Jump to content
NBC Sports EDGE Forums

Stacking Strategy - Extreme Upside or Lose Big - Discussions


Sivaro
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not a fan of the strategy.  That’s not to say I haven’t stumbled into owning multiple parts of one offense over the course of a draft. But it’s never an intentional plan on my part. For example, using your Giants stack — how’re you looking when Jones breaks his leg in the first quarter?  Not too hot. Others may not mind the strategy, but it’s not for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bandito said:

Not a fan of the strategy.  That’s not to say I haven’t stumbled into owning multiple parts of one offense over the course of a draft. But it’s never an intentional plan on my part. For example, using your Giants stack — how’re you looking when Jones breaks his leg in the first quarter?  Not too hot. Others may not mind the strategy, but it’s not for me. 

 

what do the guys who draft Mahomes or LJax early do if the same happens to either of them?

it's gambling, dood ... not life n' death - you do all you can do - adapt and get the fudge on with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, kp96 said:

 

Usually when people say "best player available", they are either talking about 1.) very beginning of the draft, 2.) after they have all their starters, or 3.) the "best player available at the position they are filling".  If I go RB-RB-RB to start, then obviously I go with the best WR on my list even if there is a RB who I have rated higher on my overall board.

Regarding my post on stacking, the example I would use is this.  Say I draft Julio Jones and somehow Mahomes is available in the 5th (for argument's sake, I know that's not realistic).  I'm not going to pass on him because I want to take Matt Ryan later.  If you're trying to stack, you wait for Matt Ryan and it's an error because you are missing out on huge value with Mahomes dropping.  And on top of that, you probably have to reach for Matt Ryan to ensure you get your stack.  Taking him a round early or something.  So now you have lost even more value by picking someone higher than their ADP.

Within the constraints of positional needs (and what everyone else is picking), you should be drafting for value.  Stacking messes that up.

 

1: If "Best Player Available" means "very beginning of the draft" OR "end of the draft" AND "only within the position you need"... then you HAVE to understand why I laugh when people act like it's a strategy.  If BPA really boils down to "the highest RB I have ranked, if I need a RB" do we really need a damn name for that strategy?  If you go with the best WR on your list, even though there is a RB who you have rated higher, then you are directly contradicting the entire mentality of 'Best Player Available' and specifically drafting the NON-Best Player available... and somehow calling it BPA.  Like I said, I laugh when I hear people say it, because it means nothing.

2: I want to preface 3 with this, in that I agree with you completely, as I already laid out in my previous post, you should never BREAK tiers, to stacks.  So, I agree, you would never pass on Mahomes in the 5th, because you would have to logically ignore 3-5 tiers of players to say 'well my stack is more important'.  Stacking is a soft generalization, not a hard rule you have to abide by.  More importantly, it would be pre-meditated based on tiers, draft position, adp, etc, not make up on the spot.

3: You can't make up fake scenarios to discredit the notion of stacking, even if you did make them up, you can't compare players in the vacuum of a round, you would have to compare all 3 rounds in question for your example.

Here's a real world example of stacking, and what the actual weight of the decision becomes.  (I'm just going to follow your example for simplicity sake)

You draft Julio in the 2nd.  

Here comes the 4th round, your WR options are:
JuJu Smith-Schomething
Amari Cooper
Cooper Kupp
Calvin Ridley
Robert Woods
A.J. Brown
DK Metcalf.

Now... can you, with any 'real' confidence, tell me which of these WRs will be the 'best' player at the end of the year?
How much money would you wager that the WR you pick of this group, will beat the other 6?  These are all WRs going in the 4th round right now, available from the 11 spot.

There's no reasonable way anyone could successfully predict which order these 7 WRs will finish in total points at the end of the year.  You have your favorites, I have my preferences, that expert has his projections... the likely hood of any single person getting the exact order is extremely low.  The truth is, statistically 2 of these WRs finish top 12, 2 finish outside the top 24, and 3 finish somewhere in the middle, in a completely unknown order.

There is no measurable sacrifice being made in this REAL world example of stacking.  We aren't talking Mahomes in the 5th, we're talking a handful of WRs all grouped together, and picking 1 because he plays for the same team.  This isn't rocket science.  We aren't reinventing the draft board.  It's a coin flip, tie breaker, of a group of players, based on nothing other than the team they play for, because you already own Julio.  28% chance you fail, 28% chance you succeed and 44% chance it made no relevant difference at year's end.  The only difference, will be how Ridley's season games, peak and valley, in respect to Julio's, because they are tied to the same offense and same QB.  Which means that on your fantasy team, a week in which ATL blows out their opponent, you probably win.  And a week where ATL get's shutout, you do too.  The takeaway is that, your team 'potentially' syncs up, and it alters the peaks and valleys of your weekly matchups in fantasy football, in where the valleys are irrelevant because you would have lost either way, but the peaks are more likely to result in wins, because a larger part of your offense succeeds together, rather than off and on, in the same week. For exaple Julio blows up, but JuJu has a dud game, which negates Julio's effect on your weekly matchup.  That's all it is.

Now, we can take this another step further if you want to.

You have Julio in the 2nd, Ridley in the 4th, it's now the 8th round, and you could use a QB.  Matt Ryan, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers are all available in this same round.

Pretty much, this is where I would ask you the same questions as above, as a real world example.  How much money are you willing to be, that there is any meaningful difference between Rodgers, Brady, and Ryan pre-draft? or end of season?  They're all low end QB1s 9 times out of 10 this season, and which one you own won't really alter the outcome of your season, barring a breakout or injury.  So... Is 'sacrificing' Rodgers/Brady here to take Matt Ryan crippling your team?  No.

