Week 10: In Which I Don’t Like Anyone
“You don’t like anyone.”
It was ironic, really. Last week, on an article in which I used the intro to talk about how it’s just plain better to be nice to one another, that seemed to be the comment I received more than any other. “You don’t like anyone.”
Okay, yeah, I shortened the regularly-received comment just a bit to make for a slightly better hook. The actual comment everyone seemed to be leaving was, “You don’t like anyone this week.”
Over the last two weeks, I have done things a bit differently in this article. Two weeks ago, rather than simply giving you six guys I liked at each position, I gave you three guys I planned to be using that week and three guys I planned to not be using that week. The reason? I explained that one of the big mistakes I see people making in daily fantasy football is that they have no idea why they did not use the guys they did not use. Because of this, a player will go off for a big game, and they are left saying, “Crap! Why didn’t I have that guy on my rosters?” (Or worse: “Crap! Why didn’t I think of that guy?”)
In that article two weeks back, I discussed my belief that each of us should be looking at every single fantasy-relevant player, every single week. Each of us should be able to say exactly why we liked and disliked each fantasy-relevant player.
If you do this, and a player goes off while holding a spot on none of your rosters, you will be able to look at your notes on that player and see why you chose not to use him. Even better, you will be able to see if you chose not to use him due to bias/assumptions, or if instead you chose not to use him due to sound thinking and/or quality data. If you chose not to use that player for a “wrong reason,” you can use that as a learning experience and eliminate that particular mistake the next week, with all other players with whom you have been making that same mistake. If, on the other hand, a player goes off and you look at your reasons for not having used that player and say, “You know what? I made a right choice in not using this player; things just didn’t work out this week,” you will be putting yourself in a position for consistent, long-term profitability. After all, those who consistently make the right decisions (the smart decisions) will always find that they consistently make money in daily fantasy sports; on the other hand, those who try to chase those “lucky, outlier” games from different players may have some big weeks, but they will lose money over the long run, as they will “miss” far more often than they will “hit.”
This led to my article last week, in which – after the intro about being nice to people (which, admittedly, had little- to nothing to do with the rest of the article itself), I provided you with my notes last week on every fantasy-relevant player. This was what led people to say:
“You don’t like anyone this week.”
Well. Yeah. That’s sort of the point…
At each position last week – while providing my notes on every single fantasy-relevant player that would be playing that weekend – I underlined the guys I particularly liked. At each position, I underlined anywhere from four to seven guys. And. Yeah. Again. That was sort of the point…
It was funny to see that at first. Like, “Wait. What? My goal in this article is to help you narrow down your choices for your teams. If I liked everyone, how would that really help you at all?” But then I realized, that recurring comment was not as strange as it had seemed at first. Because I’m a bit different – a bit unique – in the approach I take to lineup construction.
How am I a bit unique?
Well, namely, I would be fine most weeks using just one single roster. Yup – just one. Uno. (Or, “one” in any other language you know and I do not. And actually, that implies that I speak Spanish. I do not speak Spanish. But I do own Rosetta Stone Italian, so if I ever get around to using it, I’ll probably know how to say “one” in Italian as well. Is it “un”? I think it is. That would be easy enough.)
I came to this “one lineup” realization, largely, because my “one lineup” – what I call in this article (and to myself, and to my friends, and to people who don’t care, which may include you) my “Optimal Team” – has basically been my best team every single week. In fact, there have been a couple weeks in which I have gone ahead and thrown about 40 bullets into the Millionaire Maker – mixing and matching all my favorite players from the week, and even taking the core from my Optimal Team and mixing in a few different pieces…and every week, my Optimal Team has still been my best team of the week. Because of this, I have pretty much quit even trying to come up with tons of extra lineups. The most lineups I have used in the last few weeks has probably been 10…and, of course, on those weeks, my Optimal Team has remained my best team.
