Boom/Bust Players

[Pullo Vision]

I categorize players who have the same snap count week to week but have a wide variance in fantasy points into two groups-
Big play guys like Lockett, Mike Williams or MVS (Aiyuk may be in this group too)
Low target/catch but TD dependent players

How do you deal with starting these kinds of players? What factors do you consider whether to start/bench them?

I'll be willing start/acquire him if I can start 3 RBs if he's a RB, or 4 or more WRs if a receiver. I'm more accepting of high variable TEs, but if i can only start 1 without an opportunity to flex another, I'm less forgiving.

I've found they've been easier to acquire in trades, but hard to trade away. In that sense, they're like roster cloggers, just productive ones. In leagues with shorter rosters, I shy away from getting them, but deeper leagues/starting lineups, I'm less concerned.

How do you weigh the dynasty value of high-variance players?

[Cameron Giles]

I start someone like Lockett every week, unless it's an obviously bad matchup or circumstance (3rd string QB vs. dominant defense). Ultimately you have to take the good with the bad, or you'll just put yourself in an endless cycle of trying to guess the good weeks.

[YouMightDieTryin]

I close my eyes and hope for the best knowing full well I'm ending with a giant goose egg.

You hope for these players to pop off 2 or 3 weeks in a row so that you can trade them to another unsuspecting owner only to post zeros the next 4 weeks they start them.

Sadly these players are a part of fantasy football especially when it comes to deeper leagues. Not everyone can be the alpha or have the alpha on their team. The solace I have when starting them is that if they do hit you get to laugh at your opponent as if you knew the whole time.

[Anteaters]

There are tiers of quality with these types of players. Locket is better than MWilliams is better than MVS. I'm always starting the higher-floor-on-average guy over the overs, meaning I'm always starting Lockett over MVS regardless of matchups.

If I have multiple guys at the same tier competing for my final starting position, I prefer to start the same guy every week rather than chase points by starting according to matchups. In my experience, you can't predict these guys on a week-to-week basis. No one knows when Gabriel Davis' next great game is going to happen. When I chase matchups with players in this tier, I miss the bonus every time. So I regularly start the same guy every week and I benefit on those three weeks when he goes off.

Obviously in a best case scenario, I try to build my teams so I only have to start MVS or Gabriel or Beasley as bye week fillers. Having to rely on two or three of these guys as regular starters will not result in a good season.

[halfbaked88]

I'm not opposed to these types as a back end starter at the position, a TD dependent flex RB getting goal line work or WR 3/4/5 (dependent on how many WRs I can start) and if you can pair them with a lower ceiling producer on your roster as an Option B like a Hunter Renfrow/Jarvis Landry, even better.

On a weekly matchup where I'm a heavy favorite I go for the safer, lower ceiling guy and then on competitive match-ups I like putting in these DeSean Jackson boom or bust players as needed when I feel like I'd need a splash play to overcome the projection. I'd say this probably backfires just as much as it works. Either end up losing by just the amount the safer guy would have provided sitting on my bench.

Every so often these boom/bust guys turn out to be solid producers. Hollywood Brown is a guy I considered boom/bust to start the season and now he is obviously an every week starter.

This is a great question, but I think to get a better idea of these types of players ability to hit you should be looking at the consistency of the QB to at least provide the opportunity to have the "boom." And the Vegas weekly projection. If it's a high scoring game, then the types of plays you want for the desired outcome are more likely to occur.

[jenkins.math]

Agree with those talking about specific matchups both in their real NFL schedule and your opponent in fantasy. I also agree they are great as your flex or WR3 as that can swing the game entirely.

One caveat I didnt see discussed was pivoting to the boom bust guys based on Thursday night games or early games. If some of my early guys have produced a stinker where I need to make up a lot of ground, im much more likely to put in one of these guys over someone with a safe floor like Jakobi Meyers. Or if the other team has gone bananas, I will throw in the riskier high upside guys to try and catch up.

[MFundercover]

Generally, I prefer guys that are defined as "boom/bust" to guys who are seen as "consistent".

Mike Evans and Keenan Allen are a good example (I own both). Both are always ranked near each other and finish with comparable fantasy numbers. You need players that can put up 30 points to win championships. When you have a roster full of these guys, the "boom" weeks will pick up the slack for the other guys "bust" weeks so your floor won't be that low. And when multiple hit you will be high score in your league that week. Even if you somehow get a totally "consistent" team, you'll be scoring like 110-120 every week. Also like to have somebody like DeSean on my bench in case I need a haily mary on bye weeks/injuries, but not somebody I would want to rely on every week.

