cliaz Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 A lot of owners tend to draft a QB/WR from the same team banking on that connection when it comes to fantasy scoring (both players score at the same time.). I've done it in the past and it's worked out but it's a double edged sword. Anyone here use that method when drafting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_the_builder Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 (edited) I don't do it on purpose, but if I have say, Peyton and looking for a WR and the best available is Wayne, I wouldn't shy away from it. Edited May 25, 2006 by jake_the_builder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Well sometimes, but it's more a result of drafting players from a high powered offense, than trying to capitalize on the QB-WR hookup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I don't look for it, but if I drafted CJ or Holt for example and Palmer or Bulger were available when I would possibly look to get a QB then I wouldn't shy away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfv87 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Double edge in most cases, but certain ones work well ie: Manning & Marvin because Manning will score regardless and Marvin will get his regularly also. But I do not search out hook ups in general unless you play with an "all or nothing" attitude. I do this in 1 league that pays $$ for the high score each week as well as counting in the standings. The double bonus then can mean $$ and I try to employ it more. But it is not the best way to play for consistent scoring. IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I tend more to avoid it. I will definitely take guys I think are the best available players, but I won't reach to make a situation happen, and if I have 2 guys I am deciding between I would rather diversify than take the combo. Get in the playoffs, and if your combo has a bad game you are sunk. I'd rather not take the chance of getting shut down by 1 NFL team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalboyd Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Double edge in most cases, but certain ones work well ie: Manning & Marvin because Manning will score regardless and Marvin will get his regularly also. But I do not search out hook ups in general unless you play with an "all or nothing" attitude. I do this in 1 league that pays $$ for the high score each week as well as counting in the standings. The double bonus then can mean $$ and I try to employ it more. But it is not the best way to play for consistent scoring. IMO 1487314[/snapback] Agreed. I think it end up happening more so because of drafting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I did some research a couple of years ago that considered the week-to-week consistency of having various combinations of two guys from the same team on your FF team. The idea was to see which combinations were no more volatile week-to-week than any other random grouping of players from the same positions. I adjusted the research to not care if guys had the same bye weeks or not. And, I found that, generally, you wanted to avoid QB/WR1, but that QB/WR2, QB/RB, RB/WR1 and RB/WR2 combos from the same team were really no different than having guys from different teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 If it's a team I like definetely Vick with Alge is definetely a pet peeve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I take QB later in the draft unless Manning falls to me (which will never happen) I know I can get something good later. If I happen to have Fitz. or Holt or whoever I would't shy away from any of those QBs because I had the w/r. And by the same token, I wouldn't draft the QB that had the connection with my w/r if there was better qb talent there also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 And, I found that, generally, you wanted to avoid QB/WR1, but that QB/WR2, QB/RB, RB/WR1 and RB/WR2 combos from the same team were really no different than having guys from different teams. 1487401[/snapback] I remember that - IIRC I saw an article/post that broke it down, and average "hookup" scoring was actually LESS than having two guys from different teams - not significantly so, but less is less, right? I don't bend over backwards to get the hookup or avoid it; I simply draft/bid for the players I like. If that dovetails into me having Palmer and Johnson or Delhomme and S Smith (both of which occurred last year), so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BYoder Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Get in the playoffs, and if your combo has a bad game you are sunk. I'd rather not take the chance of getting shut down by 1 NFL team. 1487348[/snapback] Had this happen to my uncle a few years back in one of our local keeper leagues. He purposely traded to get the QB to match his top WR and during the regular season had by far the best team. Come playoff time his QB/WR combo had a bad game and he was done. IIRC he would have won that game had he even had mediocre production out of either his QB or WR. I agree with most others in the thread, though. I don't purposely seak out a QB/WR combo, but if the players happen to fall that way during the draft then so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 (edited) I'm really not sure it makes that much of a difference. Sure, if the offense has a bad game, your QB & WR probably put up low numbers. But wouldn't the reverse be true? I haven't seen any real analysis. I wouldn't avoid it, but I wouldn't seek it out either. Why some guys get wood about their guys scoring at the same time, I'll never know. Edit to add: Its your duty to take advantage of those guys who like the "connection" (or hook-up or whatever.) Edited May 26, 2006 by Furd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 A lot of owners tend to draft a QB/WR from the same team banking on that connection when it comes to fantasy scoring (both players score at the same time.). I've done it in the past and it's worked out but it's a double edged sword.Anyone here use that method when drafting? 