Cancelling out your opponent's QB points

[Grits and Shins]

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

 

 

616602[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Unless both had the same potential for points in a given week and if his opponent was starting Harrington.

[Browns Ferry Bombers]

I actually use this sometimes. It's definately not my determining factor, but if i'm on the fence between 2 receivers, who I think might score about the same, if they have a QB that is throwing to one of them, I WILL usually pick that one of the 2.

 

In the end, the QB could throw to the TE, or another WR all day long, and it not work anyway.

 

But if I have a weak slot, and the rest of my team is strong, then it's a way to mitigate the damage of a good QB on the other team if you know points his QB will be making, will probably get to my WR.

 

not only that, but in my league, receivers get 1 pt for every 10 yards, 6 for scores, where qb's only get 1 for every 30 passing, and 6 for qb's.

 

So you can see where not only can you mitigate the dmg, but you could actually score more points.

 

Speaking of, the team I play against this week picked of griese to play instead of hasslebeck, so when I was trying to decide between andre johnson, and m clayton, it was an extra in the for column. So, this week, Clayton gets a nod on my roster.

 

End the end, I'm banking on clayton scoring more points than johnson, but if I can nullify his qb in the process, then I'm that much happier.

 

So basically it boils down to this to me. You're nullifying a position on both your teams for a week doing this, and which would you rather lose? A QB, or a WR?

[Grits and Shins]

I actually use this sometimes.  It's definately not my determining factor, but if i'm on the fence between 2 receivers, who I think might score about the same, if they have a QB that is throwing to one of them, I WILL usually pick that one of the 2.

 

In the end, the QB could throw to the TE, or another WR all day long, and it not work anyway.

 

But if I have a weak slot, and the rest of my team is strong, then it's a way to mitigate the damage of a good QB on the other team if you know points his QB will be making, will probably get to my WR.

 

not only that, but in my league, receivers get 1 pt for every 10 yards, 6 for scores, where qb's only get 1 for every 30 passing, and 6 for qb's.

 

So you can see where not only can you mitigate the dmg, but you could actually score more points.

 

Speaking of, the team I play against this week picked of griese to play instead of hasslebeck, so when I was trying to decide between andre johnson, and m clayton, it was an extra in the for column.  So, this week, Clayton gets a nod on my roster.

 

End the end, I'm banking on clayton scoring more points than johnson, but if I can nullify his qb in the process, then I'm that much happier.

 

So basically it boils down to this to me.  You're nullifying a position on both your teams for a week doing this, and which would you rather lose?  A QB, or a WR?

 

616870[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You aren't "nullifying" anything. His QB scores his points no matter which WR you start. Your WR scores the points he does. You are better off starting a WR that scores more points than starting the WR matched up to your opponent's QB who scores less "nullifying" points.

 

And unless that QB throws ALL his points to your WR then you didn't even get all the QB's points either.

 

As to your example I believe you'd start Clayton over AJohnson even if your opponent was starting Carr.

Edited December 17, 2004 by Grits and Shins

[Furd]

 

Can someone please explain to me how, if your opponent starts Culpepper, a 6pt TD from Moss is any different than a 6 pt TD from Owens.

 

There is no rational basis for considering your opponent's lineup when picking yours. None. Zilch. It can be proven for godssake:

 

Go back and write down the points that your team scored every week.

 

Now for each week, change your opponent's lineup around. Put in his worst players. Put in the guys on their bye.

 

Now, go back and calculate the number of points your team scored given your opponents new lineup.

 

If you feel better doing it, then by all means do it. But it is not a "strategy" as it does not accomplish or change anything.

[jgcoach]

I actually use this sometimes.  It's definately not my determining factor, but if i'm on the fence between 2 receivers, who I think might score about the same, if they have a QB that is throwing to one of them, I WILL usually pick that one of the 2.

 

Why?

 

But if I have a weak slot, and the rest of my team is strong, then it's a way to mitigate the damage of a good QB on the other team if you know points his QB will be making, will probably get to my WR.

 

And exactly how is the damage mitigated?he QB still scored the points.

 

not only that, but in my league, receivers get 1 pt for every 10 yards, 6 for scores, where qb's only get 1 for every 30 passing, and 6 for qb's.

 

Ok, and that means, what? Because it's the rec. on the QB's team that he's cancelling out his points? The QB still gets the points. A rec. getting the same points on any team does the same thing.

 

So you can see where not only can you mitigate the dmg, but you could actually score more points.

 

As with any rec. on your roster!!!

