QB/Kicker combos. Pros and Cons. DISCUSS

[Phazool]

Some obvious pros -

every TD is worth an extra point.

Every failed TD drive in the red zone has potential for 3 points.

 

Cons- 

Low scoring game kills 2 players on your roster.

 

I started this topic because I have Aaron Rodgers and I am thinking about picking up Mason Crosby....should I?

 

Convince me either way

 

Thanks

[michaelredd9]

A qb/kicker combo from the same team will raise your floor and lower your ceiling.  It can be a good strategy when your team is superior to your opponent's team.  It is also a good strategy if you value consistency. 

 

A qb/receiver combo has the opposite effect.  A qb/receiver "double dip" lowers your floor and raises your ceiling.  It is a good strategy against a superior opponent but bad for consistency.

 

[loaf]

I've never once, in 24 years of playing fantasy football, given thought to pairing my K with my QB...

[darin3]

26 minutes ago, loaf said:

I've never once, in 24 years of playing fantasy football, given thought to pairing my K with my QB...

 

I have.  Or maybe my top RB or WR.  Kind of like a consolation prize if your guy doesn't get a TD.  Or a little cherry on top if they do.

 

Not an every-league, every year type of strategy but I've done it.

[stevegrab]

2 hours ago, loaf said:

I've never once, in 24 years of playing fantasy football, given thought to pairing my K with my QB...

 

I had it happen by chance once, may have been my 2nd kicker added to cover the bye.

 

I don't bother trying to pair guys up, if Crosby is the best available kicker you take him, whether you have Rodgers or another QB. (I drafted Crosby last night, in 2nd to last round, after about 8 kickers were taken. I've never understood taking a K or D very early, in our league they just don't score that much (esp D) and they are not really that predictable. With more owners only taking one each, there are plenty of good options on waivers too. 

[Big Country]

When drafting - if the QB is your highest rated QB when you decide to draft a QB, and the kicker is your highest rated kicker when you decide to draft a kicker, and they happen to be on the same team, then so be it, but no valid reason to target it and take a lesser rated player to make it happen.

 

When determining lineup -  if the QB is your highest rated QB when deciding which QB to start, and the kicker is your highest rated kicker when deciding which kicker to start, and they happen to be on the same team, then so be it, but no valid reason to start a lesser rated player to make it happen.

 

The only caveat is if you have very unique rules that give you a bonus for having the QB and kicker from the same team, something I have never seen in my 20+ years playing this game.

 

It's no different than QB/WR pairings or any other positional pairing

[Inziladun]

In one league I have Matt Ryan, Julio Jones and Matt Bryant. Believe it or not it was a complete accident. I'm debating whether or not I should drop the kicker in favor of someone else.

[flemingd]

6 hours ago, michaelredd9 said:

A qb/kicker combo from the same team will raise your floor and lower your ceiling.  It can be a good strategy when your team is superior to your opponent's team.  It is also a good strategy if you value consistency. 

 

A qb/receiver combo has the opposite effect.  A qb/receiver "double dip" lowers your floor and raises your ceiling.  It is a good strategy against a superior opponent but bad for consistency.

 

 

That is not accurate.  If there are two QB's that each score exactly 18 points every week and two Kickers that each score exactly 9 points per week then you will get 27 points per week regardless of which QB/PK combo you choose.  You may be confusing this with a similar concept of pairing a QB and WR such that when they do hook up it's a 10 point play vs. when they don't it's a zero point play. That is another flawed theory however because just because you have Carr and Julio doesn't mean they can't both have a TD in the same game just as frequently as Rodgers to Adams would have.  Unless your league literally has a rule awarding teammate based scoring (which might be cool?) there is no correlation based on the jersey worn.

 

Picking players that score more often is the way to raise both your floor and your ceiling.  Who they play for and whether or not they are teammates is irrelevant.  There is a bogus concept out there that "when your QB scores your PK only scores 1" which, while true in an individual scoring instance, does not hold up at the macro level because teams are not limited to a maximum number of points in any given week.  Just because Rodgers threw 4 TD's doesn't mean Crosby can't kick 5 more FG's.  And once Crosby is out there lining up for the FG, Rodgers' opportunity to score on that drive is gone but does not mean he can't throw 5 TD's later on.  And having Josh Allen at QB isn't necessarily good for Haushka because if Allen can't get the ball past midfield he won't get any points at all.

 

Get good players on high scoring offenses period.

[Def.]

