Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Tuesday Morning QB: Roll the dice

Welcome to Tuesday Morning Quarterback, where I take a look back at what I (and sometimes others) would have (could have/should have) done differently with my (their) fantasy football teams for that previous week's games. 

Well, this week I'm not going to look back at what I could have done differently, because to put it quite bluntly, I FUCKING ROCK!

With my 129-75 victory over Delusion of Adequacy, I vaulted into first place.

Instead, I'm going to look at what one of the other peons could have done differently to help himself to victory, namely one LOBO whose team Predator Press lost 87-82 to nonames.

LOBO played Larry Fitzgerald who had a measly 5 fantasy points instead of going with the gamble Titus Young but who all the fantasy football pundits had been hyping all week so why the hell not roll the dice?

Young had 29 points and would have given LOBO an overwhelming 106-87 win...

...but he had to be a PUSSY (nope, not just a lowercase non-bolded pussy, but uppercase bold PUSSY) and not take the chance on Young, who was second on the receiving depth chart after Nate Burleson broke a leg.

And LOBO knew better because during a Facebook conversation Monday night, he said this:

"L Fitz is always double-teamed and SF doesn't give up sh*t to WR. Barring an act of God, John Bray [nonames actually does have a name] should have this all wrapped up already."

Damned by his own words...all because he wouldn't roll the dice or to mix metaphors, "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run."


LOBO said...

You're pretty dead on. The irony was I was trying to go conservative. I did make my projection overall -almost exactly. But it was with some players overproducing while others bombed out.

I didn't do much research this week and got burned for it. But in my defense, there wasn't any indication, even in retrospect, to expect anything like Titus Young did. True he was the only option with Burleson out, but who knew Seattle's DEF would get so unglued? And seriously who would have benched either Jamaal Charles or Darren McFadden for Titus Young? People in white coats would have been chasing me with butterfly nets.

Meh. Against one of the toughest teams in the league, I kept it within five points. We showed up. I can live with that.


Unfinished Person said...

Yeah, but you could put Young in for Fitzgerald if you thought Fitzgerald was going to suck. That's what I was saying. No, I wouldn't have benched Charles or McFadden...

...also the pickings were slim on who to pick on this week. You just drew the short straw.

LOBO said...

You can't just sit L Fitz and it was MNF. Any other option was long gone.

-If I knew it would have been a five point game, I would have called Nate Kaeding for advice.

Unfinished Person said...

Why can't you sit L Fitz if you know he's going to suck? Why not take the gamble? :)

LOBO said...

I didn't know he was going to suck until getting 5 or so points from him was critical Monday. That realization was what spawned the conversation you quoted me on. I was even prognosticating on my likely loss.

You know as well as I do it's hard to bench a drafted superstar starter ... :)

LOBO said...

Let's put the retrospective this way:

L Fitz was deployed by 89% of his owners. T Young was deployed by 14% -but Young wasn't even owned in most leagues. The only reason I had Young was a defensive effort to keep you guys from using him against me on my recent bye week-weakened schedule.

But the fact that he's potent will be a bonus, obviously ... :)

LOBO said...

Now that I'm thinking about it, anyone want to trade for Titus Young?

Chris C said...

I would have started Fitz, Marshall, or Charles over Young. Sure Titus had a big day but he's a second year player with little stats to show for before Sunday.

Need to see a bigger body of work from him going forward before deciding if he's WR2 worthy. I want to see at least 1-2 games more of solid production.

Unfinished Person said...

That's why it's called a gamble, folks. :)

LOBO said...

Glad you weighed in Chris. My logic was based on a lesson I learned way back, and it was actually you who distilled the issue to the quote "never sit your starters."

While there are certainly exceptions, it's a practical strategy. Sure I occasionally have a flukey situation, but events of mega bench points are since significantly reduced. I save the "dicey" moves for the FTWL anyway.

Worth noting, moreover, I was still in it all the way until virtually the end of Monday Night. L Fitz getting 70% of what he was projected for would have tipped the "W" my way. We were one mediocre pass from never having this conversation.

I'm not beating myself up for the rationale behind my deployment -I'm chalking it up the the uncertainties we all face every week. And if you think about it 'Bic Picture'-wise, overall conservative play makes these occasional -and inevitable- setbacks endurable instead of tragic. In fact to the contrary, the Preds are still tied (by wins) with three other managers for First (or Fourth, depending on your perspective). Instead this is only a disappointment; everyone and everything is still well within reach, and we're still contenders. There are six other managers that would love to have my circumstances at the moment.

You can't win them all. As John Bray recently pointed out, "Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windshield."

nonamedufus said...

I'm not disappointed, LOBO.

LOBO said...

Lol! I know you're not.

Rambler is right in the sense that at no point could I work my lineup into something projected to win; a gamble or two warranted consideration.

Instead I put my best guys forward. They are your best guys for a reason, after all.

-And frankly they almost pulled it off, too.