So I always go for a starting lineup of high ceiling players, and 1-2 "consistent" guys in my flex to keep the floor up.

[honcho55]

Early half of my fantasy career I was of the mindset above, pretty much. Just get the guy you think scores the most points season long. Variance is gonna happen regardless, maybe as we’ll be playing with more overall points, right?

I’ve slowly shifted away from that a tiny bit though. I’ve noticed consistent teams actually winning titles more often. Personal sample size is kinda small either way though, so interested to hear more on this.

[MFundercover]

Early half of my fantasy career I was of the mindset above, pretty much. Just get the guy you think scores the most points season long. Variance is gonna happen regardless, maybe as we’ll be playing with more overall points, right?

I’ve slowly shifted away from that a tiny bit though. I’ve noticed consistent teams actually winning titles more often. Personal sample size is kinda small either way though, so interested to hear more on this.

My experience has been the opposite. Early part of my fantasy career I went for consistency over boom. I always had good teams but kept winding up in 2nd-4th place. It wasn't until I started drafting almost all boom players that I started winning championships. Even if I drop some games I shouldn't during the regular season it doesn't matter. I want as many lotto tickets for ~30 point games as possible in a playoff game.

I'm sure you can win with all low ceiling high floor guys, this is just what has worked for me and what I've seen in competitive leagues.

[Pullo Vision]

Lots of good points. I honestly rarely look at my opponent's lineup. I just put the guys I think are most likely to get me the win. That said, when byes/injuries hit, I will look at the opponent's lineup when I'm debating options. I love to start the kicker/lead WR for my opponent's QB.

I've heard others say they feel the need to have a big week if their opponent starts Thursday big, or they themselves start poorly. I understand the logic of changing lineups based on that, but it's not something I've ever done.

That said, I will start these boom guys based on how the offense has been playing. If they're on a heater, hell yeah I'll start em. A recent/current example is Lockett. Did little with Geno replacing Wilson, and Dangeruss coming back quickly hasn't done the passing offense many favors. That said, I'm starting Lockett for the game against Washington.

I treat the regular season different from the post season. During the regular season, I'm more focused on wins/VPs and trying to have the best season long team. Once getting to the postseason, advancing isn't usually based on performance over a stretch of games but a particular game. In the regular season, I try to get some upside plays, but I try to tilt more towards floor plays in the postseason.

Really, though, it depends on where the floor, median and ceiling for these competing boom and floor options reside. Jakobi Meyers is exactly the type of player I was considering with this thread- consistent target volume, low total yardage each week, finally got his first career TD. His floor isn't far off from these boom-bust guys like MVS, but his ceiling is sooo much lower. In shallower starting lineups, the Evans/Keenan comparison works as well.

I always go for a starting lineup of high ceiling players, and 1-2 "consistent" guys in my flex to keep the floor up.

In the right league settings, I've been doing this same thing. Love rolling with good boom options in the WR 3-5 spots. In one league, I've been rolling with McLaurin and Hopkins with Lockett, and my RBs have stepped up to stabilize my team's floor this year with Hopkins' injury.

[Pullo Vision]

Starting lineups are a part of dynasty, but they're not exclusively for dynasty. From a dynasty perspective, how do you weigh trade value of these boom-bust options? What factors do you consider in whether to trade for/away?

[Ice]

WTH....

I visited this thread expecting to read a lot of posts about Jalen Hurts...

[halfbaked88]

Starting lineups are a part of dynasty, but they're not exclusively for dynasty. From a dynasty perspective, how do you weigh trade value of these boom-bust options? What factors do you consider in whether to trade for/away?

Not much changes for me. If a player is checking off basic things like contract, age, QB, target share, etc it's the same things I look at for any player in a trade.

Long term, the week-to-week boom bust numbers are less important than the expected season long totals I'm looking at over the next 2-3 years.

[murphysxm]

In my experience the best teams make the playoffs, then the team that hits the most lucky scores wins championships. I feel I have a much better chance of making the playoffs with a consistent scoring roster. I don't care if I have the highest scoring team in week 6, I just want the win. I feel boom/bust players are about luck. That is not how I create rosters.

[killer_of_giants]

I feel boom/bust players are about luck. That is not how I create rosters.

they're about luck if you play them occasionally hoping they'll hit in that week.

in a deep league with big lineups, high end boom or bust players are weekly starters: a dud will have less impact on the final score, but a 30-point performance will likely win you the week. i start lockett pretty much every week as my WR3, he's been a good player for my team.