1. During the playoffs, the pool is smaller. In cash games, you’re still looking to just crack the money so rolling with the same guys everyone else has isn’t an issue for the most part. How do you approach getting “uniqueness” in your GPP plays though?
Chad Parsons: I stick to the best possible lineup-outcome approach with smaller slates than with full regular season slates. Pick a game script, offense, or Vegas line you can exploit and stack pieces on the bet. For example, I would bet on the Houston offense (mainly the passing game) more than Vegas suggestions as one of my tournament 'stands' for Wildcard weekend.
Maurile Tremblay: It's like a Sunday 4pm game slate. There are fewer games and therefore fewer combinations of players who are good values, and as a result I will have fewer lineups that I am comfortable enough to put into contests. But my approach in generating lineups isn't any different from what it would be in any other slate. I try to create a combination of lineups that collectively have more high-value players than low-value players in them, but that include some diversification by taking a few shots with higher-upside guys even if they are higher-risk as well.
Andrew Garda: I think this is a tough weekend (as all playoff weekends are) in that you know there is a fair chance somebody comes out of nowhere and catches us by surprise. So you need to figure out who that is and that means despite the fact that there are less games (and players) you actually can end up doing a little more research.
That said, I’ll build around a primary core group of chalk players and then put in some long shots (Tyler Lockett for example) here and there.
It’s almost like Week 17 all over again with less players.
Alex Miglio: Smaller slates mean less action for me, always. For GPPs, that means increasing high-variance players in lineups rather than going with "safe bets." Remember Jermaine Kearse against the Panthers last season? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
This also means I'm not necessarily looking to maximize the salary cap. If I'm $800 from the max but I feel good about my lineup, I'll roll with it.
2. Which position do you feel has the best values this weekend? Which have the worst?
Parsons: Running back stands out as a minefield. Adrian Peterson is the most established guy, but comes at a premium price and faces Seattle. DeAngelo Williams and Marshawn Lynch are question marks and the rest are committee or low-floor options hoping to hit more than comfortable bets. On the flip side, wide receiver is loaded with appealing plays throughout the pricing structure. I like DeAndre Hopkins, Martavis Bryant, Marvin Jones, and James Jones of note.
Tremblay: Aside from the flex position, I think that's a meaningless question. Positions don't have values: players do. And players have value based on how their production-per-dollar compares to their peers at the same position. In other words, value is not an absolute characteristic, but a relative one. Jordan Reed has value precisely because he compares favorably to Travis Kelce and Tyler Eifert. If Kelce and Eifert offered more value, Reed would offer less -- almost like there's a conservation of value within a given position.
When comparing players at running back, wide receiver, and tight end for purposes of filling the flex position, though, I really like the wide receivers this week. There are good values at both the high end and the low end of the price range at wide receiver this week, so that's the position I'll be filling the flex spot with this week.
Garda: I disagree it’s a meaningless question, Maurile. For example, as Chad points out, RB is a bit of a mess this week. I don’t feel there are as many lower-end value plays there compared to other positions. So I may have to pay up for an Adrian Peterson there and take advantage of the deeper WR group for value.
I also think that there is nothing BUT value at tight end. Maybe Josh Reed is your ‘chalk’ play but I think you can make the argument that there is little stability there and picking Heath Miller at $3900 is just as likely to pay off as Tyler Eifert ($7600).
I think there’s a ton more value at WR/TE where you can save money while you have to pay up for RB and QB.
Miglio: I like how Maurile says this is a meaningless question and proceeds to say he likes the wide receiver position. (I say that with a smile on my face.)
There isn't much to disagree about here -- the running backs are a bit of a muddled mess thanks to injuries while there are plenty of values to be had at receiver.
3. Eddie Lacy ($6700) and Gio Bernard ($6800) are in the same price range as Charcandrick West ($6900) – are either of them worth starting instead of him and why or why not?
Parsons: I would roll with West of the three with a more defined role and being less sensitive to game flow. I do not know how anyone can comfortably roll with Lacy outside of a tournament shot in the dark or two.
