NFL FORUM

Comments

  • El_Lupo81

    That is my question.

    IDK. Right now I’m all in on both FD and DK in cash games on Dak. He’s the right play. But is it really the smart play? That’s what I’m struggling w/ right now. Wanted to feel out some fellow grinders. Kinda thinking I should hedge a little, but I just like my LU so much w/ him in there.

  • Jk1492

    • 297

      RG Overall Ranking

    I think there is too much value out there to risk a single digit effort from my qb. Was going to put him in one of three lineups bit have since decided against it.

  • fpm2015

    @El_Lupo81 said...

    That is my question.

    IDK. Right now I’m all in on both FD and DK in cash games on Dak. He’s the right play. But is it really the smart play? That’s what I’m struggling w/ right now. Wanted to feel out some fellow grinders. Kinda thinking I should hedge a little, but I just like my LU so much w/ him in there.

    what defenses did he play against? Miami and the rams? I think the giants D are going to put him in his place…back to being a backup

  • cmbarbee226

    History of these two teams is suggesting Dak is safe.

    http://www.footballdb.com/teams/nfl/dallas-cowboys/teamvsteam?opp=21

  • SouthernShield

    I know the Giants have added quite a bit to that D, but it was horrendous last season and it takes awhile for a D to come together…..

    I think the only way Dak puts up a single digit performance is for him to NOT play.

  • Bighouse55

    Fade at your own risk.

  • NixonMask

    From football perspective: Since 2000, Tim Tebow, Colin Kaepernick, and Dak Prescott are only players in college with 10+ rush TD and 10+ pass TDs in 3 diff seasons.

    Are you willing to take the chance and fade a guy in that company? Jokes aside, it took NFL defenses a full season to catch up to those guys. That is good company when were only concerned with this sunday.

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    I feel like Dak IS the “too much value” to miss out on. If he hits 4-5x value, which is extremely realistic, then you’re gonna want him in your lineups.

  • KillaChap

    Dak is going to have some solid games this year because no one has any film to really use to prepare for him. He’s behind the best line in the NFL and has a great (hopefully) RB who can also block well. He has a security blanket in old man Witten and he has one of the best WR’s in the game to just throw the ball in the air to and let him make a play. As long as he isn’t careless with the ball, which he might be, he should easily provide value at his cost.

  • cccalloway

    In cash games, not sure how you fade Dak. Going to be highly owned, cheap and good chance of hitting value.

    In GPPs, he makes for an easy fade game theory wise. Assume he is going to be aroun 20% owned in milly maker, that makes for an easy fade when you are up against $2MM other people.

  • usna1993

    Play Dak – if he hits and you have the right mix around him you will do very well. CCCalloway above is spot on…

  • mchin1027

    Fade and play Giants D

  • tarheel66

    Dak will shred the Giants defense, problem is he will be very highly owned so no one will seperate from the field

  • tarheel66

    Dak will not be on the winning lineup, will be to highly owned

  • mellofellowsu

    @tarheel66 said...

    Dak will not be on the winning lineup, will be to highly owned

    There are numerous examples to point to where the highest owned player is in the winning LU.

    I’m not advocating playing him, just saying ownership alone isn’t a good enough reason to avoid him IMO.

  • Multichem

    • 902

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Blogger of the Month

    In GPPs, you pretty much have to fade. In cash, role him out.

    You can expect between 30-65% ownership in cash and 20-30% ownership in GPPs. Do with that what you will. I’m personally all the way off of him in favor of a couple other guys that will give me a better chance at placing high in GPPs.

  • madchuck

    If you’re playing GPP’s fade him. In cash, I can’t do it even though I want to.

  • cccalloway

    @tarheel66 said...

    Dak will shred the Giants defense, problem is he will be very highly owned so no one will seperate from the field

    This doesn’t make any sense. If you truly think he will shred the Giants D, then you should play him at min salary no matter ownership and separate elsewhere. Just b/c a lot of other people have him, just means you have to beat them with your other guys.

  • sethayates

    @cccalloway said...

