Cancelling out your opponent's QB points

[Ralph Furley]

Wow, I can't beleive that I just read that. Please, someone give me a time machine so I can have that last five minutes back. I guess meaningless arguments is a good way to pad the number of posts you have. Who really cares how others decide their lineup anyway.

 

I think what we need is for all the Huddlers to be in something like the FFTOC. It would be made up of just people from the Huddle. This way we can see who uses what strategies and see who really knows what the hell their talking about. The fee could be included in the yearly membership. Sounds like a good idea to me. This way people could back up their talk with the Huddlers out there. If you finish near the top, then obviously you know what must work. If you finish near the bottom, then you obviously need to rethink your strategies. what do you think Grits? Possible?

[Furd]

After reading all that, I feel the need to comment (why I don't know).

 

I am stating the obvious.

 

The object is to start the guys that you think are going to score the most points.

 

Your opponent's lineup has absolutely no effect on the number of points that your team scores.

 

Therefore, your opponent's lineup is completely irrelevant and there is no rational basis to consider it when choosing your lineup.

Edited December 17, 2004 by Furd

[Brentastic]

Too many posts to read, so sorry if this has been said.

 

All things being equal, that includes player ability and matchups etc... I think everyone has their own strategy on who to start. Obviously, if there's a guy on your roster who has a matchup advantage or just plain better, you start him no matter what. But I believe for this discussion, assuming everything is equal, whatever gives you comfort or some sense of assurance, why not?

 

My trick in this situation of two players having the same upside, is to play the guy with the later game. I love playing guys who have the 3:00 Sunday games, it just seems they produce better. To each his own, as long as you don't do something stupid like bench T.O in favor of Toomer because your opponent is starting Eli Manning. Peace.

[Brentastic]

I think what we need is for all the Huddlers to be in something like the FFTOC.  It would be made up of just people from the Huddle.  This way we can see who uses what strategies and see who really knows what the hell their talking about.  The fee could be included in the yearly membership.  Sounds like a good idea to me.  This way people could back up their talk with the Huddlers out there.  If you finish near the top, then obviously you know what must work.  If you finish near the bottom, then you obviously need to rethink your strategies.  what do you think Grits?  Possible?

615382[/snapback]

I think this is a great idea. I would love to see what some of these "experts" really bring to the table. I know I got game, who else got game?

[NSab]

I think this is a great idea.  I would love to see what some of these "experts" really bring to the table.  I know I got game, who else got game?

615700[/snapback]

[Gunther]

I should know better than to try to vote when I am seriously lacking sleep for a couple weeks plus being under the influence of Crown Royal (yes, I voted the wrong way! :meidiot:). Play the best option, it may happen to be you are going against your opponent's QB or WR, but play the best option and not simply due to cancelling out any points.

[Grits and Shins]

Wow, I can't beleive that I just read that.  Please, someone give me a time machine so I can have that last five minutes back.  I guess meaningless arguments is a good way to pad the number of posts you have.  Who really cares how others decide their lineup anyway.

 

I think what we need is for all the Huddlers to be in something like the FFTOC.  It would be made up of just people from the Huddle.  This way we can see who uses what strategies and see who really knows what the hell their talking about.  The fee could be included in the yearly membership.  Sounds like a good idea to me.  This way people could back up their talk with the Huddlers out there.  If you finish near the top, then obviously you know what must work.  If you finish near the bottom, then you obviously need to rethink your strategies.  what do you think Grits?  Possible?

615382[/snapback]

 

 

Too many posts to read, so sorry if this has been said.

 

All things being equal, that includes player ability and matchups etc... I think everyone has their own strategy on who to start.  Obviously, if there's a guy on your roster who has a matchup advantage or just plain better, you start him no matter what.  But I believe for this discussion, assuming everything is equal, whatever gives you comfort or some sense of assurance, why not?

 

My trick in this situation of two players having the same upside, is to play the guy with the later game.  I love playing guys who have the 3:00 Sunday games, it just seems they produce better.  To each his own, as long as you don't do something stupid like bench T.O in favor of Toomer because your opponent is starting Eli Manning.  Peace.

615689[/snapback]

 

I'm already in the Huddlers Challenge II ... where I finished middle of the pack. Worst finish since it's inception.