THIS is a real world example of stacking, without handicapping your draft.  Will it work out perfectly like this?  I don't know, maybe, probably half the time.  You don't have to reach rounds ahead and destroy any potential value.  You don't have to ignore player tiers, or get laughed at in the draft lobby.  You just alter your 'preferences' slightly within the actual players and positions you want to stack, and made a choice based on their team, rather than emotion like the rest of us do.

I'd take Amari Cooper over every single one of those WRs in the 4th without hesitation.  I'll probably be wrong come December, but that's the point.
I'd rather wait 3 rounds and draft Cam Newton over Brady/Rodgers/Ryan, but that's because I don't subscribe to this stacking mentality.

Personally, I would only ever advise stacking, if it includes a top'ish QB.
Tyreek, Mahomes, Kelce isn't even possible.
Jackson, Hollywood, and Andrews is doable.
Wilson, Metcalf, and Lockett could be interesting, but SEA runs so much, so often that I wouldn't.
Hopkins, Murray, and Fitzgerald?  But no one wants to start Fitz every week (as of today, who knows by week 2)
Dak, Amari, and... Gallup?  I'm not a Gallup guy, but maybe.
Brady, Evans, and Godwin? Gronk?  Probably one of the best so far.
Stafford, Golloday, Marvin Jones, Hockenson?
 

Yeah, honestly, TB, DET, and ATL are the only ones I would even consider. BAL and SEA are questionable at best based on their tendency to run.

Anyways, just wanted to give some real world perspective and insight.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, CharlieWhitehurst said:

Anyone have any ideas with current ADPS to get the best type of ATL stack?

 

 

 

 

Do you want Gurley in it or not???

Julio in the early 2nd, Ridley in the late 3rd, Ryan in the 8th, Hurst in the 9th. It is possible Gurley falls to the 3rd and then Ridley to the 4th if you want to include him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, FFCollusion said:

 

1: If "Best Player Available" means "very beginning of the draft" OR "end of the draft" AND "only within the position you need"... then you HAVE to understand why I laugh when people act like it's a strategy.  If BPA really boils down to "the highest RB I have ranked, if I need a RB" do we really need a damn name for that strategy?  If you go with the best WR on your list, even though there is a RB who you have rated higher, then you are directly contradicting the entire mentality of 'Best Player Available' and specifically drafting the NON-Best Player available... and somehow calling it BPA.  Like I said, I laugh when I hear people say it, because it means nothing.

2: I want to preface 3 with this, in that I agree with you completely, as I already laid out in my previous post, you should never BREAK tiers, to stacks.  So, I agree, you would never pass on Mahomes in the 5th, because you would have to logically ignore 3-5 tiers of players to say 'well my stack is more important'.  Stacking is a soft generalization, not a hard rule you have to abide by.  More importantly, it would be pre-meditated based on tiers, draft position, adp, etc, not make up on the spot.

3: You can't make up fake scenarios to discredit the notion of stacking, even if you did make them up, you can't compare players in the vacuum of a round, you would have to compare all 3 rounds in question for your example.

Here's a real world example of stacking, and what the actual weight of the decision becomes.  (I'm just going to follow your example for simplicity sake)

You draft Julio in the 2nd.  

Here comes the 4th round, your WR options are:
JuJu Smith-Schomething
Amari Cooper
Cooper Kupp
Calvin Ridley
Robert Woods
A.J. Brown
DK Metcalf.

Now... can you, with any 'real' confidence, tell me which of these WRs will be the 'best' player at the end of the year?
How much money would you wager that the WR you pick of this group, will beat the other 6?  These are all WRs going in the 4th round right now, available from the 11 spot.

There's no reasonable way anyone could successfully predict which order these 7 WRs will finish in total points at the end of the year.  You have your favorites, I have my preferences, that expert has his projections... the likely hood of any single person getting the exact order is extremely low.  The truth is, statistically 2 of these WRs finish top 12, 2 finish outside the top 24, and 3 finish somewhere in the middle, in a completely unknown order.

There is no measurable sacrifice being made in this REAL world example of stacking.  We aren't talking Mahomes in the 5th, we're talking a handful of WRs all grouped together, and picking 1 because he plays for the same team.  This isn't rocket science.  We aren't reinventing the draft board.  It's a coin flip, tie breaker, of a group of players, based on nothing other than the team they play for, because you already own Julio.  28% chance you fail, 28% chance you succeed and 44% chance it made no relevant difference at year's end.  The only difference, will be how Ridley's season games, peak and valley, in respect to Julio's, because they are tied to the same offense and same QB.  Which means that on your fantasy team, a week in which ATL blows out their opponent, you probably win.  And a week where ATL get's shutout, you do too.  The takeaway is that, your team 'potentially' syncs up, and it alters the peaks and valleys of your weekly matchups in fantasy football, in where the valleys are irrelevant because you would have lost either way, but the peaks are more likely to result in wins, because a larger part of your offense succeeds together, rather than off and on, in the same week. For exaple Julio blows up, but JuJu has a dud game, which negates Julio's effect on your weekly matchup.  That's all it is.

Now, we can take this another step further if you want to.

You have Julio in the 2nd, Ridley in the 4th, it's now the 8th round, and you could use a QB.  Matt Ryan, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers are all available in this same round.

Pretty much, this is where I would ask you the same questions as above, as a real world example.  How much money are you willing to be, that there is any meaningful difference between Rodgers, Brady, and Ryan pre-draft? or end of season?  They're all low end QB1s 9 times out of 10 this season, and which one you own won't really alter the outcome of your season, barring a breakout or injury.  So... Is 'sacrificing' Rodgers/Brady here to take Matt Ryan crippling your team?  No.