Tremblay: I like both Lacy and Bernard better than West, but in Bernard's case it's close. I know I'm disagreeing with some smart well-informed people out there, but I like Lacy this week to get the large majority of the work in the Packers' backfield. Bernard and West are both in something more like RBBC situations, and I could see Spencer Ware vulturing a few touchdowns from West. That said, I do like West. I think all three of the running backs under consideration are good values. But I personally put West third in the group.
Garda: As the guy who has been recapping the Packers this season, Lacy makes me incredibly nervous. Aside from the feeling that he’s not right – he isn’t as quick or decisive as he had been – Mike McCarthy abandons the run game too early and for no reason. Last weekend against Minnesota was a great example. Lacy and Starks were doing OK and McCarthy moved away from them until the Packers were down (which is not normally how that goers anyway).
I don’t think you can rely on him.
Gio is an OK play, but I think West is the guy. His role is defined, the offense uses him consistently the same way and you don’t have to worry about that changing outside of injury.
Bernard will probably get plenty of carries so he’s close. Lacy is too much risk for me.
Miglio: All of these guys are in timeshares, so pick your poison. West has the best upside in my book, but I like Lacy this week as well. Bernard could get a ton of touches if the Bengals are going to try to protect AJ McCarron, but he's hard to trust. Of the lineups that will have one or more of these players, though, I would say 75 percent will have West.
4. There are a lot of questionable plays at tight end with Rob Gronkowski and Greg Olsen out. Is there anyone you see who stands out as a solid play?
Parsons: I would pay up for Jordan Reed considering the landscape this week. It gets dicey in a hurry attempting to save a few bucks of salary and Reed at $1,000 more than TE2 (Tyler Eifert) is worth it considering his upside, target floor, and offensive role with a hot Kirk Cousins.
Tremblay: Jordan Reed. Travis Kelce is probably the next best option (and keep your eye on Cooper Helfet as a sleeper if Luke Wilson is out). But Reed is clearly the class of this week's tight ends.
Garda: If you’re going to pay up, Chad is right: Reed is the play. I do like Eifert though and I think Heth Miller is a solid play. Richard Rodgers is worth a look if you’re saving money (especially in GPP formats). He gets targeted a lot in the red zone and is a go-to guy in the end zone for Rodgers. It’s a bit inconsistent of course, which is why he’s risky but I expect him to pull one in this weekend.
Miglio: I really like Richard Rodgers' matchup this week, and Jordan Reed is the safest cash game option despite his price. But the tight end position is a real wild card this week, pun intended.
5. Randall Cobb ($6200), Tyler Lockett ($5900), Martavis Bryant ($5800) and Stefon Diggs ($5500) are all in the same price range and have upside, but have all disappointed off and on over the last few weeks (or longer). Who would you be willing to take a chance with, if anyone? Is there someone not here in the same price range that you like?
Tremblay: I like Martavis Bryant to bounce back. After Ben Roethlisberger called him out in the media, saying that Bryant needs to play tougher, I expect Roethlisbeger to make it a point to target Bryant to allow him that opportunity. The Steelers passing offense should put the ball in the air a lot, so there should be plenty of targets for Bryant even after Antonio Brown gets his.
Garda: Like Maurile, Bryant is my guy as well. The Packers offense is too much of a mess to depend on Cobb, who cannot wait for Jordy Nelson to return. Lockett is a Hail Mary play at best. Diggs isn’t getting enough targets and he (as well as all the Vikings wide receivers) have enough trouble getting separation even not factoring in the Seahawks secondary.
Bryant got a “Come to Jesus” talk from Ben Roethlisberger and will want to prove himself this weekend. I’m confident he shows up with a chip on his shoulder.
Miglio: Why can't I quit Randall Cobb?
That matchup is too good to ignore, and Vegas thinks this is going to be a high-scoring affair. That said, if David Bakhtiari can't go, that Packers passing game is going to be under fire. I can't get on board with Lockett or Diggs in anything other than a GPP or two simply because of the weather, and Bryant found himself in the doghouse recently -- I would rather use Markus Wheaton.