 

Not to mention participating in 4 BOTH leagues ... and again, sadly, my worst year in all of them

Edited December 17, 2004 by Grits and Shins

[Men In Tights]

I also couldn't read the entire post but the WR's names I am seeing is a no-brainer when considering who to start. Let me point out one situation and the crap WR's I am choosing from each week. We start 2. Yes, I will start a certain WR to offset points from an opponents QB. But like was said it depends on who I think will score the most points and I am not considering starting guys like Randy Moss, Derrick Mason, or Javon Walker, CRAP, I wish I had that problem.

 

12-team league, standard scoring, with 1-pt per reception.

 

My main WR's for the year are Reggie Wayne, Roy Williams, Nate Burleson, & David Givens. I was trying to decide between R Williams and N Burleson but I was playing against CPep. I decided what the heck, lets start Burleson since Williams wasn't doing much and with Givens Brady spreads the ball around so much.

 

As you can see from the above my WR's aren't good and starting one against a QB isn't such a bad option.

 

This was a lot ot type, but I do look at match-ups when submitting my lineup, but will start that player I think will score more points. Like said before, if 2-guys are comparable I will start the WR to match my opponents QB.

[Jrick35]

Too many posts to read, so sorry if this has been said.

 

All things being equal, that includes player ability and matchups etc... I think everyone has their own strategy on who to start.  Obviously, if there's a guy on your roster who has a matchup advantage or just plain better, you start him no matter what.  But I believe for this discussion, assuming everything is equal, whatever gives you comfort or some sense of assurance, why not?

 

My trick in this situation of two players having the same upside, is to play the guy with the later game.  I love playing guys who have the 3:00 Sunday games, it just seems they produce better.  To each his own, as long as you don't do something stupid like bench T.O in favor of Toomer because your opponent is starting Eli Manning.  Peace.

 

615689[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You hit the nail right on the head.

 

I start the obvious must start players.

 

I then use this much-mailgned little strategy when trying to decide between 2 players who are basically equal.

 

Gruts spun what I said into this poll.

 

I don't know if he is deliberately ignoring the point of only using this strategy for basically equal players or if I have done a bad job of explaining that but you have explained it well in your post.

 

So did Men In Tights in a post after yours.

[Grits and Shins]

You hit the nail right on the head.

 

I start the obvious must start players.

 

I then use this much-mailgned little strategy when trying to decide between 2 players who are basically equal.

 

Gruts spun what I said into this poll.

 

I don't know if he is deliberately ignoring the point of only using this strategy for basically equal players or if I have done a bad job of explaining that but you have explained it well in your post.

 

So did Men In Tights in a post after yours.

 

615962[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

And you refuse to answer the question ... "Did you believe those to be equal matchups?"

[Jrick35]

And you refuse to answer the question ... "Did you believe those to be equal matchups?"

 

615996[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I didn't refuse to answer the question.

 

I already said...

 

Walker had only 2, 100 yd games in his career up to that point.

 

He had only had 2, multi TD games up to that point.

 

So I was faced with choosing between an up & coming but as-of-yet unproven Walker against Indy or a very proven Mason against Jax.

 

At the time in question, wk 3 of this season, there was no reason to think that Walker was going to get 200 yds and 2 TD's against Indy. One could speculate that he might have a decent game but no one could have predicted the game he had.

 

And Mason was going up against Jacksonville. They are a good defense but Mason is a great WR. One could have expected a decent game from him if not a spectacular game.

 

I honestly figured it to be a wash. So I went with Walker because I was facing an opponent who was starting Favre, and I liked Favre's chances against Indy more than I liked McNairs chances against Jax. Of the two I figured Favre had the better shot at a Huge game thus improving Walkers chance of having a good game. And if I was right I would benefit from my opponents QB's game.

 

So, in wk 3, I saw the choice between Walker and Mason as basically equal choices based on abilities and matchups. So I went with Walker because of the Favre matchup.

 

Using your hindsight to evaluate the choice today it is obvious that Walker was the guy to go with, I have also said this before.

 

But at the time I made the decision it was much less obvious.

[Grits and Shins]

I didn't refuse to answer the question.

 

I already said...

 

Walker had only 2, 100 yd games in his career up to that point.

