Hey Grits, here's a question for you...

[Jrick35]

Ok answer this question...

 

You are submitting your lineup for the week. You have inserted all of the obvious choices as to who to start, we all know who our studs are, and who we have to start every week based on matchups.

 

But you are down to choosing one more WR to fill out your roster. You have 2 possible choices but must choose only 1.

 

We will call these players WR-A & WR-B.

 

Upon evaluation of these 2 players you find them to be of similar abilities and similar matchups. Neither one really stands out from the other in terms of potential points for that week.

 

What process do you use to decide between these two players?

 

It is in this scenario that I will go with a WR that would matchup to my opponents QB if I can, since I could find no other reason to start one of these WR's over the other anyway.

 

So try to just answer the question without spinning what I said or resorting to calling me stupid.

 

And it is possible that if 100 people answer this question there could be 100 different answers.

[Grits and Shins]

I'm struggling with those kinds of decisions right now.

 

I have to start 3 WRs from Clayton, JSmith, Boldin, TJ Houshmandezawhatever, and Ward.

 

And when I make my decision, the fact that my opponent may be starting Griese, Leftwich, McCown, or Kitna/Palmer is ENTIRELY irrelevant. It NEVER comes close to entering my mind.

 

Because the points my WR scores DON'T cancel out the points scored by my opponent's QB if they are on the same team any more than they would if they are on different teams.

 

No you tell me.

 

1) Didn't you say you would NEVER do this with a stud vs a non-stud?

2) Didn't you classify Mason as a stud that would do well in a bad matchup because he was a stud?

3) Didn't you classify Walker as a non-stud, an unknown?

4) Did you really consider their matchups to be "equal" in week 3 ... ie Mason going against Jacksonville was the same as Walker going against Indy. Both defenses were equally attractive for opposing WRs?

5) Do you really believe that Walker mitigated Favre's points in week 3 any more than Mason would have had he scored the same amount of points?

[Balzac]

Because the points my WR scores DON'T cancel out the points scored by my opponent's QB if they are on the same team any more than they would if they are on different teams.

 

617159[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You're looking at this backwards. Of course they don't cancel out the points any more than anyone else's - but going in, you have no idea who will score what. Looking back and seeing that X and Y both scored 20 points and that one was hedged against the opponent's QB, while convenient, is an unrealistic way to look at it.

[McBoog]

Before the question is answered with the caveot that your opponent is starting the QB for one of your guys (which is what, a 1 in 31 chance?), I think the question has to be asked, " Who do you start if your opponent doesn't have a matching QB under the same situation?", because this is a much more likely scenario. Let me go first, feel free to join in and enlighten me with what you would do sans the "QB factor" in the same exact situation.

 

I would compare the defenses that my players are facing. Great pass D? One shutdown corner, straight man-to-man or mostley zone? Is my guy a slot or a wide out? Does the D he is facing play a cover 2, allowing space in the middle (important if your player plays mostely out of the slot, and why it is KILLING me that Stokely is injured this week. I was looking for at least yardage points from him if not a score.). How does the offense my guys are in, play/produce against those defenses? Could one of the games be a blow out that would allow for some sweet trash time yardage (you know, the kind Boston always used to get in Arizona).

 

You see Jrick, you are still posing the hypothetical senario that somehow, just like playing the hook-up between a WR and a QB on the same team, that there is some kind of effect that your selection of a player, ANY PLAYER, will ultimately have an effect on your opponents score. It won't and never will! One of the best posts I saw in the other thread was that it might give you some psychological comfort, but that is it, PERIOD.

 

We are obviously talking about a #3 WR in a scenario that would cover these players anyway, because even you have said that you would start the obvious players regardless of your opponents QB situation (unless you are rediculously deep at WR). Chances are, this type of "fringe" WR is not going to have much impact on the game anyway!

 

If after evaluating your two "equal" players, as I basically outlined above, and you still come to the conclusion that they are exactly equal except for the "QB factor", then there is something wrong with your evaluation. In ALL the other possible games that these two guys would play in, you would have to try to come up with something more tangible that the "QB factor".

 

If you feel better doing it, hey, it is your roster, have fun and stop worrying about what a bunch of faceless goobers like us in cyber-world think about you. BUT, I am still of the opinion that there is a better way to figure out who to start and NOBODY will ever convince me that the "hook-up" or the reverse "hook-up" (your theory) will ever hold any water.

[Easy n Dirty]

I believe the question asked was what process do you use to make this decision, not what process do you not use.