THIS is a real world example of stacking, without handicapping your draft.  Will it work out perfectly like this?  I don't know, maybe, probably half the time.  You don't have to reach rounds ahead and destroy any potential value.  You don't have to ignore player tiers, or get laughed at in the draft lobby.  You just alter your 'preferences' slightly within the actual players and positions you want to stack, and made a choice based on their team, rather than emotion like the rest of us do.

I'd take Amari Cooper over every single one of those WRs in the 4th without hesitation.  I'll probably be wrong come December, but that's the point.
I'd rather wait 3 rounds and draft Cam Newton over Brady/Rodgers/Ryan, but that's because I don't subscribe to this stacking mentality.

Personally, I would only ever advise stacking, if it includes a top'ish QB.
Tyreek, Mahomes, Kelce isn't even possible.
Jackson, Hollywood, and Andrews is doable.
Wilson, Metcalf, and Lockett could be interesting, but SEA runs so much, so often that I wouldn't.
Hopkins, Murray, and Fitzgerald?  But no one wants to start Fitz every week (as of today, who knows by week 2)
Dak, Amari, and... Gallup?  I'm not a Gallup guy, but maybe.
Brady, Evans, and Godwin? Gronk?  Probably one of the best so far.
Stafford, Golloday, Marvin Jones, Hockenson?
 

Yeah, honestly, TB, DET, and ATL are the only ones I would even consider. BAL and SEA are questionable at best based on their tendency to run.

Anyways, just wanted to give some real world perspective and insight.

 

I'm on the same page. 

First, I do agree that best player available isn't a draft strategy.  The times I say it are like "I'm gonna go rb-rb start and then my 3rd will be bpa" or "I'm at the back so my first 2 picks will be bpa and then figure it out from there".  At some point, like the 3rd or 4th, you are looking at 1) what you need, 2) who is available and 3) what the owners around your draft slot need.  With the exception of something like zero rb, this is what everyone who is half decent at drafting does.  You can't go bpa for every pick, thats insane.

Second....yes...if you can stack within a tier then that's fine.  Its when you pass on a guy who has dropped way below his tier in the name of stacking that you are making a huge mistake.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only stacked 1 time in my 10+ years of playing fantasy. 2 years ago had Mahomes, Hill and then I traded for Hunt. This almost backfired because Hunt got released. That's probably not the true stack most people refer to, but I did try to trade for Kelce and ultimately decided I didn't want to part with Aaron Jones (thank goodness).

I would most likely advise against doing this for the main reason that unless the chips just happen to fall your way, you're likely reaching for a particular player just to complete the stack. Most of the time a stack just isn't possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CharlieWhitehurst said:

Anyone have any ideas with current ADPS to get the best type of ATL stack?

 

 

 


I drafted tonight in a half ppr and got Ridley at 36th overall and Ryan at 96th. I’m really high I Ridley this year so I was really pumped. I wanted a Thomas/Brees stack more but I missed out on Brees as he was taken at 80. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You choose the players who you think are going to score the highest points. If they so happen to be on the same team, cool. If not, there's no reason to change your draft to pair teammates.

On a fun note: In my very first fantasy league, 2005, my league mate stacked Dante Culpepper and Nate Burleson. Saved me from a last place finish and buying cupcakes for everyone.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FFCollusion said:

 

You're wrong, but I don't care enough to prove it to you, it's not my strategy and I don't use it, and I care even less if you use it.  If the QB and K example didn't clarify it for you, then you just won't get it.

You have to adjust your rankings based on other players in your draft, otherwise you could draft 3 QBs in a row because "they were the highest ranked player on my list".

I've said it for years, I'll say it again.  We rank in a vacuum, but we do not draft in one.

This is why when people say draft "best player available" I laugh.  Who's the best player?  Michael Thomas or Derrick Henry?

Lamar Jackson or Travis Kelce?

Darren Waller or Russell Wilson?

Without accounting for the players you already own, you can't make that decision.  Know why?  Because the ranking vacuum is gone.  It no longer exists.

Tying this back into the topic at hand, 90% of people don't rank players 1 by 1 with any concrete walls.  We rank them by tiers, and if 2 players within a tier offer the opportunity to deploy the OPs theory, then it would be applicable.  Breaking tiers for this, would be a bad idea in my opinion.

Honestly, it's not much different from the Bye week stack mentality, to me.  Purposely drafting specific players (still within a tier) to line up byes.  Because total points is less meaningful than which individual week they had an up week vs a down week.  Trying to time up weeks together, increases the potential of a win.  We've all had weeks were our QB plays TNF gets 10 points, and then our #1 Rb or WR goes off, but it doesn't matter because our QB fried our week, right?  OP is saying, tying your team to a QB gives you the opportunity to "increase the probability" that your team is more in sync with when they win together or lose together, so there are less wasted weeks.

Anyone who's played fantasy football for at least a single year, should know that season long points mean very little, but at the least, understand that 18-24 points is a huge gap end of season in ranking results, but minimal when weighed over 16 weeks, but huge for 3 weeks.

For example...

Tyler Lockett was WR13 with 235 points.

Michael Gallup was WR24 with 212 points.

Do you think 23 fantasy points, spread over 16 games, would have made any noticeable or measurable difference in your season?  Did you win or lose any of your matchups by 1.4 points?  Because that was the season long difference.

So go ahead, take a look at every matchup you had last year, add +1.4 points to your weekly total and tell me if it changes your W-L record.

Now... Instead, pick 4 weeks at random.  Now add 6 points to your points total and tell me how it effected your win\loss record.  Millions of people every year miss or make the playoffs by a single game.

Now magnify it.  Add 10 to 8 weeks and subtract 10 from the other 8 weeks... Now tell me how it effected your W-L record.