 

He had only had 2, multi TD games up to that point.

 

So I was faced with choosing between an up & coming but as-of-yet unproven Walker against Indy or a very proven Mason against Jax.

 

At the time in question, wk 3 of this season, there was no reason to think that Walker was going to get 200 yds and 2 TD's against Indy. One could speculate that he might have a decent game but no one could have predicted the game he had.

 

And Mason was going up against Jacksonville. They are a good defense but Mason is a great WR. One could have expected a decent game from him if not a spectacular game.

 

I honestly figured it to be a wash. So I went with Walker because I was facing an opponent who was starting Favre, and I liked Favre's chances against Indy more than I liked McNairs chances against Jax. Of the two I figured Favre had the better shot at a Huge game thus improving Walkers chance of having a good game. And if I was right I would benefit from my opponents QB's game.

 

So, in wk 3, I saw the choice between Walker and Mason as basically equal choices based on abilities and matchups. So I went with Walker because of the Favre matchup.

 

Using your hindsight to evaluate the choice today it is obvious that Walker was the guy to go with, I have also said this before.

 

But at the time I made the decision it was much less obvious.

 

616049[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Jrick ... you are full of manure.

 

FIRST

You say "So I was faced with choosing between an up & coming but as-of-yet unproven Walker against Indy or a very proven Mason against Jax."

 

This implies that you do not believe the WRs to be equal. You believed Mason to be the better WR. Mason was your STUD ... Walker was your unproven NON-STUD. You said it yourself.

 

SECOND

There is absolutely NO WAY that a WR going against Jacksonville can be considered to have an equal matchup with a WR going against Indianapolis. If you considered this to be an equal matchup in week 3 of this season then you are the only one on the face of the planet that did so. It looks to me like you concede this statement with your following statements:

 

"At the time in question, wk 3 of this season, there was no reason to think that Walker was going to get 200 yds and 2 TD's against Indy. One could speculate that he might have a decent game but no one could have predicted the game he had."

 

"And Mason was going up against Jacksonville. They are a good defense but Mason is a great WR. One could have expected a decent game from him if not a spectacular game."

 

So you have undermined your own argument. You said yourself you would never choose a WR because your opponent has his matching QB if you were deciding between a STUD and NON-STUD. Yet you declared Mason to be a STUD and Walker to be a NON-STUD going into week 3. Therefore Mason should have been your automatic starter.

 

Then you discounted their respective matchups because Mason was a STUD and Walker was a NON-STUD. You expected Mason to have a solid, not spectacular day against Jacksonville but didn't know what to expect from the unproven Walker.

 

You chose to play Walker for no other reason than you incorrectly thought Walker would "stem the tide of Favre's points". You got lucky and it turned out to be the right play ... but 7 other weeks of the season it would have been the wrong play. Favre got his points no matter who you started and while you guessed correctly this time it in no way supports the "strategy" of picking a WR to match your opponent's QB. You are trying now to convince us you thought Mason and Walker were "equal" going into week 3 ... but everything you say debunks your own arguments.

 

I repeat ... there is absolutely NO VALIDITY to letting your opponent's starting lineup dictate who you start. His players will score what they score regardless of who you choose to start or not start ... and your players will score what they score regardless of who your opponent starts. Because you start the WR for your opponent's QB does not mean you will be "cancelling out" his QB points ... any more than when you start any other WR that scores points. It's flawed logic.

 

You should always always start the players you think will score the most points, regardless of who your opponent starts.

 

If, on the rare occassion, you DO have 2 equal WRs with equally good or equally bad matchups and that also happens to coincide with your opponent having the QB to one of those WRs (and by your own words that was not the case in week 3) then choosing to go with the WR that matches your opponent's QB is irrelevant, no different than flipping a coin.

 

I'd be willing to bet that just about everybody that plays fantasy football would have choosen to start Walker instead of Mason in week 3 (without the benefit of our hindsight) ... because of the matchup discrepency

Edited December 17, 2004 by Grits and Shins

[Jrick35]

Jrick ... you are full of manure.

 

FIRST

You say "So I was faced with choosing between an up & coming but as-of-yet unproven Walker against Indy or a very proven Mason against Jax."

