Lost this week doing the right thing? or Stubborn?

[Cowboyz1]

Well, my winning streak comes to an end today. But I could have won. Let's look at this and see what you all would have done given the circumstances.

 

Here was this weeks lineup.

 

Warner- I benched Big Ben as his injuries had me worried and didn't like his matchup. Turned out to be a good call.

 

R. Bush- Had been money for me but had an off week.

 

Barber- Garret had a brain fart and didn't use him much against Wash. Hurt me also

 

Heap- well he was a heap of ...........all year and now I know why. Flacco can't read the middle of the defense yet. Dropping him. Was starting

Carlson but he was on bye.

 

Steve Smith- Nice game welcome back Smitty.

 

Crosby

 

San Diego's D

 

My other Wide outs to chose from were

 

Ward

Meachum

Crayton

 

I chose Ward because I figured Pitt would have to throw against Baltimores D and he has solid weeks up until last week. Lost by 5.4 points( needed 2 catches and 30 yards recieving or a TD would have won).

 

Now here is where my thinking may have been off. Meachum and Moore are the starters now for N.O. and Brees has been on fire. Crayton hadn't done anything but always plays good against the Skins as they do a good job on Witten and T.O. for the most part. I would have won had I of played either of the two Meachum or Crayton. My thinking with Meachum was that he was an inexperienced rookie that showed promise but just as well could have done nothing. He is in his second year as he was hurt is true rookie season last year.

 

I stuck with my theory of a Veteran Wide out that was putting up solid stats. However, my decision may have been flawed by ignoring evidence that suggested starting Meachum over Ward.

 

Meachum had catches in each of the last two games and was improving AND was now primary target with the injuries to the other wide outs. Ward was coming off a poor game as was Big Ben AND facing a strong pressure defense that they proved they couldn't handle last week. Ward is a great slant guy and I thought they may use him in that role tonight.

 

What do you think? In this case was the evidence to override standard starting advice solid enough to go with Meachum or would you have stuck with Ward. Secondly, would you do it next week if the same senario presents itself?

 

I think this is a good case to hash over, since by following my own stubborn ways I lost. Bascially, I am chalking it up to, that's just Fanstasy Football but would llke to hear input on the analysis of the loss.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Cowboyz1

[breadtruck]

Personally I give more weight to matchups and a players performance this season. I look at the last few games and who they played in those games ( did they play Detroit and the rams or did they just play Baltimore or Pittsburgh), with a smidgen of a particular players history against that team (Your Crayton against the skins theory, Fred Taylor always plays well against Indy ( But then again what RB doesn't

 

I have never really used the veteran vs rookie theory. If that was the case I would have played Driver (0 points) instead of Desean Jackson (18 Points) this week. I consider TB and Chi defenses to be hard matchups,thus I would have had to move on to Veteran / Rookie theory. I had read some advice columns on Driver having a great week against the TB cover2 defense, running his slants etc, he is great veteran that Rodgers can rely on, blah blah blah. I was basically saying to myslef screw that advice I am going with McNabb to Jackson, greater potential performance.

 

That being said I also would not have started Ward, the same reason you didn't start big ben should be the same reason not to use his WR's. I feel like you used matchup theory, but then used Veteran theory to override the matchup theory you used to bench Ben. I am frankly suprised that Pittsburg won, and they probably wouldn't have if it wasn't for that fumble return for TD. I just don't favor playing any player ( veteran, rookie, or whoever) in knockdown smashmouth games. I advised my wife to sit Mcgahee and that was good advice even though it didn't pay off for her. McGahhe only got 5 points, but all her other backs sucked this week also. She played Selvin Young instead!

 

I have Parker but I would have benched him in a heartbeat had he been playing. I benched him against the Eagles for the same reason. I was in no way going to pick up and play Mendenhall either. I would have if Pittsburgh had been playing Cincy but they were playing Baltimore. Good call on my part, and now he is out, which would have been a wasted waiver wire order to because now he is injured. I instead picked up McClain, because I like his schedule going forward.

 

I was advised by everyone in this forum to play Turner(5 points) over Stewart(15 Points) this week and I went with Turner even though I really didn't want to! my theory was he had two good games against crappy teams, 1 bad game against a good team, and he was playing a good defense in Carolina....http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=261643. i should have listened to my own advice.

 

Matchup advice isn't a 100% science either, you can always get a lemmon, I started M. Lynch against the rams and who wouldn't have, anyone ???? No way. I was expecting at least 100yds rushing and TD. I got 7 points. Had I started McClain in his place I would have won this week.

 

So in the end our #1 guys hung us out to dry this week and that is why we lost. It happens, but I think people who look at matchups, injuries, player history and performance and take everything into account will generally succeed more than those who don't and just always start their 'Best Player' no matter what, and use the theory of "Don't over think it" That's my 2 cents which isn't worth that much.

Edited September 30, 2008 by breadtruck

[Cowboyz1]

Personally I give more weight to matchups and a players performance this season. I look at the last few games and who they played in those games ( did they play Detroit and the rams or did they just play Baltimore or Pittsburgh), with a smidgen of a particular players history against that team (Your Crayton against the skins theory, Fred Taylor always plays well against Indy ( But then again what RB doesn't

 

I have never really used the veteran vs rookie theory. If that was the case I would have played Driver (0 points) instead of Desean Jackson (18 Points) this week. I consider TB and Chi defenses to be hard matchups,thus I would have had to move on to Veteran / Rookie theory. I had read some advice columns on Driver having a great week against the TB cover2 defense, running his slants etc, he is great veteran that Rodgers can rely on, blah blah blah. I was basically saying to myslef screw that advice I am going with McNabb to Jackson, greater potential performance.

 

That being said I also would not have started Ward, the same reason you didn't start big ben should be the same reason not to use his WR's. I feel like you used matchup theory, but then used Veteran theory to override the matchup theory you used to bench Ben. I am frankly suprised that Pittsburg won, and they probably wouldn't have if it wasn't for that fumble return for TD. I just don't favor playing any player ( veteran, rookie, or whoever) in knockdown smashmouth games. I advised my wife to sit Mcgahee and that was good advice even though it didn't pay off for her. McGahhe only got 5 points, but all her other backs sucked this week also. She played Selvin Young instead!

 

I have Parker but I would have benched him in a heartbeat had he been playing. I benched him against the Eagles for the same reason. I was in no way going to pick up and play Mendenhall either. I would have if Pittsburgh had been playing Cincy but they were playing Baltimore. Good call on my part, and now he is out, which would have been a wasted waiver wire order to because now he is injured. I instead picked up McClain, because I like his schedule going forward.

 

I was advised by everyone in this forum to play Turner(5 points) over Stewart(15 Points) this week and I went with Turner even though I really didn't want to! my theory was he had two good games against crappy teams, 1 bad game against a good team, and he was playing a good defense in Carolina....http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=261643. i should have listened to my own advice.

 

Matchup advice isn't a 100% science either, you can always get a lemmon, I started M. Lynch against the rams and who wouldn't have, anyone ???? No way. I was expecting at least 100yds rushing and TD. I got 7 points. Had I started McClain in his place I would have won this week.

 

So in the end our #1 guys hung us out to dry this week and that is why we lost. It happens, but I think people who look at matchups, injuries, player history and performance and take everything into account will generally succeed more than those who don't and just always start their 'Best Player' no matter what, and use the theory of "Don't over think it" That's my 2 cents which isn't worth that much.

 

Good stuff here. You are exactly right, I used veteran theory to override matchup theory when I used it just the opposite way sitting Ben. That is exactly where I went wrong.

 

Thanks for the analysis, I think this is a great excersise.