The points over 16 weeks matter very little, 24 points is a 2 TD swing either way.  But on those weeks in which that 6-12 point swing occur... Matters a great deal.

So OP is theorizing that, intentionally stacking those swings, to win big or lose big, and maximize the volitility of your roster rather than diversify it.

The most kindergarten version I can give you, is that a 3 rushing\receiving TD day for any player is a great day.  If your #1 WR, #1 TE, and #1 RB are all on the same team... Is there EVER a week in which you can simultaneously have all 3 players have 3 TD days?  Likely not.  But if they are all in a different team... Then that could happen any given week.

As long as you understand that reality, you have to understand that having your players on the same team (or not) can and does effect your minimum and or maximum "potential" in any given week.

The OP is just using that same mentality, in an inverse fashion to min\max weekly outcomes, based on an NFL teams success\failure in correspondence with their potential opponent.

I'm sure I've probably just confused you more, but I really don't care.  I don't subscribe to the mentality, it wasn't my idea, I was just trying to help casual readers understand the mentality, so they could make an educated decision in whether they wanted to try it out.

Best of luck, I have no desire to continue the discussion regardless of your reply.

I didn't say we draft in a vacuum to team need. On that point, you are, of course, correct.

I'm saying it doesn't matter if I have multiple players from the same real life football team. Imagine I've already drafted Cooper and Gallup, but I'm WR needy later in the draft. If Lamb is my highest rated WR left, I draft him. I don't draft a worse player on purpose because I own his real life teammates. The existence of Cooper and Gallup was already baked into my ranking of Lamb. I think he's going to score the more points than my next rated WR, so he's who I should draft.

There's a narcissistic fallacy going on here. You suddenly start seeing the players on your fantasy team as greater threats to the production of your other players. However, if you draft Crowder instead of Lamb, there's just as much of a threat that the ball goes to Perriman or Mims instead of Crowder, even though you don't own those players. 

Furthermore, this isn't a league where only one player per team can be consistently productive for fantasy. You can draft, Elliott, Gallup and Cooper, without worry that there isn't enough offense to go around.

Finally, it doesn't matter that there could be weeks where the whole Coyboys offense is bad and all three hurt you.  There could just as easily be weeks where 3 players on separate real life teams are bad and hurt you.  Or they could all be good, or in the middle. Bottom line, it doesn't matter. At all. In any way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FFCollusion said:

 

1: If "Best Player Available" means "very beginning of the draft" OR "end of the draft" AND "only within the position you need"... then you HAVE to understand why I laugh when people act like it's a strategy.  If BPA really boils down to "the highest RB I have ranked, if I need a RB" do we really need a damn name for that strategy?  If you go with the best WR on your list, even though there is a RB who you have rated higher, then you are directly contradicting the entire mentality of 'Best Player Available' and specifically drafting the NON-Best Player available... and somehow calling it BPA.  Like I said, I laugh when I hear people say it, because it means nothing.

2: I want to preface 3 with this, in that I agree with you completely, as I already laid out in my previous post, you should never BREAK tiers, to stacks.  So, I agree, you would never pass on Mahomes in the 5th, because you would have to logically ignore 3-5 tiers of players to say 'well my stack is more important'.  Stacking is a soft generalization, not a hard rule you have to abide by.  More importantly, it would be pre-meditated based on tiers, draft position, adp, etc, not make up on the spot.

3: You can't make up fake scenarios to discredit the notion of stacking, even if you did make them up, you can't compare players in the vacuum of a round, you would have to compare all 3 rounds in question for your example.

Here's a real world example of stacking, and what the actual weight of the decision becomes.  (I'm just going to follow your example for simplicity sake)

You draft Julio in the 2nd.  

Here comes the 4th round, your WR options are:
JuJu Smith-Schomething
Amari Cooper
Cooper Kupp
Calvin Ridley
Robert Woods
A.J. Brown
DK Metcalf.

Now... can you, with any 'real' confidence, tell me which of these WRs will be the 'best' player at the end of the year?
How much money would you wager that the WR you pick of this group, will beat the other 6?  These are all WRs going in the 4th round right now, available from the 11 spot.

There's no reasonable way anyone could successfully predict which order these 7 WRs will finish in total points at the end of the year.  You have your favorites, I have my preferences, that expert has his projections... the likely hood of any single person getting the exact order is extremely low.  The truth is, statistically 2 of these WRs finish top 12, 2 finish outside the top 24, and 3 finish somewhere in the middle, in a completely unknown order.

There is no measurable sacrifice being made in this REAL world example of stacking.  We aren't talking Mahomes in the 5th, we're talking a handful of WRs all grouped together, and picking 1 because he plays for the same team.  This isn't rocket science.  We aren't reinventing the draft board.  It's a coin flip, tie breaker, of a group of players, based on nothing other than the team they play for, because you already own Julio.  28% chance you fail, 28% chance you succeed and 44% chance it made no relevant difference at year's end.  The only difference, will be how Ridley's season games, peak and valley, in respect to Julio's, because they are tied to the same offense and same QB.  Which means that on your fantasy team, a week in which ATL blows out their opponent, you probably win.  And a week where ATL get's shutout, you do too.  The takeaway is that, your team 'potentially' syncs up, and it alters the peaks and valleys of your weekly matchups in fantasy football, in where the valleys are irrelevant because you would have lost either way, but the peaks are more likely to result in wins, because a larger part of your offense succeeds together, rather than off and on, in the same week. For exaple Julio blows up, but JuJu has a dud game, which negates Julio's effect on your weekly matchup.  That's all it is.

Now, we can take this another step further if you want to.

You have Julio in the 2nd, Ridley in the 4th, it's now the 8th round, and you could use a QB.  Matt Ryan, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers are all available in this same round.

