I play roughly 60% of my action each week in “cash games.” Cash games refer to any contest in which roughly 50% of the field gets paid out, such as head-to-head, double up or 50/50. I try to get as much head-to-head action as I can every week and then supplement that with other cash games.
Each week, I’ll review my cash-game lineup in this space. Sometimes I’ll lose, but hopefully I’ll win more often. Either way, I’ll post it here and give you my thought process.
This slate set up really well for the way I like to play. We had viable punt QB, viable punt TE, and some stars at RB and WR. The tricky part was having five very good running backs in play.
MY MUST PLAYS
* Cooper Kupp was certainly no bargain at $9500. But in a full-PPR format with bonus for 100 yards, the record-breaking Kupp was a priority. That was particularly true given a matchup with the injury-ravaged Ravens secondary and a weak WR slate on DraftKings for value.
* Trey Lance was the starting quarterback for a team with a 29-point team total. While I certainly had my doubts about Lance as a thrower, I wasn’t going to overthink this at an eye-popping $4800 tag. Lance had played 116 NFL snaps and rushed 30-137-1.
* Stephen Anderson was not a must in a vacuum. But given the context of the slate and the rest of the tight end position, I was always just punting at stone minimum $2500 here. Jared Cook and Donald Parham were both out, leaving only Anderson and blocker Tre McKitty at tight end.
MY WANT PLAYS
* This was an incredibly strong running back week. I considered five: Jonathan Taylor, David Montgomery, Ronald Jones, Sony Michel, and Chase Edmonds. I would have been fine with any, but Jones was the least priority due to his lack of pass-catching role.
Once the James Conner news broke about an hour before lock thanks to ESPN’s Ed Werder, Edmonds became very strong. He is a huge part of the horizontal pass game and projected for at least 80% of the RB carries. Even in a difficult matchup at Dallas, the overall game environment was good and Edmonds is the kind of back I want to play at $5700.
* I really liked this spot for Jonathan Taylor. The only reason he wasn’t a “must” was because there was so much opportunity cost at the running back position. But the lineups that didn’t have Taylor forced me onto a mid-range wideout I wasn’t in love with. So I was more than happy to pay up for the ceiling of JT.
* It pained me to not play one of David Montgomery or Sony Michel. They were both spectacular three-down plus goal-line options. I preferred D-Mont for the far better matchup, but Sony had a real shot at 100% of the RB touches with both Darrell Henderson and Cam Akers out. In this lineup, I did not have the $500 I needed to get to Montgomery.
* I really wanted to play Antonio Brown as long as his ankle was healthy. Perhaps it was a silly narrative, but I was swayed by the $1m in incentives combined with Chris Godwin out, Mike Evans limited, and a matchup with the Jets. Brown, who saw a 50% target share in Week 16, was a really strong play here even at a 25-30% target share.
* I only considered four wide receivers for cash: Cooper Kupp, Antonio Brown, Courtland Sutton, and Braxton Berrios. While I didn’t think Berrios was a good play for tournaments at massive ownership, he was a very strong bet for 10 points at $3700 against the Bucs pass funnel. And that went a long way in cash this week.
* There weren’t an viable true punts at D/ST this week. The Bears were obviously really strong at $3200 in cold temps against Mike Glennon. But this lineup needed every cent, so I was fine going down to the Colts D as a solid home favorite at $2900.
Week 17 Results
The Antonio Brown situation proved to be far more volatile than I thought, and that hurt. Obviously the David Montgomery fade looks really bad in hindsight, but all of my running back plays had the usage I expected. Someone was going to be left out. So even though the results weren’t spectacular this week, I don’t think I would have changed anything.
Year-To-Date Results
Week 1: 124.86 points, won 70.5% of head-to-heads
Week 2: 92.88 points, won 5.7% of head-to-heads
Week 3: 151.52 points, won 63.8% of head-to-heads
Week 4: 104.92 points, won 8.1% of head-to-heads
Week 5: 187.08 points, won 82.7% of head-to-heads
Week 6: 147.98 points, won 82.3% of head-to-heads
Week 7: 163.38 points, won 88.1% of head-to-heads
Week 8: 135.62 points, won 37.0% of head-to-heads
Week 9: 127.54 points, won 81.4% of head-to-heads
Week 10: 152.74 points, won 90.0% of head-to-heads
Week 11: 109.02 points, won 55.3% of head-to-heads
Week 12: 117.32 points, won 80.1% of head-to-heads
Week 13: 180.08 points, won 86.9% of head-to-heads
Week 14: 127.30 points, won 51.4% of head-to-heads
Week 15: 119.58 points, won 36.8% of head-to-heads
Week 16: 130.88 points, won 43.9% of head-to-heads
Week 17: 135.06 points, won 68.9% of head-to-heads