 

This implies that you do not believe the WRs to be equal.  You believed Mason to be the better WR.  Mason was your STUD ... Walker was your unproven NON-STUD.  You said it yourself.

 

SECOND

There is absolutely NO WAY that a WR going against Jacksonville can be considered to have an equal matchup with a WR going against Indianapolis.  If you considered this to be an equal matchup in week 3 of this season then you are the only one on the face of the planet that did so.  It looks to me like you concede this statement with your following statements:

 

"At the time in question, wk 3 of this season, there was no reason to think that Walker was going to get 200 yds and 2 TD's against Indy. One could speculate that he might have a decent game but no one could have predicted the game he had."

 

"And Mason was going up against Jacksonville. They are a good defense but Mason is a great WR. One could have expected a decent game from him if not a spectacular game."

 

So you have undermined your own argument.  You said yourself you would never choose a WR because your opponent has his matching QB if you were deciding between a STUD and NON-STUD.  Yet you declared Mason to be a STUD and Walker to be a NON-STUD going into week 3.  Therefore Mason should have been your automatic starter.

 

Then you discounted their respective matchups because Mason was a STUD and Walker was a NON-STUD.  You expected Mason to have a solid, not spectacular day against Jacksonville but didn't know what to expect from the unproven Walker.

 

You chose to play Walker for no other reason than you incorrectly thought Walker would "stem the tide of Favre's points".  You got lucky and it turned out to be the right play ... but 7 other weeks of the season it would have been the wrong play.  Favre got his points no matter who you started and while you guessed correctly this time it in no way supports the "strategy" of picking a WR to match your opponent's QB.  You are trying now to convince us you thought Mason and Walker were "equal" going into week 3 ... but everything you say debunks your own arguments.

 

I repeat ... there is absolutely NO VALIDITY to letting your opponent's starting lineup dictate who you start.  His players will score what they score regardless of who you choose to start or not start ... and your players will score what they score regardless of who your opponent starts.  Because you start the WR for your opponent's QB does not mean you will be "cancelling out" his QB points ... any more than when you start any other WR that scores points.  It's flawed logic.

 

You should always always start the players you think will score the most points, regardless of who your opponent starts.

 

If, on the rare occassion, you DO have 2 equal WRs with equally good or equally bad matchups and that also happens to coincide with your opponent having the QB to one of those WRs (and by your own words that was not the case in week 3) then choosing to go with the WR that matches your opponent's QB is irrelevant, no different than flipping a coin.

 

I'd be willing to bet that just about everybody that plays fantasy football would have choosen to start Walker instead of Mason in week 3 (without the benefit of our hindsight) ... because of the matchup discrepency

 

616087[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

AS I said in my post I expected decent games out of both WR's.

 

I used the method that I used.

 

Why on earth does it matter to you how I chose my starter?

 

And does it make you feel better to speak about me in a derogatory way?

 

Does the fact that you say I am full of manure make it true?

 

I have tried to explain, against my better judgement, how & when I use this strategy or gimmick or mistake, whatever you would like to call it.

 

You continue to disregard what I have said in order to spin it in such a way as to make me look inept. And I have helped you out in that regard by continuning to try and explain my process thereby adding fuel to your incendiary remarks.

 

I did this because I honestly thought that despite all of your immaturity and rudeness that you were a reasonable person.

 

Obviuosly i was wrong there as well.

 

Edited to add: All of this is based on what I thought of MY lineup. None of it had anything to do with what YOU thought of my lineup.

Edited December 17, 2004 by Jrick35

[Grits and Shins]

AS I said in my post I expected decent games out of both WR's.

 

616104[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That shouldn't have mattered ... by your own definition Mason was a STUD and Walker was a NON-STUD.

 

And you said you would never employ the strategy of allowing your opponent's starting lineup influence which WR you start if one player was a STUD and one was a NON-STUD.

[Grits and Shins]

And so, either you had

 

1) Two stud WRs at which point the one with the better matchup, Walker should have got the nod ... nothing to do with your opponent starting Favre

 

or

 

2) A stud in Mason and a non-stud in Walker at which point Mason should have gotten the start.

[Jrick35]

That shouldn't have mattered ... by your own definition Mason was a STUD and Walker was a NON-STUD. 