Pretty much, this is where I would ask you the same questions as above, as a real world example.  How much money are you willing to be, that there is any meaningful difference between Rodgers, Brady, and Ryan pre-draft? or end of season?  They're all low end QB1s 9 times out of 10 this season, and which one you own won't really alter the outcome of your season, barring a breakout or injury.  So... Is 'sacrificing' Rodgers/Brady here to take Matt Ryan crippling your team?  No.

THIS is a real world example of stacking, without handicapping your draft.  Will it work out perfectly like this?  I don't know, maybe, probably half the time.  You don't have to reach rounds ahead and destroy any potential value.  You don't have to ignore player tiers, or get laughed at in the draft lobby.  You just alter your 'preferences' slightly within the actual players and positions you want to stack, and made a choice based on their team, rather than emotion like the rest of us do.

I'd take Amari Cooper over every single one of those WRs in the 4th without hesitation.  I'll probably be wrong come December, but that's the point.
I'd rather wait 3 rounds and draft Cam Newton over Brady/Rodgers/Ryan, but that's because I don't subscribe to this stacking mentality.

Personally, I would only ever advise stacking, if it includes a top'ish QB.
Tyreek, Mahomes, Kelce isn't even possible.
Jackson, Hollywood, and Andrews is doable.
Wilson, Metcalf, and Lockett could be interesting, but SEA runs so much, so often that I wouldn't.
Hopkins, Murray, and Fitzgerald?  But no one wants to start Fitz every week (as of today, who knows by week 2)
Dak, Amari, and... Gallup?  I'm not a Gallup guy, but maybe.
Brady, Evans, and Godwin? Gronk?  Probably one of the best so far.
Stafford, Golloday, Marvin Jones, Hockenson?
 

Yeah, honestly, TB, DET, and ATL are the only ones I would even consider. BAL and SEA are questionable at best based on their tendency to run.

Anyways, just wanted to give some real world perspective and insight.

Everything about this post is wrong. And frankly, insulting.

Your thesis, first of all, is basically that predicting fantasy football production is too dang hard, so just rely on some flimsy and illogical hocus pocus to make your draft decisions. Instead of, you know, using your brain to figure out the best player to draft.

But let's look at your example. 

Here are Ridley's and Jones's point totals from last year, by week.

16 and 15

27 and 24

26 and 1 (I believe this was due to injury)

6 and 9

7 and 19

14 and 18

7 and 15

7 and 10

14 and 28

22 and 11

11 and 18

 

See the pattern?.... Yeah, either do I? Looks like the point totals of two good WRs, not being tied to each other in any way.

Here is Amari Cooper and Robert Woods point totals.

16 and 22

6 and 14

8 and 26

29 and 9

39 and 9

1 and 7

13 and 15

16 and 31

15 and 0

16 and 30

25 and 20

2 and 5

20 and 6

13 and 20

Hilariously, there seems to be MORE of a correlation between the peaks and valleys between Amari and Woods. Of course, we know this is just random. 

There's no patterns to be found in any of this. Sometimes Ridley and Jones will both do well. Sometimes they'll both do poorly. Sometimes some combination. The same is true of any two players. The real life team they play for is NOT RELEVANT. No matter how badly you want it to be, it empirically and statistically, is NOT.

Edited by ajs723
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't actively pursue stacking, but the stack you should all want ADP wise this year is Stafford and Golladay. It's going to be a lethal threat given how undervalued each player is. I'm also against targeting QBs before Round 8 or so.

With that said, the best ADP stacks this season are as follows:

1) Stafford, Golladay - Golladay is a WR1 being valued as worth "less" than guys like Julio, Godwin, Evans, Tyreek, and Hopkins but he should produce similar or better numbers than those guys. He's the redzone threat, the Lions won't be able to run the ball as efficiently as they'd like, and Stafford looked amazing in the half a season he played last year. I'm high on both of these guys this season and I'm actively targeting them. People don't associated Golladay with a name brand, but that's going to change this year. He was capable of doing it with QBs that shouldn't be on a NFL roster last year. He will shine with Stafford at the helm. Meanwhile Stafford is being straight up disrespected. He was on pace for 5,000 yards and 38 TDs last year, and people have now labeled him as injury prone. The guy held the record for most consecutive starts prior to going down. The injury he incurred isn't one that's likely to be replicated either. He's only 32 years old. He's younger than Brady, Brees, Rivers, Ryan, and Rodgers. He's the same age as Wilson, Tannehill, and Cousins.

2) Ryan, Ridley - I'm buying on Ridley's ADP and not Julio here because I'm going RB with 2 of my first 3 picks in every single draft I'm in. That means Julio will very likely not be a target of mine. Ridley in the 4th or later is fantastic value for Matt Ryan's top redzone threat. His YAC is concerning, but with Sanu and Hooper out of the picture the sky is the limit with Ridley. The volume will be there. The Falcons are going to be pass happy as they always are, and even though Ryan isn't a QB I'm actively targeting he's not a guy I would be upset about owning. 

3) Wentz, DJax - DeSean Jackson and Nyheim Hines are two players I'm not leaving a draft without. I'll reach for both if I have to. DeSean Jackson is a guy going in the 10th to 12th round that will end the season as a top 24 WR. He's being severely undervalued. Wentz locked in on him in the small sample size he played last year, and it was painfully obvious that DJax was the go-to WR in that offense. They brought him back to Philadelphia for a reason. With Jeffery out for at least a quarter of a season (and potentially the entire season based on the actual injury) and Reagor out the first four weeks, I'm all in for taking DJax as high as the 8th round. He is a guy you can plug into your lineup Week 1 against the Redskins. He's the only reliable option other than Ertz, he's shined all camp, and he's going to receive 6-12 targets per game from Wentz. I'm willing to eat crow if I'm wrong about this one. Wentz has all the potential in the world, but I'm not actively targeting him. I think he is a top QB in this league, but he keep being supplied with an injury riddled WR core. I'd be willing to take a chance on him if guys like Brees and Stafford are off the board though. He's in an easier division in terms of the defenses he's going to be going up against, and I think he's a very good QB. It's just the lack of weapons outside of DJax, Ertz, and Sanders that I worry about.