    This doesn’t make any sense. If you truly think he will shred the Giants D, then you should play him at min salary no matter ownership and separate elsewhere. Just b/c a lot of other people have him, just means you have to beat them with your other guys.

    ^^^This

    Here’s a quick pop quiz. If I’m in a 100-person league and I have the following two players how many other people can possibly have the same lineup as me?

    Dak Prescott (75%)
    Jared Cook (5%)

    The answer is obviously 5%. The idea behind fading a player in GPP is that you believe they won’t pay off value or that you can find a similar priced player with the same upside.

    You can make the case that Dak could score something low (10-15 DK) which makes him a decent fade. You can’t find anyone else at $5K who has the same upside as him though.

    If you think he crushes it for 25 point you shouldn’t fade him even if he’s 100% owned. Just find a player somewhere else in your lineup that is 2% owned and then you won’t have the same lineup as anyone else.

  • kbarnhill7523

    • 406

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2018 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    • x2

      2017 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @sethayates said...

    ^^^This

    Here’s a quick pop quiz. If I’m in a 100-person league and I have the following two players how many other people can possibly have the same lineup as me?

    Dak Prescott (75%)
    Jared Cook (5%)

    The answer is obviously 5%. The idea behind fading a player in GPP is that you believe they won’t pay off value or that you can find a similar priced player with the same upside.

    You can make the case that Dak could score something low (10-15 DK) which makes him a decent fade. You can’t find anyone else at $5K who has the same upside as him though.

    If you think he crushes it for 25 point you shouldn’t fade him even if he’s 100% owned. Just find a player somewhere else in your lineup that is 2% owned and then you won’t have the same lineup as anyone else.

    THIS

    If you look at GPP winning lineups, more often then not you will see players that are 25-30% owned. You can win a GPP by taking the highest owned players at some positions and picking different players in others.

    BY FAR the easiest way to differentiate yourself on a site like FD is at K and D/ST. You don’t even have to be that different. Just 1 position.

    If you think Dak is going to flame out and score less than 10 points, fade him. Just don’t fade him because you think he will be high-owned and you read somewhere to win a GPP you have to fade high owned players. Its not true.

    I’ll have some Dak. But with Dak’s ownership being so high, Ezekiel Elliot will go WAY underowned because people also feel like having a QB/RB stack is a negative correlation, when in reality, it really isn’t. If you want to be REALLY different, play both Dak and Elliot.

  • Trevmitch27

    A

  • wonger34

    I agree 100% with Seth’s take.

  • jdtrey22

    @kbarnhill7523 said...

    THIS

    If you look at GPP winning lineups, more often then not you will see players that are 25-30% owned. You can win a GPP by taking the highest owned players at some positions and picking different players in others.

    BY FAR the easiest way to differentiate yourself on a site like FD is at K and D/ST. You don’t even have to be that different. Just 1 position.

    If you think Dak is going to flame out and score less than 10 points, fade him. Just don’t fade him because you think he will be high-owned and you read somewhere to win a GPP you have to fade high owned players. Its not true.

    I’ll have some Dak. But with Dak’s ownership being so high, Ezekiel Elliot will go WAY underowned because people also feel like having a QB/RB stack is a negative correlation, when in reality, it really isn’t. If you want to be REALLY different, play both Dak and Elliot.

    QB/RB correlation is amazing… you’re guaranteed to be apart of any offensive td like 99% of the time unless FB runs it in or the WR runs it in( Somewhat rare scenarios).

  • Razzle11

    @fpm2015 said...

    what defenses did he play against? Miami and the rams? I think the giants D are going to put him in his place…back to being a backup

    He also went 17/23 for 116 and a TD against Seattle’s Def…..

  • deactivated51600

    @jdtrey22 said...

    QB/RB correlation is amazing… you’re guaranteed to be apart of any offensive td like 99% of the time unless FB runs it in or the WR runs it in( Somewhat rare scenarios).

    Or, QB or RB fumbles and O-Lineman picks it up and falls into endzone!

  • Jkray25

    Dak for cash, Wentz for GPP

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Subforum Index

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER (NJ/WV/PA/MI), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO), 1-800-BETS OFF (IA), 1-888-532-3500 (VA) or call/text TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN).