I didn’t see one up yet, so thought I would start it.
Am going into week 5 at 4-0 (never happened before) against the other tem without a loss (though he tied in week 1). Have pretty solid core, but it’s always the third guy that gets me. Do you tend to play guys based on their previous stats more? or more on their matchup?
In the first part of the season, I tend to go Predraft Status>Production>Matchup.
Obviously, the matchup kind of feeds off the first two- you don’t really know if a defense is any good until about halfway through the season, except in a few cases (Baltimore, for example- and I thought they’d fall apart this year).
Production and matchup slowly overtake predraft status as the season wears on, of course. This week I’m benching Clinton Portis (v. Eagles) for Steve Slaton (v. Colts)- but I’m only doing this because both matchups dictate the change (Eagles have a top 3 run D, Colts have a bottom 3 run D…)
With WRs and TEs, I tend to look at opportunities as well as production; I’m really high on Antonio Bryant, for example, because the Bucs are doing insane things to force him the ball 10+ times per game. IMHO, it’s only a matter of time before the production catches up. Conversely, I’m terrified that I have Tony Gonzalez in my longtime league, because although he’s produced relatively well (#4 at position), he’s getting no looks and most of his points came from touchdowns, which are kind of a crapshoot.
I often feel that FF would work a lot better if touchdowns counted for less- say, 3 points for a rushing or receiving TD, and 2 for a passing TD. The guy who runs for 180 yards contributes much more than the guy who runs for 3 TDs and 8 yards, IMHO- but in fantasy, their value is the same.
I would definitely start Bryant over Moose, especially considering the matchup, but I’m not sure if I’d start him over Holmes (assuming you mean Santonio and not some who-dat), since you probably drafted Holmes as your #2.
It would depend a bit on whether Parker is back for that game- if he is, I expect the Steelers to run a lot, but if not, they’ll be forced to throw.
Wow… your team must have looked incredible at wideout before the draft.
Now, not so much… :smack:
I got lucky- I tried to draft Andre, Calvin and Santonio in all my leagues and they went off the board right before my pick in every draft. I was really pissed off at the time. Of course, in my longtime league I’m now 4-0 thanks to choosing Reggie Wayne, Greg Jennings and Roddy White instead.
Calvin and Andre will be fine in the end, I think. I’m much more certain about Andre than Calvin, and in fact I’d see if you can get a running back like Slaton for him if you need help at RB. Not because Calvin won’t produce for you, but because I think he’ll be woefully inconsistent- a 150-yard 3 TD game followed by three 30-yard games, ad nauseam.
Holmes will be fine when the Steelers play teams who can’t rush the passer. He’s a deep threat, not a possession guy, and lots of pressure on Big Ben means no time for downfield routes to develop.
I think I am good at RB… I have Earnest Graham, LDT, and Julius Jones, with Sammy Morris and Rudi Johnson (both waiver wire moves) in the flex position… I gotta say its a relatively strong team that I kinda lucked into.
I’m not playing a TE on one of my teams because I had a bunch of RBs stockpiled that I wanted to hold onto and I had to drop my TE last week to pick up Buckhalter (I have Westbrook). My prime candidates to cut are Thomas Jones, David Garrard, and Matt Schaub. I’m leaning towards Jones.
Sit Johnson. Baltimore’s defense is playing astonishingly well right now. Through three games they’ve given up less than 70 rushing yards per game. Johnson is a receiving threat too… and they’ve allowed just 110 passing YPG.
I’m iffy on starting Turner too, of course- he’s played two great home games against poor defenses, and two crappy road games against strongish defenses (though neither the Bucs nor the Panthers are particularly strong against the run).
He’s on the road against Green Bay, but as you say their defense is banged up, and we know that Atlanta will lean heavily on the run game, if nothing else.
Drop one of the quarterbacks. Neither has established himself as a fantasy starter, despite their decent games last week. I’m assuming you have another quarterback on your roster?
Jones, on the other hand, is a starting running back. That makes him undroppable except in case of injury. They’re like gold.
Most people in a money league who had a keeper in Brian Westbrook, then took Tom Brady in the first round, Ryan Grant in the second, Marques Colston in the third, and then was hugely excited to have Braylon Edwards fall to him in the 4th, hate it too.
Ok, Week 5. I’m 3-1, coming off a 1-point loss (!! Thank you very little, Dallas D…), and my team is settling in nicely.
I really only have one choice to ponder this week:
Eddie Royal v. Tampa
Lance Moore v. Minnesota
Royal has been pretty steady. Both offenses are pass happy. Moore is likely the (temporary) main receiver for Brees, who happens to be my QB. Royal is second fiddle on the Broncs, but Cutler looks for him when he’s in trouble.
By the way, this is for my 3rd WR spot.My other starters are Andre Johnson and Santana Moss (while Boldin recovers (hopefully…))
I don’t think you can trust any Saints receiver not named Marques Colston. Indeed, the very fact that Moore had a huge game last week means he’ll probably disappear this week and Robert Meachem and David Patten will get all the looks. Or maybe we’ll get a Devery Henderson sighting. That’s just the way the Saints offense seems to work.
Royal, on the other hand, has been really, really steady, especially for a rookie. Plus, the Bucs’ secondary has been uncharacteristically shoddy so far this season. Ronde Barber has clearly lost a step (:() and Aquib Talib has been very rookielike. If Philip Buchanon wasn’t playing at a Pro Bowl level we’d be in a lot of trouble.
I’d look at it this way- if you’re a heavy underdog this week, go with Moore; he probably won’t do much, but if he does, he’ll do a lot; otherwise, go with Royal, who will do pretty well but not great.