It ain't about that... I mean it's... It's not about that... At all. You know what I'm saying I mean... But it's...it's easy … to, to talk about... It's easy to sum it up when you're just talking about kickers. We're sitting in here, and supposed to be about franchise players, and we in here talking about kickers. I mean, listen, we're talking about kickers, not a QB, not a RB, not a receiver, we talking about kickers. Not a tight end. Not, not … Not the fantasy team that I go out there and draft for and play every game like it's my last. Not the fantasy team, but we're talking about kickers, man. I mean, how silly is that? … And we talking about kickers. I know they're supposed to be there. I know I'm supposed to care about them... I know that... And I'm not.. I'm not shoving them aside, you know, like it don't mean anything. I know they seem important, I do. I honestly do... But we're talking about kickers man. What are we talking about? Kickers? We're talking about kickers, man. We're talking about kickers. We're talking about kickers. We ain't talking about the fantasy team. We're talking about kickers, man. When you come to the forums, and you see me post, you see me discuss don't you? You've seen me give everything I've got, right? But we're talking about kickers right now. We talking about ki... [Interrupted] Man look, I hear you... it's funny to me too, I mean it's strange... it's strange to me too, but we're talking about kickers man, we're not even talking about the team... the actual fantasy team, when it matters... We're talking about kickers…

[stevegrab]

11 minutes ago, flemingd said:

 

That is not accurate.  If there are two QB's that each score exactly 18 points every week and two Kickers that each score exactly 9 points per week then you will get 27 points per week regardless of which QB/PK combo you choose.  You may be confusing this with a similar concept of pairing a QB and WR such that when they do hook up it's a 10 point play vs. when they don't it's a zero point play. That is another flawed theory however because just because you have Carr and Julio doesn't mean they can't both have a TD in the same game just as frequently as Rodgers to Adams would have.  Unless your league literally has a rule awarding teammate based scoring (which might be cool?) there is no correlation based on the jersey worn.

 

Picking players that score more often is the way to raise both your floor and your ceiling.  Who they play for and whether or not they are teammates is irrelevant.  There is a bogus concept out there that "when your QB scores your PK only scores 1" which, while true in an individual scoring instance, does not hold up at the macro level because teams are not limited to a maximum number of points in any given week.  Just because Rodgers threw 4 TD's doesn't mean Crosby can't kick 5 more FG's.  And once Crosby is out there lining up for the FG, Rodgers' opportunity to score on that drive is gone but does not mean he can't throw 5 TD's later on.  And having Josh Allen at QB isn't necessarily good for Haushka because if Allen can't get the ball past midfield he won't get any points at all.

 

Get good players on high scoring offenses period.

 

Scoring by a single team is not capped, but opportunities to score are limited. The more FGs a team kicks the fewer TDs they'll be scoring. If Crosby kicks 5 FGs in the first half, Rodger's could still throw 4 TDs, but the chance of that is much lower than at kickoff. 

 

I am not advocating the QB/K combo, though I understand the "well at least if the cannot score a TD my kicker should get a FG" view. 

[michaelredd9]

1 hour ago, flemingd said:

 

Just because Rodgers threw 4 TD's doesn't mean Crosby can't kick 5 more FG's.

 

 

There have been 20 games where Rodgers and Crosby played together and where Rodgers threw 4 or more touchdowns.  Crosby has 17 field goals in those 20 games.  He didn't have any games with 3 field goals in any of those 20 games.

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by michaelredd9

[michaelredd9]

I've run into a scenario today where the kicker/quarterback combo does have a big effect:

I am up 16.7 and I have Butker.  My opponent has Mahomes.  I can pick up players in free agency up until their game starts.  I have the option to drop Butker for McManus.  If I had a large lead, I'd want Butker.  If I had a small lead or was losing, I'd want McManus.  It's a difficult decision with a 16.7 point lead.  I'm leaning toward McManus.

 

[Big Country]

16 hours ago, michaelredd9 said:

I've run into a scenario today where the kicker/quarterback combo does have a big effect:

I am up 16.7 and I have Butker.  My opponent has Mahomes.  I can pick up players in free agency up until their game starts.  I have the option to drop Butker for McManus.  If I had a large lead, I'd want Butker.  If I had a small lead or was losing, I'd want McManus.  It's a difficult decision with a 16.7 point lead.  I'm leaning toward McManus.

 

 

Still irrelevant to the final outcome - you want whichever kicker will score the most points. Your fantasy score had no effect on which kicker was likely to score more points, so using it as a deciding factor is no different than flipping a coin.

[michaelredd9]

39 minutes ago, Big Country said:

 

Still irrelevant to the final outcome - you want whichever kicker will score the most points. Your fantasy score had no effect on which kicker was likely to score more points, so using it as a deciding factor is no different than flipping a coin.

 

If I was up 30, I would want Butker because Mahomes scoring a lot means Butker will at least get some points.  McManus could get a goose egg.  But if I was behind by 5 points, I would want McManus because it would be hard for Mahomes not to outscore Butker at least that amount.  McManus is unlikely to outscore Mahomes by 5 points but it is possible.  So at least for me, the fact that I could choose different kickers in different scenarios means that Mahomes does affect the choice.

 

[stevegrab]

2 hours ago, michaelredd9 said:

 

If I was up 30, I would want Butker because Mahomes scoring a lot means Butker will at least get some points.  McManus could get a goose egg.  But if I was behind by 5 points, I would want McManus because it would be hard for Mahomes not to outscore Butker at least that amount.  McManus is unlikely to outscore Mahomes by 5 points but it is possible.  So at least for me, the fact that I could choose different kickers in different scenarios means that Mahomes does affect the choice.

 

 

True, but it still only as once in blue moon kind of strategy, based on the fact that players are active at the same time in the final game of the week, and the other kicker was available. 