 

And you said you would never employ the strategy of allowing your opponent's starting lineup influence which WR you start if one player was a STUD and one was a NON-STUD.

 

616150[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Dude let it go.

 

You are being intentionally obtuse in this argument.

 

I have already explained myself more than I should have.

 

I honestly don't care if you agree with any decision or choice I ever make.

 

I play FF because I enjoy it.

 

I make the choices I do based on my idea of strategy.

 

You are free to disagree with that choice, much as I may disagree with choices you make.

 

But you seem to have taken this personally and you don't seem inclined to let it go unless I make some sort of declaration of your FF superiority.

 

So here it is, in terms of FF, you are obviously the most informed, the best strategist and the best prognosticator of all time. Any achievement in FF by anyone else other than yourself no matter how grand, would pale in comparison to your smallest achievement in FF.

 

I bow to you greatness

 

Now if your ego has been sufficiently stroked, let this the (the really bad word) go.

[KevinL]

I considered my opponent's QB last weekend and it cost me.

 

my TE's: Heap (vs NYG), Wiggins (vs Sea)

his QB: Culpepper

 

I had to choose between Heap (with 1 game under his belt) and Wiggins (cooling off lately).

 

I chose Wiggins because I considered it an even choice.

 

If Wiggins gets nothing, most likely Culpepper has an average day. If Wiggins gets multple TD, most likely Culpepper has a great day, and I have negated it.

 

If Heap gets multiple TD, I have to beat him with the rest of my team. Which I did not.

[Grits and Shins]

Dude let it go.

 

You are being intentionally obtuse in this argument.

 

I have already explained myself more than I should have.

 

I honestly don't care if you agree with any decision or choice I ever make.

 

I play FF because I enjoy it.

 

I make the choices I do based on my idea of strategy.

 

You are free to disagree with that choice, much as I may disagree with choices you make.

 

But you seem to have taken this personally and you don't seem inclined to let it go unless I make some sort of declaration of your FF superiority.

 

So here it is, in terms of FF, you are obviously the most informed, the best strategist and the best prognosticator of all time. Any achievement in FF by anyone else other than yourself no matter how grand, would pale in comparison to your smallest achievement in FF.

 

I bow to you greatness

 

Now if your ego has been sufficiently stroked, let this the (the really bad word) go.

 

616176[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

As long as you are happy with the inconsistencies in your own position and the asininity of allowing your opponent's starting lineup to dictate who you start, I'm cool.

 

Edited December 17, 2004 by Grits and Shins

[Yukon Cornelius]

 

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

 

614546[/snapback]

 

 

 

[georgemoe]

I'm dreaming of a thread gun Christmas.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I'm already in the Huddlers Challenge II ... where I finished middle of the pack.  Worst finish since it's inception. 

 

Not to mention participating in 4 BOTH leagues ... and again, sadly, my worst year in all of them

 

615830[/snapback]

 

 

 

thats cause you drafted walker to high in all of them

Edited December 17, 2004 by Yukon Cornelius

[Brentastic]

As long as you are happy with the inconsistencies in your own position and the asininity of allowing your opponent's starting lineup to dictate who you start, I'm cool.

 

 

616194[/snapback]

 

 

 

Let it go grits. Everyone contradicts themselves at times. Sometimes you know your strategy or rationale but explaining it is more difficult.

 

Wise men don't have to always have the last word. Grow up!

[Swashbucklers]

I still cannot believe that this topic is still on the first page. I tought the overwhelming difference between the two choices would make this conversation null and void. Do not bench Marvin Harrison for Tai Streets if your opponent has Joey Harrington!

[Jrick35]

I still cannot believe that this topic is still on the first page.  I tought the overwhelming difference between the two choices would make this conversation null and void.  Do not bench Marvin Harrison for Tai Streets if your opponent has Joey Harrington!

 

616440[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If you have read this thread then you know I am the reason Grits started this idiotic poll.

 

And if you have read my posts you would know that I wouldn't bench Harrison to play Streets.

 

This has all been spun and blown out of proportion by Grits in response to something I said in another thread.

[Swashbucklers]

I have read the entire thread, from yesterday to today, and I cannot believe that it is still going on. I also don't agree with your "strategy", but that is neither here nor there. All I was saying is that I cannot believe this is still a hot topic.