 

Speaking of, the team I play against this week picked of griese to play instead of hasslebeck, so when I was trying to decide between andre johnson, and m clayton, it was an extra in the for column.  So, this week, Clayton gets a nod on my roster.

 

You should be starting Clayton because he has the better chance of scoring and greater upside.

 

End the end, I'm banking on clayton scoring more points than johnson, but if I can nullify his qb in the process, then I'm that much happier.

 

You are not nullifying anything.

 

 

So basically it boils down to this to me.  You're nullifying a position on both your teams for a week doing this, and which would you rather lose?  A QB, or a WR?

 

616870[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

You cannot nullify points on anyone's team, it's out of your control.

Edited December 17, 2004 by jgcoach

[Grits and Shins]

 

Can someone please explain to me how, if your opponent starts Culpepper, a 6pt TD from Moss is any different than a 6 pt TD from Owens.

 

There is no rational basis for considering your opponent's lineup when picking yours.  None.  Zilch.  It can be proven for godssake:

 

Go back and write down the points that your team scored every week.

 

Now for each week, change your opponent's lineup around.  Put in his worst players.  Put in the guys on their bye.

 

Now, go back and calculate the number of points your team scored given your opponents new lineup.

 

If you feel better doing it, then by all means do it.  But it is not a "strategy" as it does not accomplish or change anything.

 

616894[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Don't get all logical on them ... it's clear they don't understand logic.

 

When my opponent starts Culpepper a 6 pt TD thrown to Randy Moss is worth more than a 6 pt TD thrown to Owens ... unless Owens is playing defense and he intercepts Culpepper for a TD ... then they are worth the same.

[Browns Ferry Bombers]

You aren't "nullifying" anything. His QB scores his points no matter which WR you start. Your WR scores the points he does. You are better off starting a WR that scores more points than starting the WR matched up to your opponent's QB who scores less "nullifying" points.

 

Actually, it is nullifying the damage his QB does, if he throws to your wr. Not the points. But if his QB gets 20 points, and my WR gets 20 pts, then it's a wash. You basically just cut 1 player from each roster, and where the WR is one of the weakest on my rosters, that's a good trade in this situation.

 

And unless that QB throws ALL his points to your WR then you didn't even get all the QB's points either.

 

That is true, but in my league, receivers get more points for passes to them, so it can even that factor out, and if does key in on your wr, you'll score more pts than his QB.

 

As to your example I believe you'd start Clayton over AJohnson even if your opponent was starting Carr.

 

616882[/snapback]

 

 

 

As I stated in my post. This isn't a tactic to use to solely pick your WR. It's just a check in the for column when trying to make a decision.

 

I definately don't think it's a good idea to base your pick solely on this reason.

[Grits and Shins]

Actually, it is nullifying the damage his QB does, if he throws to your wr.  Not the points.  But if his QB gets 20 points, and my WR gets 20 pts, then it's a wash.  You basically just cut 1 player from each roster, and where the WR is one of the weakest on my rosters, that's a good trade in this situation.

That is true, but in my league, receivers get more points for passes to them, so it can even that factor out, and if does key in on your wr, you'll score more pts than his QB.

 

It's a real nullifying effect when you left a WR that scored 30 points on your bench and lose your game because of it. Or real nullifying when his QB goes off to the tune of 40 points and your WR only managed 5 of those points. It's the stupidest thing I have ever heard in FF ... letting who your opponent starts dicate who you start.

 

As I stated in my post.  This isn't a tactic to use to solely pick your WR.  It's just a check in the for column when trying to make a decision.

 

I definately don't think it's a good idea to base your pick solely on this reason.

 

616969[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Nope ... it shouldn't be considered at all. You should start the player you think will score the most points, period.

[jgcoach]

Actually, it is nullifying the damage his QB does, if he throws to your wr. Not the points. But if his QB gets 20 points, and my WR gets 20 pts, then it's a wash. You basically just cut 1 player from each roster, and where the WR is one of the weakest on my rosters, that's a good trade in this situation.

That is true, but in my league, receivers get more points for passes to them, so it can even that factor out, and if does key in on your wr, you'll score more pts than his QB.

 

As to your example I believe you'd start Clayton over AJohnson even if your opponent was starting Carr.

 

616882[/snapback]

 

 

 

As I stated in my post. This isn't a tactic to use to solely pick your WR. It's just a check in the for column when trying to make a decision.

 

I definately don't think it's a good idea to base your pick solely on this reason.

 

616969[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You really have to sit down a minute or two and think about this because it defies all logic. You cannot nullify your competitors points, nor do you have any control over anything your competitor does or scores. All you can do is score more points and win or less and lose. It doesn't matter whether the W/R, R/B, or Q/B are on the same team, like each other or whatever!!!

