Week 2 of NFL action was a rough one for many players, both newbie and experienced. What was your takeaway from the way the action went down? What lessons did you learn and how will you adjust?
Maurile Tremblay: I keep hearing people say that Week 2 was a good week for squares and a bad week for sharps. In terms of percentage-ROI, I had my best week ever. I'm not sure what that says about me...
But in general, all players at every skill level will have good weeks and bad weeks. The bad weeks are a good reminder to practice responsible bankroll management. Realize that any player can get injured at any time; any NFL team can have an off week; and therefore any or all of your DFS lineups in a given week can tank. Wager only what you can afford to lose. If you lose all your money during the bad weeks, you won't have anything left to bet with during the good weeks, and you can't make money that way.
Alex Miglio: Having broken even across sites, I am feeling relatively good after Week 2. Thank you Colin Kaepernick and Torrey Smith.
At one point last week, I decided Sam Bradford and Jordan Matthews were in too many lineups. If anyone had too much exposure to Bradford in particular, they were behind the eight ball. Mind your exposure! Beyond that, the biggest lesson is that anything is possible in the NFL. One week is not nearly enough sample size to establish trends -- our expectations were out of whack in part because of what we thought after Week 1.
Andrew Garda: 'Wager only what you can afford to lose.' That's excellent overall advice. Never get too high, never drop too low. A week like this can make some people double up on their best to try and catch up, but you can't do that because what if we have two hinky weeks in a row?
As Maurile said, this is a good reminder that 1) anything can happen meaning you can only control so much and 2) you manage a bankroll over the entire year as well as week to week. No matter how good or bad you do, stick to the plan.
I don't know that there is much to learn from a week like this - aside from patience and 'anything can happen.'
Chad Parsons: The Saints game taught a valuable lesson - early in the season we are still finding our footing on the strong-weak teams. The Saints were favored at home and Drew Brees was a very popular bounce back candidate. However, the Saints offense is reeling and searching for an identity in every way. They were betting on fire, even at home, last week and burning plenty of lineups. When going strong on a team or offense, have a better read on their top pieces early in the season.
Jimmy Graham is reportedly unhappy with his role in Seattle, but he’s tied as the third most expensive tight end at FantasyScore (he and Tyler Eifert are both $6800). How do you view him coming into this week—will he end up closer to the eight targets and six catches from Week 1 or the Week 2 single catch effort? Is he too expensive for your taste?
MT: Graham's price is too high compared to his production so far to warrant starting in a cash game, in my opinion. But he's not a bad tournament play. His poor start to the season may cause him to be lightly owned this week; and playing at home against the Bears could be the perfect opportunity for him to score multiple touchdowns. Stars who complain about not getting the ball enough often get the ball a lot in response. Russell Wilson doesn't want his best receiver to be unhappy. And the Seahawks may be able to do pretty much whatever they want against the Bears. So while I think the most likely scenario is another fantasy dud for Graham because the Seahawks simply haven't made the tight end a big part of their offensive game plan ... there's a reasonable chance that this will be Graham's breakout game, so throwing him a GPP lineup is perfectly sensible.
AM: He is not too expensive for my taste against that Chicago Bears defense. The Seahawks may not be a typical NFL franchise, but the squeaky wheel tends to get the grease. Green Bay did a nice job bracketing Graham and generally taking him out of the gameplan, and his grousing may have Russell Wilson looking his way more often in a much better matchup.
AG: I've been mostly avoiding Graham because the Seahawks offensive line has been so bad they have needed their tight ends to block more and more. That said, I think Maurile makes a good point (he's so smart!) that this week he could be lightly owned and therefore, if you can work your money for solid slotting with all the other positions, it's worth having him in there. That price is stiff though, so if you prefer to head to a solid, but unspectacular guy like Kyle Rudolph I won't blame you.
CP: This is THE week for Graham to rebound. The Seahawks get Chicago, in Seattle, after an 0-2 start. They *should* be able to get well in every aspect on offense if they so choose, including strong games from Marshawn Lynch and Jimmy Graham. Graham is too expensive for my taste, but this week is a critical week for Graham's value and perception overall. Many fantasy owners will be bailing and adjust their sights significantly if Graham fails to deliver here.
Sticking at the tight end position Rob Gronkowski is without a doubt the best tight end in fantasy right now, and priced accordingly ($7700 compared to the next two – Travis Kelce at $7100 and Tyler Eifert at $6800). The position hasn’t been all that consistent over two weeks, so is this a case where you feel spending top dollar is worth risking going cheap at another position?
MT: I have Gronkowski projected to lead all TEs in scoring again this week. (He was first in Week 1 and second in Week 2.) But given his price tag compared other potentially high-scoring options, I don't think this is a bad week to save money at tight end in order to pay up for top-flight players at other positions. Don't get me wrong -- I'm never opposed to putting Gronkowski in a lineup. But I'll have him in fewer than half of my lineups this week as I look to Tyler Eifert ($6,800), Kyle Rudolph ($4,600), or even Jared Cook (way down at $2,400) to produce as many points per dollar as Gronkowski.