4) Goff, Woods/Kupp - Woods and Kupp are being slept on. Both can hold down your WR1 spot and be reliable on an every week basis. It's no shock that the Rams will be top 3 in pass attempts this upcoming season. With no Brandin Cooks, both of these guys are going to eat so I'm not going to argue why you should be taking them in the 3rd or 4th round if they're there because it should be obvious. Rather, I'll lobby for Goff. Goff is a guy I'm taking as my second QB if I feel I need that on my particular team, but I'm not against him being your starting QB if you load up elsewhere. He's on a team that's going to pass a lot, they're going to be passing more often in the redzone due to Gurley no longer being there and having three unproven options at RB. Unless Akers establishes himself early on, I really like for Goff's TD total to rise. He's going to take a lot of sacks and potentially throw a high amount of INTs due to being pressured quite often. The offensive line is bad. However, he and Cam are my favorite late round QB targets. I like volume based plays and that's what Goff is. Rams = passing yards.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to stack every year in my 6 point passing TD league. Stafford/Golladay/Hockenson is fun this year. Ryan/Ridley/Hurst is not terribly expensive in some leagues as well. I also echo Turner in grabbing cheap Texans pieces, that offense is being heavily slept on. Some major explosion and versatility with a few of their pieces, and the injury concerns have people scared, but Watson will make 1 or 2 of them relevant at minimum.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ajs723 said:

Everything about this post is wrong.

 

Your first line accurately described your post.

1: You completely ignored the ENTIRE focus of stacking... QBs.  WR success is tied to QB success.  That's why they stack them.  2 random receivers without connection to the person who throws the ball to them, defeats the purpose and the whole strategy.  The correlation is not between 2 WRs on a team, it's to the QB who throws the ball, TO the WRs.  When Matt Ryan does well, Julio/Ridley likely also do well.  When Ryan does bad, they likely do poorly.  It's about syncing ups/downs to take advantage of weekly peaks, while understanding that the valleys are loses regardless of how low they dip.

2: Where in gods name did you come up with those choices for comparison?  Julio was a 1st round pick, Amari a 3rd, Woods a 4th, and Ridley a 5th.  In NO world, were you considering reaching 2+ rounds to stack players.  How on earth did you possibly think that was an accurate analysis?

Here is a REAL world scenario, as fairly as I can come up with, to create a data set that's actually worthy of analyzing.

2019 ADP:
Julio WR3 Pick 1.10 (18.3ppg) vs Hopkins WR2 pick 1.6 (17.6ppg)
Ridley WR24 pick 5.7 (15.0ppg) vs Boyd WR22 pick 5.4 (14.2ppg)
Matt Ryan QB5 pick 6.10 (18.6ppg) vs Wentz QB7 pick 7.04 (17.4ppg)

Full disclosure, ATL stack already has the 2.7ppg advantage, but does have the earlier draft pick in both WR scenarios if that accounts for anything.
Additionally, slightly altering the choices can have drastic effects, such as Michael Thomas instead of Hopkins or Adams instead of Hopkins, who were all right next to each other on draft day, but had drastically different outcomes.  Please take the following with a grain of salt.

After eliminating byes and injuries, leaving only weeks where all 3 played:
ATL stacked played 11 games together.  Mixed players played 14 games together.
ATL averaged 49.56 points per game.
MIX averaged 49.67 points per game.
ATL had the higher high (74.2) and the lower low (25.9)
MIX had a high of 70.4 and low of 29.3.
This resulted in the Standard Deviation being nearly 50% higher for the ATL stack, at 14.82 compared to MIX at 10.94.
ATL had a median 3 full points higher than MIX.

Here is what's most interesting and where the strategy comes into play. (But please understand this is a single example, in a single year, all done in hindsight, and is just for theory crafting)

In the simplest of terms, stacking is designed to give high peaks and low valleys, because your team wins together, loses together.  The point of this, is that it doesn't matter how much you lose by, you want to ensure your highs are wins as often as possible, and this allows you to avoid a bad week from 1 player to negate a good week from another, because bad weeks for stacks tend to correlate.  E.G. if Ryan throws 0 TDs, Wk 4, 7, & 12, you can expect Ridley and Julio to also struggle.  And when Ryan throws 3+ TDs, Wk 2,3,5,6 you expect Julio/Ridley to do well.

The reason this 'can' be effective, is that if a team scores 50 points every week, how likely are they to win/lose any given game?  But if your team scores 75 points 1 week and 25 the next, while your average is still 50 points per week, you very likely ensure that 1 of those weeks is a spectacular victory.

So, here is the data, and why this is interesting.  Keep in mind, that BOTH examples above, averaged 49.xx points per week.

I'm using a 10% window (5 points) in either direction to point out peaks/valleys and a middle dwelling team.
 

Despite having only 3 games played more than ATL, MIX had double the amount of games within this window, totaling 6, to ATLs 3.
Because the MIX players play for 3 separate teams, it's far less likely that all 3 players have a bad day at the same time or that 3 players on 3 teams all have a good day, even if it happens once or twice, you can't reliably predict it before the season starts.  This mitigates risk.  It's portfolio diversity.  1 stock crashes, 2 others do fine, on the whole your portfolio/team balances out, no big deal.  ATL stack, is saying, I don't want to balance out, I want to win big, or lose big.