[Browns Ferry Bombers]

I actually use this sometimes. It's definately not my determining factor, but if i'm on the fence between 2 receivers, who I think might score about the same, if they have a QB that is throwing to one of them, I WILL usually pick that one of the 2.

 

Why?

 

Easy, if your wr's are about even, but his QB is throwing to one, then any throw to my wr, is not increasing his lead over me.

 

If his QB has a good day, then I'll probably see some points from that.

Where as if his QB has a good day, and I didn't play that WR, then the WR I play won't see ANY of those points.

 

But if I have a weak slot, and the rest of my team is strong, then it's a way to mitigate the damage of a good QB on the other team if you know points his QB will be making, will probably get to my WR.

 

And exactly how is the damage mitigated?he QB still scored the points.

Same as above. And chances are my WR scored those points to.

 

not only that, but in my league, receivers get 1 pt for every 10 yards, 6 for scores, where qb's only get 1 for every 30 passing, and 6 for qb's.

 

Ok, and that means, what? Because it's the rec. on the QB's team that he's cancelling out his points? The QB still gets the points. A rec. getting the same points on any team does the same thing.

 

Ahhh.. but the difference is, your wr on the other team won't be seeing any passes from that QB.

 

So you can see where not only can you mitigate the dmg, but you could actually score more points.

 

As with any rec. on your roster!!!

 

Or you can get a big fat Goose egg, if the QB on the team doesn't have a good day.

 

Speaking of, the team I play against this week picked of griese to play instead of hasslebeck, so when I was trying to decide between andre johnson, and m clayton, it was an extra in the for column. So, this week, Clayton gets a nod on my roster.

 

You should be starting Clayton because he has the better chance of scoring and greater upside.

That's true too. I think you're missing the point too. I am not for using this tactic to PICK the player, but as a factor in picking. There's a big difference.

 

End the end, I'm banking on clayton scoring more points than johnson, but if I can nullify his qb in the process, then I'm that much happier.

 

You are not nullifying anything.

Yeah, you are.

 

So basically it boils down to this to me. You're nullifying a position on both your teams for a week doing this, and which would you rather lose? A QB, or a WR?

Edited December 17, 2004 by Browns Ferry Bombers

[Browns Ferry Bombers]

It's a real nullifying effect when you left a WR that scored 30 points on your bench and lose your game because of it.  Or real nullifying when his QB goes off to the tune of 40 points and your WR only managed 5 of those points.  It's the stupidest thing I have ever heard in FF ... letting who your opponent starts dicate who you start.

Nope ... it shouldn't be considered at all.  You should start the player you think will score the most points, period.

 

616981[/snapback]

 

 

 

but what if you think they'll score the same?

[Joessfl]

I'm a newbie to the forum...so that being said...

 

I like seeing the voter results. That just tells it all without all the banter (Although banter has more entertaining value)

 

And 2 cents more...

 

Isnt this like the classic debates of which drafting strategies are better? Every one has, or should have a strategy going into the draft. BUT, it all could change once it starts. Same discussion here in that week 1, looking at a team you are playing against, maybe you do subconciously pick a WR to attempt to twart his QB efforts, but as a strategy, can it be used every week?

 

What if he has two decent QBs on his roster, and you go thru all that analysis, and he just put the Trent Green out there to dupe you. IE He changes lineups 1 minute before game time to Brees?

 

Now commence the newbie pounding...

[jgcoach]

I'm a newbie to the forum...so that being said...

 

I like seeing the voter results. That just tells it all without all the banter (Although banter has more entertaining value)

 

And 2 cents more...

 

Isnt this like the classic debates of which drafting strategies are better? Every one has, or should have a strategy going into the draft. BUT, it all could change once it starts. Same discussion here in that week 1, looking at a team you are playing against, maybe you do subconciously pick a WR to attempt to twart his QB efforts, but as a strategy, can it be used every week?

 

What if he has two decent QBs on his roster, and you go thru all that analysis, and he just put the Trent Green out there to dupe you. IE He changes lineups 1 minute before game time to Brees?

 

Now commence the newbie pounding...

617024[/snapback]

 

Draft strategies are just that, strategies. There is no strategy here, it defies all logic and means nothing to start a w/r on the opponents qb team. It doesn't nullify the qb's points. There is no difference starting a w/r on a qb's team and getting 20pts. or any w/r getting 20pts. on your roster. It's the same thing.

[Easy n Dirty]

Note to jgcoach: despite having 900+ posts, you still appear not to have quite figured out the Reply With Quote feature. Please be advised that no newbie-bashing is permitted until you have rectified this.