Obviously, different things work for different people. You can watch videos or read articles on RotoGrinders – from guys I respect a ton, guys who have been doing this far longer than I have been doing this, guys who I read and/or listen to every week in order to continually learn as much as I can about daily fantasy sports – and these guys will talk about “how many shares” they’ll have of different players. These guys have found that the best approach for them is to build (who knows) 30, 50, 100 lineups, and to know what percentage of these lineups they want to have Player A on, and what percentage of their lineups they want to have Player B on, and so on.
On the other hand, as I said, I have found that my most profitable approach is to create one Optimal Team, with maybe two or three variations of that Optimal Team thrown in for good measure (and by “for good measure,” I mean “to make me feel less scared about using only one lineup, even though that ‘one lineup’ always ends up being my best lineup anyway”). And this, my friends, is why an article in which I am providing you with my personal notes on every single fantasy-relevant player has so many guys I “don’t like.” After all, how would it help me narrow things down to the players I like the most if I liked, you know, every single player?
And honestly, I think this is a great approach to take – to get in the habit of crafting one single “Optimal Team.” Even if you are a mass-multi-entry guy, I feel, you should also know exactly which team is designated as your “Optimal Team.” In fact, I think this is a big part of the reason why more than 50% of the entries I have thrown into the Game Changer this year have finished in the top 10% of the field. In that tournament, no one really enters more than two or three or four entries, and many of these guys are used to being able to enter 10 or 15 or 150 lineups in most of the GPPs they enter. When they are then entering only a handful of “Optimal Teams,” it can take them out of their comfort zone. And this is why I “don’t like anyone” on just about every week!
This week, as you build your lineups, I want to encourage you to designate one team as your “Optimal Team.” Spend some extra time on this team. Ask yourself which players have stood out to you, throughout all your research, as your favorite players at each position. Figure out how you can fit as many of these “favorite players at each position” onto one single team. Take the “One team approach,” and see where it leads you!
As to “how last week went,” it’s time for another installment of Qualifier Watch. Yup. I did not end up taking down a Qualifier last week. I entered two teams last week. On my Brady-led team, I chose not to use Edelman or Mike Evans even though I suggested each of them in my article and suggested them directly to many of you who asked me questions about WRs in that low price range, and I also failed to make the switch to Jeremy Hill, choosing to instead hope for a bad game from him, and for his high ownership to lead to lots of lower-scoring rosters. Oops. My second team started out as an Eli-led team, with three players (Eli, Randle, and Hilton) slated to play on Monday night. At the end of Sunday, this team was sitting at exactly 4x its salary, meaning that I would score 200 points if my last three guys could keep up that 4x mark (which would be necessary, as the guy sitting in first in the Q had 194 points). During Monday, however, I decided I would have a better chance scoring the 79 points I needed if I switched to Luck instead of Eli. I toyed with a few different options (including making the switch to Luck, Odell Beckham, and Reggie Wayne), but I ended up settling on the “high-upside” play of Luck, Randle, and Moncrief. Again: oops. (Interestingly, if I had gone with Luck, Beckham, and Wayne, I would have lost the Qualifier by less than 1 point! As heartbreaking as that would have been, I would have made a lot more money in all my other GPPs had I made that switch, instead of making the switch I did make. Oh well.)
Anyhow, my Qualifier Watch offer remains in place. (In case you missed last week’s article, the offer was this: If I won a Qualifier and then finished in the top 10% in Atlantis, 1% of my winnings would go to a reader; anyone who commented on last week’s article would be entered to win.) If you commented last week, you will remain entered for the drawing. If you did not comment last week, feel free to throw in an “entry” this week with a comment of your own. (And, of course, feel free to comment even if you did comment last week, letting me know how my picks helped you, or letting me know how my picks ruined your week, or letting me know about any questions you have for this week, or letting me know about the sandwich you had for lunch today.)
Finally, it’s worth mentioning: I have started becoming more active on Twitter over the last couple weeks – generally posting some thoughts on there and answering roster-related questions during the latter half of the week. The Twitter account is fairly new, but don’t be embarrassed to give it a follow anyway, if you’d like – even if you are only one of about 100 followers! My Twitter handle, fittingly, is JMToWin.