1487297[/snapback] I had Palmer/Housh last year and that combo scored me a lot of points. I dont go for the combos, but if they fall to me, so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 I remember that - IIRC I saw an article/post that broke it down, and average "hookup" scoring was actually LESS than having two guys from different teams - not significantly so, but less is less, right?1487517[/snapback] Do you mean "less volatile" or "lower scoring"? The actual points scored was about the same, as was the week-to-week volatility ... of every combo of "same team players" vs. "different team players" ... EXCEPT having the QB/WR1 hookup. Meaning, assuming that Brooks = Delhomme ... SSmith = CJohnson ... and ... Jerry Porter = Javon Walker ... then: Brooks/CJohnson/JPorter would be better, risk-wise (i.e., lower week-to-week volatility), than having Delhomme/Smith/Walker. I haven't seen any real analysis.1487517[/snapback] I wish I still had my write up... Maybe it'll be an article DMD can whip up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted May 26, 2006 Author Share Posted May 26, 2006 Maybe it'll be an article DMD can whip up? 1487751[/snapback] Yeah, DMD/WW work your special Kungfu and produce an article for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 (edited) All things even, I rather not - but you've got to take best on the board. QB+WR = 100% production or 0%. You can win on 100% but not 0% On different teams you are looking at 100%, 50% or 0%. I feel more often than not, I can win with 50% production, so throughout the season - keeping them apart is a 33% upgrade for me. I don't know if that made a lick of sense to anyone else I guess what I am trying to say is the QB-WR does not need to win the game as I usually have talent enough to keep things competative, but I can't have them losing the game. Edited May 26, 2006 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 What a lot of people miss is that, say, a QB has only 150 / 1 / 2 (i.e., a bad game), there is oftentimes a single receiver has a pretty decent game (and, iirc, that was generally the #2 WR, because the #1 was covered so well that it made passing more difficult) to the tune of 90 / 1. The potential for a QB and WR to tank at the same time was generally limited to the WR1 ... not the WR2. NOTE: This is assuming that the WR2 is someone like Eric Moulds, Jerry Porter, Reggie Wayne, et. al. ... not someone like Brian Finneran. My analysis only holds true if the WR2 is a viable starting fantasy WR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 And, I found that, generally, you wanted to avoid QB/WR1, but that QB/WR2, QB/RB, RB/WR1 and RB/WR2 combos from the same team were really no different than having guys from different teams. 1487401[/snapback] I'm a big fan of the QB/RB combo though for some teams out there. If it's a high powered offense then you are getting a high percentage of getting most, if not all, of the scores. It's the WR reverse or the RB2 taking the ball in that screws this up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down Goes Frazia Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 (edited) If it's a decent scoring team..... I'd rather have the QB - RB combo myself. EDITED to ADD - our resident canuck beat me to it in the previous post. Edited May 26, 2006 by Down Goes Frazia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 (edited) A lot of owners tend to draft a QB/WR from the same team banking on that connection when it comes to fantasy scoring (both players score at the same time.). I've done it in the past and it's worked out but it's a double edged sword.Anyone here use that method when drafting? 1487297[/snapback] No, not conciously anyways. Meaning, If I happen to get CJ in round 3 then Palmer is still around in round X and he's the best QB on the board, I certainly won't pass on him. As far as it being a concious strategy however, no. Edited May 26, 2006 by Brentastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 nothing more to add really :pad: but like others have said...I don't actively do it but if it happens, it happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 The double bonus then can mean $$ and I try to employ it more. But it is not the best way to play for consistent scoring. IMO 1487314[/snapback] What "double bonus"? Unless you play in a league where your scoring system gives you more points for scores when you own both the QB and WR, then the scoring is the exact same as if your QB threw a TD and any of your WRs also catch a TD. The biggest flaw people have in looking at this is that there is some sort of "bonus" points associated with it. There generally aren't. However, this perception of a "hookup" will lead many owners to draft a lesser WR over a more highly ranked one to get this "hookup", which leads to a fundamental flaw in logic which would be to draft the best available player at whichever position it is you are drafting with the pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 What "double bonus"? Unless you play in a league where your scoring system gives you more points for scores when you own both the QB and WR, then the scoring is the exact same as if your QB threw a TD and any of your WRs also catch a TD. The biggest flaw people have in looking at this is that there is some sort of "bonus" points associated with it. There generally aren't. However, this perception of a "hookup" will lead many owners to draft a lesser WR over a more highly ranked one to get this "hookup", which leads to a fundamental flaw in logic which would be to draft the best available player at whichever position it is you are drafting with the pick. 1488564[/snapback] +1 Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 Do you mean "less volatile" or "lower scoring"? 1487751[/snapback] I meant "lower scoring" but the difference was by a point or less. 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.