1 to always starting the players you believe will score the most points.

Edited by Grits and Shins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is most likely only rare occasions when a cancelling philosophy can be used and even then, it's probably a biproduct of starting the guy you think will do the best.

 

To start a player simply to cancel is absurd at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If, after you have taken your two "basically even players" and determined that their matchups are equally good or equally bad, you choose to start the WR that corresponds to your opponent's QB that's a different thing. However, at that point you have decided that both players are going to score about the same amount of points so it really is irrelevant which one you choose.

 

Perhaps you should read slower when you are reading other peoples posts.

 

This is what I said in response to one of your posts...

 

Like I said I would not bench a Harrison or a Moss for a lesser WR to follow this strategy. I am using it when having to choose from players of comparable skill level and comparable potential for points that week.

 

I am guessing that you missed the "comparable potential for points" part.

 

Or perhaps I did not elaborate on that part enough. But looking at matchups is a key proponent in determining Potential for Points.

 

I guess I thought that went without saying.

 

Apparently I was wrong.

 

I do not disregard matchups, I do not bench studs to have the matchups. I use this strategy when chooing between players of comparable skill level and comparable potential for points that week.

 

That is all I have ever been saying.

 

I think you missed that point and we have in fact been arguing over nothing.

Edited by Jrick35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is most likely only rare occasions when a cancelling philosophy can be used and even then, it's probably a biproduct of starting the guy you think will do the best.

 

To start a player simply to cancel is absurd at best.

614395[/snapback]

 

 

this thread is absurd at best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you should read slower when you are reading other peoples posts.

 

This is what I said in response to one of your posts...

I am guessing that you missed the "comparable potential for points" part.

 

Or perhaps I did not elaborate on that part enough. But looking at matchups is a key proponent in determining Potential for Points.

 

I guess I thought that went without saying.

 

Apparently I was wrong.

 

I do not disregard matchups, I do not bench studs to have the matchups. I use this strategy when chooing between players of comparable skill level and comparable potential for points that week.

 

That is all I have ever been saying.

 

I think you missed that point and we have in fact been haggling over nothing.

614404[/snapback]

 

So you are telling me that you felt like Mason and Walker would both score about the same points in week 3 ... never mind that Mason was going against the stiffling Jacksonville defense and Green Bay was getting Indy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you missed that point and we have in fact been arguing over nothing.

614404[/snapback]

 

Do you ever go to the park and see two dogs meeting each other for the first time and they walk around in circles while each of them are trying to sniff the other one's ass? That's what you and Grits are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you ever go to the park and see two dogs meeting each other for the first time and they walk around in circles while each of them are trying to sniff the other one's ass? That's what you and Grits are doing.

614413[/snapback]

 

Dammit I hope he's clean then. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time where "cancelling" should be considered is if you truly don't know which of two receivers to play. And only then, you merely get a bit of a psycological benefit out of it. Like playing Jimmy Smith against Chicago and Eric Moulds against a defense of similar caliber. If you're playing against Leftwich, you may consider playing Jimmy Smith because it makes you feel a little better. It's a false sense of security, but I'd have to admit to going that route a time or two....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are telling me that you felt like Mason and Walker would both score about the same points in week 3 ... never mind that Mason was going against the stiffling Jacksonville defense and Green Bay was getting Indy?

614410[/snapback]

 

What I am saying is that you have missed a huge point of what I was saying and you have susequently blown this way out of proportion.

 

Today I would love a Walker Matchup against Indy over a Mason matchup against almost anybody.

 

But in Week 3, based on Walker's career up to then the choice was not as obvious even going up against Indy.

 

He had only gone over 100 yds twice and he had only had 2 mutli-TD games ever. So please don't pretend to know that he was going to go off for 200 yds and 2 TD's. No matter how bad a defense might or might not be, you can't predict that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be this has already been said...I got tired of rereading previous posts. But if you use the logic that starting a WR to offset your opponent's QB is somehow advantageous, are you not also suggesting that your opponent may want to shy away from using that QB if you have a favorite target WR?

 

If I have Harrison and my opponent has Manning, or even if I have Andre Johnson and my opponent has Carr, is he likely to consider starting a lesser QB? Probably not. I'd even go as far as to say that I NEVER consider my opponent's lineup, even if it's almost a toss-up, although I know a couple of guys who do.

 

I have a hard enough time trying to guess who will score the most points, given considerations for NFL matchups, weather, injuries, home field advantage if any, etc. I am certainly not smart enough to try to digest the merits of choosing between two WRs when my opponent has a QB who throws to one of those guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So jrick ... would you be touting your strategy so highly today had your opponent in week 3 had Steve McNair?

 

22-1 ... wonder who that ONE is ... apparently 22 of us are wrong though ...

Edited by Grits and Shins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But in Week 3, based on Walker's career up to then the choice was not as obvious even going up against Indy.

614430[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I don't know about that.... I started R. Ferguson against INDY in week #3 due to the potential points bonanza, and my opponent didn't even start Favre :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to, but stopped. It doesn't help muc. You need to win your matchups against the other team at each pposition. I MIGHT give considertion to perhap my #3 wideout: if I were facing Rothlisberger and had a choice of Randle-El or a Dennis Northcutt I would probably go with el, unless Northcutt (or whoever) had been on a hot streak.

 

That being said, it's great to have Randy Mosss if you play vs Culpepper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am saying is that you have missed a huge point of what I was saying and you have susequently blown this way out of proportion.

 

Today I would love a Walker Matchup against Indy over a Mason matchup against almost anybody.

 

But in Week 3, based on Walker's career up to then the choice was not as obvious even going up against Indy.

 

He had only gone over 100 yds twice and he had only had 2 mutli-TD games ever. So please don't pretend to know that he was going to go off for 200 yds and 2 TD's. No matter how bad a defense might or might not be, you can't predict that.

 

614430[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Blown what out of proportion ... you advocated a "cancel your opponent's QB strategy" and I called you out on it ... what is blown out of proportion about that?

 

Walker was one of the hottest WR at the end of last season:

1 catch 66 yards and 1 TD in week 12

3 catches 93 yards and 1 TD in week 13

4 catches 50 yards and 1 TD in week 14

2 catches 26 yards in week 15

4 catches 124 yards and 2 TDs in week 16

3 catches 41 yards in week 17

5 catches 111 yards and 1 TD in week 18

1 catch 44 yards in week 19

 

6 TDs in 8 weeks

 

Then after a slow start 2 catches for 27 yards in week 1 of this season he had a nice 7 catches for 102 yards in week 2.

 

What's NOT to like about him going against the Indianapolis defense? Would I have expected him to have 200 yards and 2 TDs ... nope. But I believe most of us would have put him at 100 yards and at least 1 TD. Were you projecting those kinds of numbers for Mason against Jacksonville?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When deciding between players who I feel have roughly the same scoring potential in a given week, I have taken tons of dumb things into account, including matching up against the other guy's QB, matching up with my own QB, and who's playing on national TV. So shoot me.

 

What's dumb to me is going to the trouble of taking a poll on a question that ends up being decided 25 - 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.