Without further ado, then, we bid adieu to the super-long intro. Now let’s get to some super-long explanations of my favorite plays for this week!
Quarterbacks
JMToWin’s Play of the Week:
$6300 – CAM NEWTON vs Eagles
Speaking of Twitter…last week, on Friday, I said on Twitter (JMToWin – in case you skipped the intro!), “I’m positively giddy about using Cam/Benjamin next week v Philly. Hopefully the poor Thur showing keeps both price and ownership down.” Nothing has changed in my mind since then, and while it seems people will, in fact, be all over Benjamin this week, people seem to be overlooking Cam (it helps that “shiny toys” such as Matty Ice, Mark Sanchez, and Ben Roethlisberger are priced around him). Cam is facing a poor secondary in what should be a shootout, I’m expecting 8 to 10 carries from him with the ribs finally healthy, and I expect a bounce-back game with his arm. I could see 30 points from Cam this week, easily. He’s my favorite QB this week given the price…and he may even be my favorite QB this week regardless of price. At what should be ownership under 8%, Cam could be a big difference-maker in GPPs this week (unless you follow this advice and it turns out I’m wrong…in which case, he’ll only be a difference-maker for your chances of making money!).
Four More Guys – Other Top Value Plays of the Week:
$9400 – AARON RODGERS vs Bears
Rodgers against a banged-up secondary, coming off a bye, is about as safe a bet as they come. You’ll have to pay up to get him, but if you don’t trust any of the lower-priced QBs enough to go that route, there are certainly enough values available at other positions to be able to pay up for Rodgers and still fill out a truly solid team.
$7500 – BEN ROETHLISBERGER vs Jets
Six touchdowns in back-to-back weeks, so…yeah. There’s that. Considering no NFL QB has ever thrown six touchdowns thrice in a season (let alone in three consecutive weeks), it’s not as if we can expect a re-repeat performance, but pricing for this week was released during Sunday Night Football, so Roethlisberger is still cheap. What’s more, people seem to never really buy into Roethlisberger, as evidenced by his 3% ownership one week after throwing for 6 TDs! I expect ownership to climb, of course, but he still won’t be nearly as highly-owned as just about any other QB would be against the Jets at $7500 coming off two historic weeks. I like Cam and even Matt Ryan more than Roethlisberger this week, for less money, but if you believe in Big Ben, don’t let fears of ownership numbers stand between you and your QB of choice. I’m predicting he’ll still be under 12% owned.
$6300 – MATT RYAN vs Buccaneers
The one concern here is that this is an away game for the Falcons, outdoors, where this team always tends to underperform. Even if this game were played on a frozen-over pond, however, I’d have to give Ryan consideration against this secondary. I expect high ownership numbers, but if you don’t like Cam as much as I do and cannot stomach dropping down in price for the “Sanchize,” Ryan is a great bet to quadruple salary.
$5400 – MARK SANCHEZ vs Panthers
There are too many easy jokes to make, so I won’t make any. I’ll just tell you that he’s probably a better QB than Foles, honestly, and Foles has put up very good numbers for the most part this year, in this offense. Would you consider Foles at $5400 against a bottom-5 secondary? If so, Sanchez deserves some consideration as well. If I end up putting in three teams this week (instead of the one team I am on track for at the moment), I’ll probably have Sanchez leading one of those teams…and then, I’m sure, I’ll promptly go to confession: “Forgive me, father, for I have sinned. I’ve chosen to entrust some of my money to the performance of Mark Sanchez.”
Running Backs
JMToWin’s Play of the Week:
$5600 – LESEAN MCCOY vs Panthers
According to Pro Football Focus, the Eagles have the #2 run blocking unit in football this season. They also get Evan Mathis back this week, who was the #1-rated run-blocking guard in the NFL the last two years. And even with how “bad” of a year LeSean is having, he’s averaging 5.2 YPC over his last three games. He’s also averaging 25.25 touches per game over the Eagles’ last four games, and his lowest touch-total in those four games was 24. The only thing missing, really, is the TDs (one all-purpose TD on the entire season). The good news? His usage near the goal line has not changed. The TDs will come. And as long as this price remains so depressed, he’ll be on my team in whatever week those TDs do start coming.