AM: Gronk's price is far closer to his peers' here than elsewhere, making for a far more palatable insertion into your lineups. Gronkowski isn't going to score every week, but he's such a huge weapon -- nobody has his combination of floor and ceiling at tight end. When your next-best options are less than $1,000 cheaper, you have to stick with Gronk.
AG: I liked Maurile's choices there of Rudolph, Eifert and Cook. You can also look for a Greg Olsen bounce back at $6200 or steady Heath Miller at $4200 if you're super-frugal. Gronk is great and will do well for you, but the price is so high, it will limit you somewhere else.
CP: The spread at FantasyScore is more appealing for Gronkowski than other DFS sites. Gronkowski is another front line WR1, but you can roster him at tight end. Plus he is the best bet for a touchdown any given week in the NFL at running back, wide receiver, or tight end. I feel spending top dollar on Gronkowski makes saving some salary at running back or wide receiver worthwhile.
With the format being what it is—QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, Flex , Defense—where are you sinking most of your money?
MT: The players above $7,000 whom I like best this week are Marshawn Lynch ($7,100), Antonio Brown ($8,900), Julian Edelman ($7,500), Julio Jones ($8,400), and Rob Gronkowski ($7,100). I will have each of those guys on some of my rosters, and they'll be the most expensive players on whatever rosters they're on. I'm not opposed to using Russell Wilson ($7,800), Tom Brady ($8,700), or Andrew Luck ($8,500) on some GPP rosters because each has tremendous upside potential. But in cash games, I think Cam Newton is a better value than any of them, so I don't see myself spending more than the $6,200 he'll cost at quarterback.
AM: It's easily wide receiver, at least in GPPs. There are several cheaper quarterback options with upside -- as you will see below -- and plenty of value at running back. I just threw in a lineup with Antonio Brown, Julio Jones and Allen Robinson to go along with Gronkowski. There are some really interesting cheap plays all around, incidentally.
AG: I've been rolling with most of my money in receivers with perhaps one stud running back, though there has been a lot of value in the mid-tier backs and so it's overall been a receiver world for me. Especially with guys like Julio Jones and Antonio Brown doing well and easily paired with a Terrence Williams one week and an Allen Robinson the next.
CP: I typically pay up for Rob Gronkowski and then a top running back with a quality matchup as a general rule. This week the running back is Marshawn Lynch against Chicago. There are typically quarterbacks readily available for a value price (like Cam Newton this week), plus the spread of defenses' salaries make for value plays at that position as well.
Is there anywhere to save money at QB? Is it worth to take a shot at Brandon Weeden ($5000), Jameis Winston ($4800), Ryan Mallett ($4700), Josh McCown ($4600)? I didn’t include Blake Bortles and Jimmy Clausen (both in the same price range) because they face New England and Seattle which are terrible matchups. Are any of these guys worth it, or is it not worth the risk by cheaping out at quarterback?
MT: I don't think New England is a bad matchup for Bortles. The Patriots have given up 8.7 yards per pass attempt so far this year, significantly worse than the league average of 7.2. Through two games, in fact, they are fifth worst in the league by that metric, and they're also giving up a league-worst 5.7 yards per rush attempt. I would not be surprised to see the Jaguars get some decent offensive production going this weekend, and given his low salary, Bortles is actually one of my favorite quarterbacks at FantasyScore this week both in cash games and tournaments.
I think Jameis Winston is also a decent tournament option just based on price. I probably won't have any of the other quarterbacks on that list in any of my FantasyScore lineups this weekend.
AM: New England is a terrible matchup for Blake Bortles? Vegas has the Jaguars as 14-point dogs -- he'll be a garbage time hero! But since you asked about the other guys...
Loathe as I am to say this, Josh McCown seems like the best option out of the other three. The Raiders defense has been a sieve against the passing game thus far, and Cleveland seems to have found some weaponry that had been misplaced in a shed somewhere.
AG: I'm still not in love with Bortles versus the Patriots, but admit perhaps being a garbage time hero would work out. I think the Pats are better defensively than they looked in the second half of that Bills game, but I suppose we'll have a better idea of that after this weekend.
I like Winston myself, though Houston worries me a bit. Still, he looked much better last week and gets a healthy(ish) Mike Evans fully back. I like Alex's pick of McCown, though I loathe him as a quarterback. I;m not sure he takes advantage of Telvin Benjamin but the Oakland defense is, as pointed out, not good.
CP: I would not risk the variance on those options this week. My low-water mark would be Nick Foles at $5,700. The Steelers are a terrific matchup for opposing quarterbacks dating back to mid-2014 and a Foles-based lineup can still save $2,000 or more at quarterback to splurge for an additional stud elsewhere.
