Risk Tolerance: A test
It's one of those weeks where I fell behind on my routine Sunday night and haven't caught up yet (the week ends Friday night, almost there). That's partly why the blog has been quiet, and the emails are mostly unanswered - although I have a lot of stuff planned for this afternoon.
Let's start today's fun with a philosophical question for everyone. You are in a three-week, total points fantasy playoff. You are stuck with Marc Bulger and Jason Campbell as your quarterbacks, with no pickups allowed.
All signs point towards Bulger starting against the Bengals, but there is a hint of doubt. Let's call him 90% likely to play the game, and you've decided he's a superior play to Campbell. Campbell is intriguing, but too inconsistent. Similar choices are happing all over Fantasy Nation tonight with Marshawn Lynch owners. You make the call: Go for glory or play it safe?
Comments
I think in this case going with Bulger is going for the glory & playing it safe(r).
I think alot of guys have a similiar decision with Favre this week.
Go with Favre (coming off injury/bad matchup) or give a guy like Garrard a shot who's been steady but not necessarily spectacular.
I think your rankings even have them neck & neck.
Posted by: Shane-O | December 6, 2007 01:30 PM
As a Brandon Jacobs and Larry Fitzgerald owner, I'm in this situation, as well.
As for your scenario, I think my answer would depend on the opponent I'm facing. If I feel like I'm a big underdog, I'd probably take the high-risk, high-reward play.
Posted by: Nathan | December 6, 2007 01:32 PM
If I understand the "three week total points" description correctly, opponent wouldn't matter.
I seem to remember you are a risk taker (as am I)... I would lean slightly to Bulger.
I don't think the difference between the two is great (the Bears D sucks too). But I see no way Bulger doesn't play with Berlin as the only healthy backup.
Posted by: Stephen | December 6, 2007 01:45 PM
Or what about a gimpy Coles vs. a gimpy Jacobs. Obviously looking at Greg's rankings you can see who he values higher at a particular position, but what about a similarly ranked RB vs. WR?
Posted by: Poopy Von Poop A Lot | December 6, 2007 02:19 PM
I am in that exact scenario this week. I have to decide between Bulger, Campbell or Clemmens. However in addition to that I also have Lynch and Jacobs at RB and Fitzgerald and Holmes at WR. In my league we are able to start a QB, 1-3 RBs, 1-4 Wrs or 1-2 TEs. total RB-WR-TE combo equals 6 between them. I decided to go with: QB-Bulger, RB-Gore, Lynch, Jacobs; WR-Fitzgerald, Holmes; TE-Cooley; D/ST-Tampa Bay; K-Hanson. for what it's worth.
Posted by: Criswell3000 | December 6, 2007 04:16 PM
Although it's been touted lately to go with studs and not put as much weight in to opponent, I can't help but notice the difference in Campbell vs Bulger's next three weeks. Campbell gets: CHI, NYG, and MIN. Bulger gets: CIN, GB, PIT. Given Bulger's coming off the concussion, I'd go out on a limb and play Campbell. Let us know what your decision is.
Posted by: Eric | December 6, 2007 05:39 PM
I know what you are saying. Do I go with Plaxico this week or play it safe with Kevin Curtis or Hines Ward. It is a ppr league and Curtis and Ward will probably not explode in their games but I have a hard time trusting Burress to do much any longer.
Posted by: CdnFan | December 7, 2007 12:48 AM