Four More Guys – Other Top Value Plays of the Week:
$10,000 – MATT FORTE vs Packers
If you’re a regular reader of this article, you know that I’m a stickler for two things in filling out my rosters: 1) I want to make sure each player I pick has a solid chance of quadrupling salary, and 2) I want to make sure anyone I pick has “100 yard, 2 TD” upside. Will Forte quadruple a salary of $10k? No, probably not. But one adjustment I have made over the last few weeks, as pricing has gotten so soft on DraftKings, has been to soften a bit on the “4x salary” thing, replacing this with an approach in which I try to make sure everyone on my roster has that “100 yard, 2 TD” upside – making sure, that is to say, that everyone on my roster has a good chance of scoring 25 points. After all, if you get 25 points from QB, RB, WR, FLEX, and TE, that’s 200 points, even before DST. And with the soft pricing, there are plenty of guys in the $5k range (and even the $4k range!) every week who can get you those 25 points. As such, I don’t mind paying up for Forte this week against a run defense that is subpar, to say the least. Forte’s price should keep him low-owned, and between the targets, the carries, and the red zone usage, 30 to 35 points should be a reasonable expectation! If you could get 25 from the rest of your roster and still fit in Forte’s ceiling of “35 points with low ownership,” you could give yourself a great shot at a massive score.
$6700 – MARSHAWN LYNCH vs Giants
Marshawn is still on the hunt for a second 100-yard rushing performance on the year, but he did get 26 touches last week – his most since Week 3 vs Denver (a game that went into overtime). If Marshawn is given 26 touches in a home game against the Giants, he’s in consideration even at $8k. At a price of $6700, then, he’s practically a must-play. The only real concern here, in my mind, is just how inconsistent his usage has really been. Can we actually bank on another 25+ touches? I have no idea.
$6100 – RONNIE HILLMAN vs Raiders
Because he is sandwiched between Marshawn and LeSean, and because Montee Ball should be returning to the field this week, a lot of people are likely to overlook Hillman. I still say he’s a solid bet for 20 touches, and if he gets those 20 touches, he’s a tremendous play at this price!
$5100 – DENARD ROBINSON vs Cowboys
I know, we’re all still scared. And why shouldn’t we be? After all, it is the Jaguars, and who really wants to trust a player on the Jaguars? (Apologies to Notorious.) But if Robinson is given 20 carries against a sub-par run D, I like his chances to return value on a salary this low. The only real concern, in my mind, is the chance the Cowboys hold the ball for so much of this game that Robinson has no chance of getting those 20 carries he needs.
Wide Receivers
JMToWin’s Play of the Week:
$5300 – PERCY HARVIN vs Steelers
As you probably know by now, “opportunity” is a big deal to me. I’ll take the “so-so player who gets 11 targets” over the “explosive player who gets 6 targets” every single time (um, except for two weeks ago, that is, when I took Michael Floyd and pretended he would get more targets that week – one of the curses of having a big imagination, I guess). The crazy thing, however, is that Percy is no longer the “explosive player who gets 6 targets.” During his first two weeks with the Jets, he has averaged 11 targets and 2.5 carries per game. This is elite usage. This week, Percy provides the opportunity to get an explosive playmaker receiving elite usage and facing a mediocre secondary, all at a price of $5300 and – best of all – what I expect to be low ownership, as people still seem to be thinking of “Seattle Percy” or of “Jets offense” when they see his name.
Four More Guys – Other Top Value Plays of the Week:
$8500 – DEMARYIUS THOMAS vs Raiders
If I’m paying up at WR this week, this is where I’m going. With Antonio Brown and Jeremy Maclin drawing attention away from Demaryius in this price range, and with so many elite, lower-priced options, I think a lot of people will overlook Demaryius. I think this is a very good spot for him to have one of those 40-point games he seems to carry around in his back pocket.