Of the 8 possible times, these 2 stacks could have played each other (an actual NFL week where all 3 on both all played) ATL stack won 5 and lost 3.

Stacks.png

 

The ATL stack is hot/cold more often, whereas the Mixed players have far more balance, and hover near the average more often.  The entire goal of this 'idea' is to avoid the 'middle' as often as possible to min/max your win/loss.  This is not a perfect example, nothing ever will be, unless done in advance (Pick your stack today based on ADP, re-check end of season) and even then, there's too much volatility in the game.

None of the above is hard evidence or proof of the theory, just data to analyze it, make your own decision.  I only did this for 1 group of players and have zero desire to do any others.

I do not personally subscribe to this theory, I don't recommend it unless built around elite QBs/offenses.  But I wanted to try and illustrate the theory and application behind it.  Whether you believe it works or not, is up to you.  I'm not here to say with any certainty if you could accurately predict or pull off said strategy.

There are 2 types of fantasy players.  Those who want 130 points every week and those who want 160 one week, followed by 100 the next.  Same average, same total points, 2 entirely different ways to achieve it.  Do you feel one of these methods gives you an advantage over your opponents?  If so, what do you do in your draft to obtain it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During David Johnson's rookie year, my fantasy team was pretty mediocre. By the end of the year though, I had cobbled together a lineup that was basically entirely Arizona Cardinals. They were a surprise offense, so most of the players were free/cheap. I think I was starting Carson Palmer, DJ, Michael Floyd, and John Brown for the stretch run, all waiver pickups, and it was going great. It was going so great in fact, that I made it to the semi finals, where the Cardinals decided to take a 31-0 lead through 2.5 quarters and bench everyone for the rest of the game. It would have been an easy win for me if they played the full game, but it ended up being my worst week out of the whole time I was using those guys, even though they dominated the game.

The fact of the matter is that stacking limits upside, it's just not possible for your whole roster to blow up in the way that you sometimes need them to when you have too many guys from the same team, as there’s only so many points to go around in any single game. In fantasy postseason play, where you have to beat the best teams in the league, upside wins. Anything more than two guys from the same team and you are playing with fire.

Edited by MJJ28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love QB-WR stacks, though entirely for the psychology of sweating my team. I love the momentum shift of the TD stack, especially on a bomb -- boom 20 points. Also the feeling that so long as my stack hasn't taken the field yet I can still be optimistic. There's more than a little sentimentality too. I won the title in my main league with a Wilson-Baldwin stack I got for pennies on the dollar. Another year, 2014, it was Week 14 and I went into MNF down by 40 but I had the AR-Jordy stack that combined for 50. The play that put me over the top was the 60 yard TD bomb in the 4th qtr. I'll never forget how awesome that was.

As far as what's best competitively, I think there's probably some small negative value associated with drafting a stack because their injury risk is tied together. The impact of going to the backup QB on a WR can be huge; the reverse impact is smaller but can still be significant if the WR is a stud. It doesn't make a difference in the odds that your receiver's QB is hurt but insures that when it happens it'll be a double whammy: not only did you lose Rodgers but your Jordy now has Huntley throwing him the ball (which also happened to me because of my stack love). As a manager, I'd like to spread that kind of risk around. 

But I still go for the stack. Can't help myself because it's only a few hundred bucks I'm in for. If my life was riding on making the playoffs I wouldn't stack QB-WR.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This does not make sense to me. Especially in a Covid year but even outside of one.

Bye weeks will hurt.
Bad games will hurt.
Bad weather will hurt.

The most successful draft strategy is to fill your team with the players who will give you the most fantasy points at the time you picked them. Unfortunately that requires a crystal ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rex_bulkhead said:

I think there's probably some small negative value associated with drafting a stack because their injury risk is tied together.

 

This is a good point.  If you stack, an injury to one is almost like 1.5 players being hurt, since your other guy (especially the WR) could be like half as effective.  In some cases (i.e. Jordy when AR went down), the WR becomes unstartable so now you lost 2 players.

 

3 hours ago, rex_bulkhead said:

I love QB-WR stacks, though entirely for the psychology of sweating my team.

 

This is actually why I don't like the stack.  If I'm out and say I have a lot of Cowboys on my team, I will check the score and if the Boys only put up 10 points that game, I know I lost.  I don't like having my fantasy team's performance being tied to one team.  Plus, it's the worst when your stacked guys are playing a monster defense like the 49ers or something.  I suppose the opposite is true, where they play a crap defense, but I just prefer that stuff spread out.

Edited by kp96
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FFCollusion said:

After eliminating byes and injuries, leaving only weeks where all 3 played:
ATL stacked played 11 games together.  Mixed players played 14 games together.
ATL averaged 49.56 points per game.
MIX averaged 49.67 points per game.
ATL had the higher high (74.2) and the lower low (25.9)
MIX had a high of 70.4 and low of 29.3.
This resulted in the Standard Deviation being nearly 50% higher for the ATL stack, at 14.82 compared to MIX at 10.94.
ATL had a median 3 full points higher than MIX.

 

First of all, I genuinely appreciate the time and effort you put into this post.

The original point I was disputing was something to the effect of "you don't want Julio and Ridley on the same fantasy team, because one will siphon off of the other."

To be clear, you're now making the exact opposite point, that either both will be good in a given week, or neither will be. 

You've now created a catch all double narrative. If I show you data from a set of real life teammates where their  good games and bad games happen to line up, then you don't want them on the same roster because it's all or nothing. If, on the other hand, I show you data where one teammate is up more often when the other is down, then you don't want the pair because one is taking pieces of the pie away.