 

I get your point, and Big Country's too. In many leagues roster moves would be allowed that late, others which have a cost for roster moves might impact that decision.

 

The bigger question is, what about after this week, I presume if McManus is a free agent he wasn't drafted, which means you think Butker is the better kicker for the season. Has that changed, would you be happy with McManus the rest of the way, or use waivers to try and get Butker back?

 

Also your opponent could add McManus and not play him, to stop you from making that move. 

[Sunday Couch Potatoe]

Idiot kickers 

[Big Country]

3 hours ago, michaelredd9 said:

 

If I was up 30, I would want Butker because Mahomes scoring a lot means Butker will at least get some points.  McManus could get a goose egg.  But if I was behind by 5 points, I would want McManus because it would be hard for Mahomes not to outscore Butker at least that amount.  McManus is unlikely to outscore Mahomes by 5 points but it is possible.  So at least for me, the fact that I could choose different kickers in different scenarios means that Mahomes does affect the choice.

 

 

Your fantasy score has no impact on any part of the playing conditions.

 

If you thought Butker would score more, you should start him. If you thought McManus would, you start him. 

 

I understand what you're saying about Butker not outscoring Mahomes, etc., but it is flawed logic. It's akin to starting the WR of my opponent's QB to "offset" points even though I think my other WR that I am benching is going to score more.

[michaelredd9]

1 minute ago, Big Country said:

 

It's akin to starting the WR of my opponent's QB to "offset" points even though I think my other WR that I am benching is going to score more.

 

 

If it is Monday night and you have a big lead, it can be advantageous to play a wide receiver or tight end of the same team as your opponent's quarterback.  If the quarterback has a big game, the wide receiver or tight end has an increased chance of having some of those stats.  The reverse situation, your opponent playing a wide receiver and you starting the quarterback on the same team has a better impact.  When a wide receiver scores fantasy points, so does the quarterback.  

 

Here is an example.  It is a Monday night.  You are trailing by 17.  Your opponent is starting Tom Brady.  Quarterback touchdowns are worth 6 points.  You have Gronk.  But you have the option to start Vance McDonald.  Gronk is clearly a better start than McDonald normally.  But Vance is more likely than Gronk to outscore Tom Brady by 17 because Tom gets points every time Gronk gets points.

 

This strategy isn't 100% effective.  Not even close.  It is about increasing your chances of winning by 5%.

 

 

[staminga1]

It's called probability 101.  Many of you may have wasted your time in calculus, but the issue is independence.  If a QB and K play for the same team then there actions are not independent events.  It changes the probability of the two events if the two events are related, thereby reducing or increasing the tendency to remain in the center of the bell curve.  Because you can't have a lot of TD throws and FG's at the same time you lower your ceiling, and because you are less likely to have a qb fail multiple times in the red zone and still not get fg att it raises your ceiling. 

[purplemonster]

9 minutes ago, staminga1 said:

It's called probability 101.  Many of you may have wasted your time in calculus, but the issue is independence.  If a QB and K play for the same team then there actions are not independent events.  It changes the probability of the two events if the two events are related, thereby reducing or increasing the tendency to remain in the center of the bell curve.  Because you can't have a lot of TD throws and FG's at the same time you lower your ceiling, and because you are less likely to have a qb fail multiple times in the red zone and still not get fg att it raises your ceiling. 

I think you mean floor for the last one 

[Big Country]

Strange 3 year old thread to resurrect as our first post here, but welcome to the boards.

[FinishTheDrill]

A K on the same team as your QB is a small insurance policy in the even your QB has a terrible game.  Fewer qb points would be tempered by more fg points.

 

Its not fool proof, but that is the only angle I see.   Otherwise, pick the best players period.  The aforementioned is a tie breaker insuance, not something to drop a superior player for. 

[stevegrab]

2 hours ago, FinishTheDrill said:

A K on the same team as your QB is a small insurance policy in the even your QB has a terrible game.  Fewer qb points would be tempered by more fg points.

 

Its not fool proof, but that is the only angle I see.   Otherwise, pick the best players period.  The aforementioned is a tie breaker insuance, not something to drop a superior player for. 

 

Yet every year (mostly in the wasteland that is the advice forum) we have people asking these kind of questions. Not sure why people don't understand the basic "start the guys you expect will score more" principle, I suspect they're living a fantasy life in other ways or just think they're clever by trying to "offset my opponents QB with player X".

 

You know when I look at my opponents line-up, before the Sunday games so I know which key players to root against. 

[Big John]

8 hours ago, Big Country said:

Strange 3 year old thread to resurrect as our first post here, but welcome to the boards.

Those usually carry a link, but this doesn't.

[FinishTheDrill]

8 hours ago, stevegrab said:

 

Yet every year (mostly in the wasteland that is the advice forum) we have people asking these kind of questions. Not sure why people don't understand the basic "start the guys you expect will score more" principle, I suspect they're living a fantasy life in other ways or just think they're clever by trying to "offset my opponents QB with player X".

 

You know when I look at my opponents line-up, before the Sunday games so I know which key players to root against. 

 

Different strokes for different folks.  Its all good.