$6600 – JULIO JONES vs Buccaneers
You know – it’s Julio Jones. Facing the third-worst pass coverage unit in the NFL (PFF). At a price of only $6600. Sometimes, it’s just that easy.
$5600 – BRANDON MARSHALL vs Packers
I do not see Marshall having an elite game (a score of, say, 30+ points), but I do think he’s good for 17 to 22 points in what should be a shootout. His targets are far down from what we are used to seeing (averaging 8 targets per game), and if the Packers secondary is healthy, it’s a decent unit (in fact, PFF has the Packers ranked as the 5th-best pass coverage team). However, he’s still Brandon Marshall, coming off a bye, priced at only $5600. You could do a whole lot worse!
$4200 – KELVIN BENJAMIN vs Eagles
Okay, so it seems everyone will be on him. Oh well. As I’ve said before, fading a player because of ownership concerns when they are priced this low is a silly strategy (advice I should have paid attention to last week with Hill!). If a player is priced at $8k and you think they’ll be 30% owned, fading that player can be a solid strategy, as you can hope for a 12- or 16-point game, and for everyone to have blown a large chunk of their budget for 2x value. But when a player costs this little, the dent to someone’s roster is so minimal even if the player puts up a dud, which makes fading that player “just to fade them” a dumb move. I expect Benjamin to be 30% owned. The question you then need to ask is this: “Is there a more-than-30% chance he quadruples his salary?” Given his 8+ targets per game, his matchup, and game flow assumptions, I’d say the answer is a resounding “Yes.” Who cares about ownership percentage; get this guy in your lineup.
Tight Ends
JMToWin’s Play of the Week:
$3300 – OWEN DANIELS vs Titans
“But, what about Jimmy Graham, Martellus Bennett, and Julius Thomas?” Yes, those guys are all in play (although, as you’ll notice, I do not have Julius listed below; his targets are so low and he is so touchdown-dependent, I see him as hardly more than a TE version of Martavis Bryant – in for some big games, and in for some serious duds, which is why I have largely avoided him this year; again – I like opportunity!). But at this point, we can pretty much bank on 7 or 8 targets for Owen Daniels, including one or two looks in the red zone. Given the dearth of lively TE options, the price, the matchup, and the targets, I like Daniels a lot for some salary relief this week. I don’t think he can score 25 on his own, but I think 15 points is a safe bet, and I think the rest of the lineup I can put in with Daniels at TE can more than pick up the slack!
Three More Guys – Other Top Value Plays of the Week:
$6300 – JIMMY GRAHAM vs 49ers
There are two ways to see this. 1) Jimmy Graham is one of the most dominant players in the NFL, and he is priced at only $6300. 2) The 49ers are tremendous against TEs. I think we overlook matchups sometimes when it comes to elite players, and this can hurt us. At the same time, however, we can give “matchup” too much credit when it comes to elite players. I do not think the 49ers will shut down Graham, but I also would not be surprised if they held him under 20 points. If I make a second lineup, Graham will be in it. If I roll with only one lineup, however, Graham will be left on the bench, as I think there are at least a couple TEs in the low-price-range who can come close to equaling Graham’s score this week while freeing up lots of extra money elsewhere.
$5600 – MARTELLUS BENNETT vs Packers
I like Martellus a lot this week. He’s actually receiving more targets per game than Brandon Marshall – at the same price, and at a position that is far more bereft of elite options. I think he’s a good bet for a TD, and for five or six catches.
$3200 – CLAY HARBOR vs Cowboys
Harbor is likely to be overlooked – just as the Jags seemed to overlook him last week! Up until last week, however, Harbor was a big part of the offense, and the Cowboys have a difficult time covering tight ends. I like Harbor as a low-owned, high-upside play this week.
That’s it for this week. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go stare at my one single lineup and change nothing on it while I wait for you guys to send comments or tweets (JMToWin) my way so I can have something productive to do!