 

Sincerely,

Big John

[weekapaug]

Here's how the hedging works for those of you who don't get it.

 

But ...

First - You would only hedge if you are chosing between two guys you would project the same stats for.

Second - I don't agree to hedging by chosing a WR to hedge a QB, but rather chosing a QB to hedge a WR. Because your QB is guranteed a share if his WR gets points, but the reverse is not true.

 

Let's take an example for this week.

After making all other reasonable considerations I have hasselbeck projected at 210,1 this week and I have chandler projected at 200,1 (These are actually DMDs projections) This is the same # fantasy points in my league. Pretty even. Let's have no arguments about one guy is the obvious choice or not because it's my fantasy team and I think in my mind that it's even, doesn't matter what you think about this - end of story.

 

If my opponent has Holt, I will take Chandler. If my opponent has D jax I'll take hass.

 

Consider:

1. I don't know what exactly is going to happen this week, but if they play these games ten times I would expect they'll have the same avg production.

 

2. One of them is likely to do better this week than the other (chances they both throw exactly what I (ok DMD) projected is slim). I don't know who though, that's the problem with choosing between them.

 

3. I do know that if Holt has a huge day (like 180,3) giving my opponent above average points, then Chandler is very likely to get above average points also (at least 180,3 + whatever the other receivers do). If his WR blows up unexpectedly, my QB is very likely to blow up unexpectedly also.

 

4. If his guy has Holt, it could be that Chandler only throws to Holt this week so Chandler still has an average day while Holt goes off. It could also be that neither Holt nor Chandler go off and Hasselbeck does. But I don't know what's going to happen before hand, and I do know that I can tie my QBs points to his WR if his WR does go off.

 

That's the hedge.

[McBoog]

You shouldn’t be worried about what your QB does compared to another WR or vise-versa.

 

You should be worried about winning the across the board matchups! How does your WRs match with HIS WRs, you QB with his QB.

 

Most leagues only start 1 QB. If your Qb scores 4 more than your opponents QB, you then have to make those 4 points up somewhere else! If you are starting three WRs, it is possible that you can make up those points. If you lose your QB match-up, it is lost!

 

If WR-A goes off for 3 tds and a bunch of yards, you still have two other WR, after matching your best WR score to make that difference and outscore the other players two WRs. The player’s score is his score, regardless of who the other guy starts. It is a matter of starting the “right” guys.

 

Unless you can assure yourself that his QB throws exclusively to your WR, all bets are off. In this discussion, I think we all realize we are not talking stud WRs, so the possibility that these guys will be the focus of a passing game is almost non-existent.

 

There are still better ways to try to predict production. If you start only one WR and have Harrison and Moss, and he is starting Manning, using this weekend’s games as an example, wouldn’t you start Moss over Harrison because the Lions D is worse than the Ravens? I believe there is ALWAYS some way to predict, even a potential production difference between two players, if you take those two games, go deep into analyzing it, and coming up with something a little more tangible!

[Furd]

Here's how the hedging works for those of you who don't get it.

 

 

There's nothing to get.

 

Take your example.

 

Start Chandler. Your opponent starts Holt. How many points does Chandler score? Your opponent doesn't start Holt. How many points does Chandler score?

 

Start Hasselbeck. Your opponent starts Jackson. How many points does Hasselbeck score? Your opponent doesn't start Jackson. How many points does Hasselbeck score?

 

Run to your website or whatever. List the points that your FF teams scored each week. Next to each week's entries, note your opponents starting lineup.

 

Now, for each week, jumble up your opponents starting lineup. I guess with your example, you only need to change quarterbacks. Then, after jumbling up your opponents quarterbacks, calculate how many points your starters scored each week.

 

Absolute, uncontrovertible evidence that the nullifying theory is bogus.

 

EDIT: I know that I said it before, and that's probably the last time that I'm going to say it (this year anyway).

Edited December 17, 2004 by Furd

[weekapaug]

There's nothing to get.

 

Take your example.

 

Start Chandler.  Your opponent starts Holt.  How many points does Chandler score?  Your opponent doesn't start Holt.  How many points does Chandler score?

 

Start Hasselbeck.  Your opponent starts Jackson.  How many points does Hasselbeck score?  Your opponent doesn't start Jackson.  How many points does Hasselbeck score?

 

No one is saying that who their opponent is playing in their fantasy league has any bearing on the statisical outcome of a football game. Before the game is played, I don't know if Hasselbeck or Chandler is going to do better regardless of what WR my opponent plays.