 

JRick is making the same point I made in one of the other threads, and a point Grits himself has made - there is no right answer if you truly cannot choose between the two. The coin flip, JRick's method, my pick-the-guy-on-national-TV method - each one is equally wrong, but unless you have a failsafe alternative, and you don't, then why all the drama?

 

If you can't truly choose between the two, and it makes you feel better to hedge against your opponent's QB, then knock yourself out I say. The sun will still rise tomorrow.

[Grits and Shins]

I believe the question asked was what process do you use to make this decision, not what process do you not use.

 

JRick is making the same point I made in one of the other threads, and a point Grits himself has made - there is no right answer if you truly cannot choose between the two.  The coin flip, JRick's method, my pick-the-guy-on-national-TV method - each one is equally wrong, but unless you have a failsafe alternative, and you don't, then why all the drama?

 

If you can't truly choose between the two, and it makes you feel better to hedge against your opponent's QB, then knock yourself out I say.  The sun will still rise tomorrow.

 

617183[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I agree with absolutely everything you said. All I am saying is that NONE of those methods gains you an edge over your opponent. NONE of those methods "hedges" anything and "none" of those methods "insulates" anything.

[Balzac]

I agree with absolutely everything you said.  All I am saying is that NONE of those methods gains you an edge over your opponent.  NONE of those methods "hedges" anything and "none" of those methods "insulates" anything.

 

617192[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You continue to say this, but you fail to back it up with anything. Last I checked, the goal of H2H is to score more points than your opponent - the "hedging" or "insulating" strategy here gives you a better (albeit only very slightly and only in the rarest of circumstances) chance of either a) sticking with your opponent or outscoring him.

 

That said, I'm done with this - there are gyms to go to, X-Mas parties to attend and much booze to be consumed.

 

Make no mistake - thanks for the debate - I always enjoy it. Later on.

[Grits and Shins]

You continue to say this, but you fail to back it up with anything.  Last I checked, the goal of H2H is to score more points than your opponent - the "hedging" or "insulating" strategy here gives you a better (albeit only very slightly and only in the rarest of circumstances) chance of either a) sticking with your opponent or outscoring him. 

 

That said, I'm done with this - there are gyms to go to, X-Mas parties to attend and much booze to be consumed. 

 

Make no mistake - thanks for the debate - I always enjoy it.  Later on.

 

617215[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

When you can guarantee that your opponent's QB will throw exclusively to your WR then I would be willing to listen to the "hedging" argument.

[McBoog]

When you can guarantee that your opponent's QB will throw exclusively to your WR then I would be willing to listen to the "hedging" argument.

 

617223[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Exactly Grits

 

And as I stated, we are dealing with fringe players here, NOT studs. The whole concept is not logical!

[Jrick35]

See you couldn't just answer the question.

 

Whenever confronted you resort to form.

 

Condemn the person willing to say how they would might do something but don't tell us how you would do it.

 

And bear in mind, I never said that the way I would make the choice was foolproof, I never even claimed it was a better way than anyone else's, I just said it was my way.

 

And then you started to spin it into the ridiculous idea that I might start a scrib WR over a Stud to get the matchup.

 

People on here have said nice things about your advice, I even used to think that you had some useful things to say but after this epsiode I will have to refer to a sigline I read somewhere once, and I might be paraphrasing but Einstein said it...

 

The only thing worse than ignorance is arrogance.

 

I might be ignorant for making some of the choices I do but your arrogance is much worse.

[Balzac]

When you can guarantee that your opponent's QB will throw exclusively to your WR then I would be willing to listen to the "hedging" argument.

 

617223[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Ah - so in order for you to even listen to a theory, it has to be a slam-dunk, 100%, you're an idiot if you don't use it strategy? B/c that's what it would be if the QB threw exclusively to your WR. That would effectively guaranty that your team would be ahead of your opponent's when those 2 players are done.

 

Wow.

[Furd]

I have never had an exact 50/50 decision. I can alway find something that will convince me that one player is going to score more points than another.

 

If its an exact 50/50 decision in your mind, then flip a coin. There is just as much logic to that as consulting your opponents lineup before making the decision.

Edited December 17, 2004 by Furd

[jackshi17]

Sounds like the "prevent defense" version of Fantasy Football.

[Jrick35]

I have never had an exact 50/50 decision.  I can alway find something that will convince me that one player is going to score more points than another.

 

If its an exact 50/50 decision in your mind, then flip a coin.  There is just as much logic to that as consulting your opponents lineup before making the decision.

 

617359[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Then why, in this situation, must I be wrong.

 

Whatever method you use in deciding your starters is your's to choose and I would never attack your intelligience over your choice.

 

But that's what Grits has been doing all day.

