fantasy football: playing qb/wr combos

oe39 · #1 08-13-2007, 05:11 PM

i've read a few articles where they claim this is a good thing. it seems to me that in a standard HU league you'd only want to prefer this, all things being equal, if you thought you had a worse team than whoever you were playing.

does anyone have a reason to try to get these "combos", other than that you'd like to have players from offenses that are going to score a lot of points? i usually try to avoid them if i think i should win the matchup, and this goes against meathead fantasy football magazine knowledge. am i wrong?

Thremp · #2 08-13-2007, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i've read a few articles where they claim this is a good thing. it seems to me that in a standard HU league you'd only want to prefer this, all things being equal, if you thought you had a worse team than whoever you were playing.

does anyone have a reason to try to get these "combos", other than that you'd like to have players from offenses that are going to score a lot of points? i usually try to avoid them if i think i should win the matchup, and this goes against meathead fantasy football magazine knowledge. am i wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good if your team is worse. Bad if your team is better.

TheNoodleMan · #3 08-13-2007, 05:16 PM

Other than the obvious bye week problem, all it really does is increase your variance from week to week, the EV of your season long total points isn't going to change.

That being said, its a hell of a lot more exciting to sweat your team because you can make up a huge deficit very quickly with a QB/WR combo.

oe39 · #4 08-13-2007, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

That being said, its a hell of a lot more exciting to sweat your team

[/ QUOTE ]

good point

Spellmen · #5 08-13-2007, 05:25 PM

The only time I active pursued this was when I had Manning, and well, that was because Harrison was/is one of the best receivers

SMIGLET · #6 08-13-2007, 05:33 PM

id only do this with the most prolific tandems:
manning-harrison
palmer-johnson
bulger-holt
brady-moss? yet to be seen

vixticator · #7 08-13-2007, 05:48 PM

I think it's irrelevent if both are best available. I'd have no problem with two recievers either assuming Wayne/Harrison, Johnson/Housh, or Boldin/Fitz. Usually both have a good game, sometimes both have huge games.

Spellmen · #8 08-13-2007, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's irrelevent if both are best available. I'd have no problem with two recievers either assuming Wayne/Harrison, Johnson/Housh, or Boldin/Fitz. Usually both have a good game, sometimes both have huge games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a more interesting question. QB/WR is obviously best value at the time since you have backups for both. I would have second thoughts about taking WR/WR combos since it would leave you hurting on the bye week. I've never really had a chance to get both since those tandems are pretty equal in value

vixticator · #9 08-13-2007, 06:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a more interesting question. QB/WR is obviously best value at the time since you have backups for both. I would have second thoughts about taking WR/WR combos since it would leave you hurting on the bye week.

[/ QUOTE ]The bye week does hurt but it depends how strong the league is, I had Wayne/Harrison last year. McNabb won like 8 weeks by himself along with solid contributions from the Colt recievers for me, even though I dropped a few when he went down I still made playoffs. Then in fantasy playoffs Harrison just owned everybody and I won easily.

Thremp · #10 08-13-2007, 06:28 PM

It increases standard deviation when you take combos increasing variance. You don't want this when you have a good team.