I do appreciate the work you put into your post, but I promise you, in a large enough sample, there's no correlation either way between players on the same NFL team, and players on different NFL teams.

Again, this is because there aren't a set number of fantasy points that get divvied up amongst players on a specific team. Nor are players on other teams guaranteed a minimum share of some proverbial pie. It's all about the production of each specific player. That's why we have rankings. If you rank Ridley higher than Robert Woods, it's because you think Ridley is going to score more points on a week by week basis than Woods. You already factored the presence of Julio into that equation. The fact that you drafted Julio changes exactly NONE of that math. So you can either draft the player you think will do worse each week, on average, or simply ignore the irrelevant fact that you own Ridley's teammate.

The exact same logic applies to stacking a QB-WR. I want the best players. Don't care whether they are teammates or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, FFCollusion said:

Here's a real world example of stacking, and what the actual weight of the decision becomes.  (I'm just going to follow your example for simplicity sake)

You draft Julio in the 2nd.  

Here comes the 4th round, your WR options are:
JuJu Smith-Schomething
Amari Cooper
Cooper Kupp
Calvin Ridley
Robert Woods
A.J. Brown
DK Metcalf.

 

There's another reason I don't like stacking.  I'll use FFC's example in a post above.

Say this is how I rank my 3rd tier of WRs.  Juju is say 13 and DK is 18.

FFC is absolutely correct in that I don't know who in this group will be the best.  It could be DK Metcalf, who is at the bottom, for all I know.

While that is true....I have ranked them this way for a reason.  People don't go into drafts with just groups of WRs in tiers.  Within that tier, they rank the players.  They decide that Juju will be better than Ridley.  You need to do this before the draft.  You're on the clock.  If you're picking a WR, you don't want to think about which of the 7 you are picking....it should be an instant decision.  So, even though all these WRs are in my tier 3, I believe Juju will outperform DK (for example) based on my hard work researching each WR.

Now, lets say it's my pick and I need WR and all these guys are available.  I have Russell Wilson.  Can I pick DK to stack?  Of course.  But I will believe I am getting a worse receiver than if I pick Juju.  Even worse, what if Juju blows up this year?  I will be absolutely kicking myself for not taking him because I wanted to stack.  If DK outperforms him?  That's great, but I would chalk that up to good luck since my evaluation was that Juju would be better.  I am walking into the season that there is a greater than 50/50 chance that Juju will outperform and the underdog came through.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FlashGordon401 said:

Only time I will stack is if the QB falls to me (i.e. drafted MT in rd 1 and Brees slips to rd 9-10). Never something to go completely out of your way and reach for a QB 1-2 rds early just so you can stack.


That’s exactly how I do it too. Do I like to stack a QB and WR? Yes, but I don’t go out of my way and ignore value to try to do so. That’s how I wound up with Ridley and Ryan. I took Thomas in the 1st and Ridley in the 4th (10 team keeper league). I was going to take Brees in the 9th but he was taken in the 8th. So when the 10th round came and I was the only team without a QB I took Ryan. I already had Dalvin Cook, MT, Carson, Ridley, DJ, AJB, Mostert, James White and Fuller so I felt it was the right time to take Ryan. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ajs723 said:

The original point I was disputing was something to the effect of "you don't want Julio and Ridley on the same fantasy team, because one will siphon off of the other."

To be clear, you're now making the exact opposite point, that either both will be good in a given week, or neither will be.

I've never seen someone so confused about what they're arguing against, but still so confident they can't be wrong.

 

There were multiple aspects to my post.  I'm sorry if they blurred together for you.  I'm sure you'll be going back to quote each and everyone of them shortly, but let me summarize to save you time.

1: I Explained OPs theory for anyone who wanted to understand it, or try it.

2: I Used multiple examples showing correlation can exist in (or across) certain positions and\or at extreme ends of the spectrum to prove the "theory".

3: Provided examples of why I personally do NOT subscribe to the theory, or recommend trying to apply it.

Tl;dr

Correlation exists.  Period.  There is no debating that.  However, A: in real world (non extreme scenarios) it's not enough to make an effect and B: I do not personally believe it's predictable or reliable enough to justify implementing it and have asserted that due to the volitility of the game we play, it's nearly impossible to statistically prove there's a measureable benefit to doing it, with any amount of data sets that would suffice as proof.

The only way to properly test it, is in foresight, and review at the end of the year.  You can maybe pull it off twice per year, and it would take years to get a sample size worth analyzing.  Every injury destroys an entire data set.  Each individual pick offers a branch of possibilities that calls the data into question.  As I mentioned, using Hopkins in my data set gives us data to look at, but in the real world scenario, Micheal Thomas was just as realistic with a massively different outcome which would drastically alter the results.  Same applies to D.Adams the opposite direction. 1 change in choice either direction creates giant variances in the outcome, and the data would reflect the variance of the non-team player (Adams vs Hopkins vs Thomas) rather than any potential benefit of the actual team stack.

The pie does exist.  If Matt Ryan throws 3 TDs, the pie is 3 TDs, and it's impossible for both Ridley and Julio to have 3 TDs each in that week.  You're still looking at season long results and not weekly matchup outcomes.  In any given week, there is a direct correlation between how many TDs Matt Ryan throws and how many TDs his pass catchers can catch.  This is non debatable. (Unless your debate is trick plays...)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the Chiefs stack at the 6th spot in 12-team PPR.  CEH at 6, Hill/Kelce at 19, and Mahomes at 30.  ADPs are in line so none would really be a reach.  I will note that I am a firm believer in waiting on QB but this stack might make sense.  That will allow me to hammer RB and WR for the rest of the draft.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...