 

As far as he is concerned it's his way or no other.

 

It has to be boring to win every game of every league because based on Grit's arrogance he must.

[jgcoach]

Before the question is answered with the caveot that your opponent is starting the QB for one of your guys (which is what, a 1 in 31 chance?), I think the question has to be asked, " Who do you start if your opponent doesn't have a matching QB under the same situation?", because this is a much more likely scenario.  Let me go first, feel free to join in and enlighten me with what you would do sans the "QB factor" in the same exact situation.

 

I would compare the defenses that my players are facing.  Great pass D? One shutdown corner, straight man-to-man or mostley zone?  Is my guy a slot or a wide out?  Does the D he is facing play a cover 2, allowing space in the middle (important if your player plays mostely out of the slot, and why it is KILLING me that Stokely is injured this week.  I was looking for at least yardage points from him if not a score.).  How does the offense my guys are in, play/produce against those defenses?  Could one of the games be a blow out that would allow for some sweet trash time yardage (you know, the kind Boston always used to get in Arizona).

 

You see Jrick, you are still posing the hypothetical senario that somehow, just like playing the hook-up between a WR and a QB on the same team, that there is some kind of effect that your selection of a player, ANY PLAYER, will ultimately have an effect on your opponents score.  It won't and never will!  One of the best posts I saw in the other thread was that it might give you some psychological comfort, but that is it, PERIOD.

 

We are obviously talking about a #3 WR in a scenario that would cover these players anyway, because even you have said that you would start the obvious players regardless of your opponents QB situation (unless you are rediculously deep at WR).  Chances are, this type of "fringe" WR is not going to have much impact on the game anyway!

 

If after evaluating your two "equal" players, as I basically outlined above, and you still come to the conclusion that they are exactly equal except for the "QB factor", then there is something wrong with your evaluation.  In ALL the other possible games that these two guys would play in, you would have to try to come up with something more tangible that the "QB factor".

 

If you feel better doing it, hey, it is your roster, have fun and stop worrying about what a bunch of faceless goobers like us in cyber-world think about you.  BUT, I am still of the opinion that there is a better way to figure out who to start and NOBODY will ever convince me that the "hook-up" or the reverse "hook-up" (your theory) will ever hold any water.

 

617182[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Very well said, I can't believe there would be any more questions on the subject after your post but, something tells me...

[Gunther]

Very well said, I can't believe there would be any more questions on the subject after your post but, something tells me...

 

617583[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I also agree, McBoog has it covered pretty well.

[Grits and Shins]

Ah - so in order for you to even listen to a theory, it has to be a slam-dunk, 100%, you're an idiot if you don't use it strategy?  B/c that's what it would be if the QB threw exclusively to your WR.  That would effectively guaranty that your team would be ahead of your opponent's when those 2 players are done. 

 

Wow.

 

617317[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The theory is just so ludicrous ... what is soooo hard about the concept of putting your best players on the field regardless of who your opponent starts. They ONLY way the theory would begin to have ANY foundation is if you could guarantee that your opponent's QB would throw exlusively to your WR. But, alas, the QB can throw to a wide variety of players including but not necessarily limited to 2 or 3 other WRs, 1 or 2 TEs, 1 or 2 RBs, and 1 or 2 FBs. That's alot of balls that could be thrown to somebody besides your guy ... ESPECIALLY when you consider that it has already been stated that this is not a method employed with studs ... so you are talking about the non-primary WR on a team (although jrick countradicted himself here too as Mason and Walker are both stud primary WRs for their team).

 

The planets line up more often than you will just happen to be facing 1 of the 32 QBs in the league for which you just happen to have the WR and that WR is also equal in all ways to another WR on your squad. Yet Jrick said he had something like 3 instances this year ... and provided his Walker vs Mason in week 3 ... which is a ridiculous example. He contradicted himself all over the place. Saying he would never bench a stud for a non-stud ... then declared Mason a stud and Walker a non-stud which means he should have simply started Mason. Then he attempted to say they had equally attractive matchups ... yeah right.

 

To paraphrase Furd from another post (although he was talking about attempting to offset your opponent's WRs points by starting the matching QB the same applies the other way):

 

No matter which WR you start, his points will "offset" the points from your opponent's QB ... the only difference is timing.

 

If you would choose to start the WR from team A over the WR from team B when your opponent starts the QB from team C, then there is absolutely NO reason to switch to starting the WR from team B when your opponent is starting the QB from team B. It just doesn't work that way.

 

You DO NOT gain an advantage or edge over your opponent by starting a WR that corresponds to his QB.

 

McBoog nailed it pretty good too.