Yesterday Dave Lyle asked a question that’s probably on many people’s
minds at some point each season. It’s
often on mine: “How much inconsistency do you put up with before you decide not
to anymore?” In other words, when one of
your players is continually up and down, when do you get off the carnival ride
and seek out more consistent production?
The subject, as you might imagine, stemmed from Brandin Cooks’ o-fer
Sunday.
I call this "The DeSean Jackson Quandary." Last year or the year before some stats person
categorized him as the most boom-bust WR in fantasy over the full season. So in very deep leagues, it made sense to
throw him out there (vs. adding a high-risk WR off waivers). In shallower leagues he was too big a risk
given all the talent on waivers. I
actually acquired him in my work league each of the last two years in large
trades, where he was essentially a throw-in player. But in my separate 20-team league last
season, I would have given more for him, because the best WR on waivers couldn’t
guarantee me more than three points on a decent day.
So that's my view on Cooks and any other inconsistent player,
regardless of position. It’s like
choosing one of three routes to get to work.
One is guaranteed to get you there in 40 minutes. Another is 30 on a great day and 50 on a bad
one. A third is 25 on a perfect day and
an hour on a bad one. How desperate are
you to get to work in 25-30 minutes? Is
it worth spending a minute or two searching for a fourth or fifth route? (Of course, thanks to traffic apps and GPS, this
analogy was better suited a decade ago, but still . . .)
Looking at Thursday Night Football, I’m anticipating a hiccup for the
Cowboys. Minnesota’s playoff chances
take a huge hit (as in, they’ll probably need to run the table to get in) if
they lose. That doesn’t mean they’ll win
tonight; it does mean I’m expecting a motivated and talented Vikings D to slow
down Dallas. I put the over/under at 30
points on this one, and I’d take the under.