 

Run to your website or whatever.  List the points that your FF teams scored each week.  Next to each week's entries, note your opponents starting lineup.

 

Now, for each week, jumble up your opponents starting lineup.  I guess with your example, you only need to change quarterbacks. Then, after jumbling up your opponents quarterbacks, calculate how many points your starters scored each week.

 

It's not what you know after the games are played. You don't get to chose your lineup after the games are played. It's what you know before the games are played. That is - if my opponent's WR has a huge receiving day, he should carry the QB from the same team with him. So if I play that QB, I will offset the points gained by his WR.

 

Absolute, uncontrovertible evidence that the nullifying theory is bogus.

 

Evidence? Let's make it really easy.

 

Is this statement true or false ? "As long as my QB  throws every pass in the game, I will get points (or a fraction at least) every time my opponent's WR from the same team makes a receiving play."

 

True? Very good.

 

Now, true or false? "If my QB gets points (or a fraction) every time my opponent's WR does, that offsets the points my opponent's WR gets."

 

Get it yet ? 

 

EDIT:  I know that I said it before, and that's probably the last time that I'm going to say it (this year anyway).

 

617344[/snapback]

 

 

 

[jgcoach]

Note to jgcoach:  despite having 900+ posts, you still appear not to have quite figured out the Reply With Quote feature.  Please be advised that no newbie-bashing is permitted until you have rectified this. 

 

Sincerely,

Big John

 

617105[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't know I was bashing a newbie!!!

[Furd]

Now, true or false? "If my QB gets points (or a fraction) every time my opponent's WR does, that offsets the points my opponent's WR gets."

 

Get it yet ?  

 

True. You might not understand this, but no matter which QB you start, his points will "offset" the points from your opponent's WRs (and his QB and his RBs and his TE and his PK and his DT for that matter).

 

The only difference is the timing.

 

If it means that much to you that the points are "offset" at the same time, live it up.

 

And I'd ask you if you got it yet, but you never will, so I won't bother.

Edited December 18, 2004 by Furd

[jgcoach]

Get it yet ? 

 

 

617510[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

There's nothing to get. If in your example you have your two QB with equal projected stats I think you would be looking for weather conditions, injuries on the QB's team and opposing def. and other intangibles for the greater upside, because there is always greater upside between two players. Therein is your edge, not playing the qb's w/r or any other position. We have a set number of players we can start. We have no control over the points our opponents score, so saying you are nullifying or canceling an opponents points is ludicrous. You weigh in all factors of the players on your roster and play the people that you believe will score the most points. If that happens to be the qb or wr of your opponents so be it. The only thing it would do is make watching the game more exciting, and that's worth something also but, when that happens good, when it doesn't I won't go out of my way to start them. I gain nothing.

[weekapaug]

True.  You might not understand this, but no matter which QB you start, his points will "offset" the points from your opponent's WRs (and his QB and his RBs and his TE and his PK and his DT for that matter).

 

The only difference is the timing.

 

If it means that much to you that the points are "offset" at the same time, live it up.

 

And I'd ask you if you got it yet, but you never will, so I won't bother.

617540[/snapback]

 

Furd - You're right. I don't understand. I still see some upside to starting a QB from team A as opposed to an equal QB from team B when my opponent has a WR from team A.

 

I am not giving up my position yet, but you have made me consider it further.

 

[Gunther]

If my opponent has Holt, I will take Chandler. If my opponent has D jax I'll take hass.

 

 

617174[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I know you were only showing an example, but in your specific case, I'd be worried about another six INTs if I start Chandler.

[BeachBum]

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]

 

 

 

 

I'm embarrassed I've read most of this thread. But, this is the most sane post of the whole lot. The guy has a strategy, it is no better or worse than many others, he admits it is just his choice of strategies, and you all still want to show him how choosing Mason over Harrison, or was it Osgood over Moss? was a dumb move. Sheesh.

 

Well explained, Jrick. Let me tell you sometime about my theory: if you're losing, start the least likely guy to score - he'll probably go off and you'll then win!

 

Good night.

[Jrick35]

I'm embarrassed I've read most of this thread. But, this is the most sane post of the whole lot. The guy has a strategy, it is no better or worse than many others, he admits it is just his choice of strategies, and you all still want to show him how choosing Mason over Harrison, or was it Osgood over Moss? was a dumb move. Sheesh.

 

Well explained, Jrick. Let me tell you sometime about my theory: if you're losing, start the least likely guy to score - he'll probably go off and you'll then win!

 

Good night. 

 

617923[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You might be the first person to get where I was coming from.

 

Thanks.

 

I have been tempted to try your theory at times.