Carson Palmer is back in action this week and he’s been one of the better DFS quarterbacks in the NFL this year. His price is fifth highest at $8400 but he faces the Seahawks this week. Is Palmer a must start regardless of circumstance at this price or does the matchup make you want to fade him?
Maurile Tremblay: I won't have Palmer in any of my lineups this week. Cam Newton, facing Tennessee, is $100 cheaper. Any Dalton, facing Houston, is the same price. I think $8,400 for Palmer is too much this week.
Andrew Garda: I might avoid Palmer but it's more for the price than the matchup. With the weapons he has and as good as he is playing, Palmer is not someone I worry about in terms of who he is playing. Not as long as the line keeps playing well and Larry Fitzgerald, Michael Floyd and John Brown are playing well.
I have been looking at alternatives to the high-money quarterbacks but guys like Derek Carr have caught up to Palmer in price. So now, if you're going to pay, might as well pay for the guy who you feel better about and that is often Palmer.
Mark Wimer: Both the matchup AND the location of the matchup make me want to fade Palmer and also Fitzgerald. The Seattle venue is one of the NFL's most-deafening, and it is going to be a soggy night according to the weather report, which can cause hiccups in ball-handling and throwing the slick football. It is simply a bad environment for a high-scoring affair, and then the Seattle D is still very good in this phase of the game although perhaps not quite as dominant as in years past. I am starting Michael Floyd in some situations as Fitzgerald will draw attention/coverage and Brown is not 100% healthy, so I think Floyd could surprise despite the tough matchup. But I'm not plugging Floyd in universally - just as one player in my mix this week.
A lot of people thought the Aaron Rodgers/Randall Cobb stack would pay off last week, as nobody could imagine an impotent Packers offense two times. While it wasn’t bad on the whole (once the Panthers backed off and played cautious in the second half), Cobbs output was so-so last again. Now that his price has dropped to $7500, is it safe to pair these two again or is it better to just run Rodgers out there solo at $8800?
Chad Parsons: In addition to liking the Rodgers-Cobb combo in Week 10, I will be adding Davante Adams to my ownership mix. The schedule was tough of late for Green Bay's passing game, but starting this week against Detroit, it softens quite a bit. Adams has yet to score a touchdown this season and Cobb was on a cold streak finding the end zone until last week. Expect high-level production from the start.
Tremblay: I think this depends on whether you're constructing a lineup for a cash game or for a GPP. Rodgers is a pretty good value in either format. In a cash game, I prefer Alshon Jeffery and Allen Robinson in the same general price range (they are $7,700). But in a GPP, stacking Rodgers with Cobb could have a very nice payoff if they connect for a few touchdowns.
Garda: Something is wrong with the Packers offense. SI.com's Doug Farrar wrote a great piece about it that I highly recommend, which mirrors what I have been seeing while doing recaps. This team has changed what it is running—less quick slants and outs, less plays finding the seams on the coverage. Now, some of that is because beyond Cobb this is a very inexperienced group. It's James Jones and a lot of first and second year players. So ultimately we're talking about guys who maybe Rodgers and the staff don't have confidence in. This is a long-term concern as difficult defenses can contain a limited playbook.
For this week though, they face a soft Lions defense. This is not a defense performing well, and it isn't one that should present many challenges. I'd be fine trotting this combo out this week as I think this is a game where the offense gets back on track and given their struggles, these guys might be a little under-owned.
Wimer: I am starting a super-stack of Rodgers/Cobb/Rodgers in some of my lineups this week so I think that answers this question. The Lions have given up 252.0 net passing yards per game this year (18th in the NFL) with almost four times as many TDs (14) given up as interceptions produced (four, second-least in the NFL) - and Rodgers/Cobb/Jones/Adams/Rodgers should do better than average against a wounded divisional opponent that is A). playing out the string at 1-7 and B). which gave up 45 points and 20/28 for 135 net passing yards, two TDs and zero interceptions to the lowly Chiefs' passing attack last time out of the gates.
James Starks has become the No. 1 running back in Green Bay according to head coach Mike McCarthy, so while Eddie Lacy might play, the majority of the carries seem to be heading to Starks. First, do we trust McCarthy to stick with Starks and not split carries and second, what do you expect from Starks?
Parsons: I have tepid optimism for Starks this week. He has looked better than Lacy throughout the season, but there are many medium-priced running backs with appeal this week to mix-and-match in lineups. Starks will be on the lower end and I project a more dominant day through the air for Green Bay.
Tremblay: I think this also depends on whether we're looking at a cash game or a GPP. In a cash game, no, I don't trust McCarthy or the Packers running game enough to put Starks in there at $6,800. Darren McFadden is $500 cheaper and seems to have a higher floor.
But in a GPP, throwing Starks in a few lineups makes sense based on his high upside potential.
Garda: Starks does well in short spurts, as we have seen this year. I think he's a good start this week, and while I agree with Chad that a lot of damage will be done through the air, the Packers have been more balanced and run heavy when they have a healthy running back the last few years. I think for the price he's a strong play and will get a bunch of carries and the resulting yards will be of good value.
Wimer: I think there will be a split - say 60/40 or 65/35 - in favor of Starks. I think the Lions stink badly enough that there will be plentiful opportunities for Packers' offensive players to score - I expect Green Bay to pile on points against the Detroit D at home in front of the Lambeau Faithful. So the good augury for Green Bay means that Starks has a solid shot at good fantasy numbers against Detroit.
Amari Cooper ($7200) is priced right below Jeremy Maclin ($7300). Cooper’s matchup is better, he’s been more consistent and it’s arguable he has a much better offense and quarterback around him. What are we missing here, or is this just a bad week to grab Maclin and a good week to take advantage of Cooper?
Parsons: All signs points to going Amari Cooper over Jeremy Maclin this week. Maclin has arguably the worst passing matchup with Denver and Cooper has been a high-floor with dominant flashes performer through half an NFL season. Maclin is off my radar for lineups in Week 10, while Cooper will be mixed in especially for cash games.
Tremblay: Yes, Cooper is a much better value than Maclin this week. It's worth noting that Mike Evans ($6,900) is cheaper than either one of them. I've got Evans and Cooper projected for about the same number of fantasy points. I'd probably go with Cooper if price were no obstacle -- but if I can find a good way to spend the extra $300 elsewhere, I'd lean toward Evans as the better value.
Garda: I really haven't been impressed with Maclin in this offense to date. Cooper is a pretty consistent start in DFS and yeah I think this is a some sort of math burp that FantasyScore did because the two shouldn't be priced anywhere near each other due to matchup, offense and overall ability.
Maurile - regarding Mike Evans - yeah he's cheaper, but he has been a mess the last few weeks, dropping a ton of balls. Does that give anyone pause? It has for me.
Tremblay: I'm not really worried about Evans' catching ability. I think he'll bounce back and be fine.
Wimer: I think the difference is that Cooper has a resurgent Michael Crabtree across from him, sharing almost equally in targets, while Maclin is the lone legit wideout for the Chiefs - though he'll be paired with Travis Kelce in a one-two punch for the Chiefs (with a significant role for Charcandrick West out of the backfield).
Essentially, Cooper and Maclin are both sharing the spotlight with one other main receiver on his respective team, which may address the salary simularity. I think Oakland has a better matchup (but it is still a tough one, compared to Kansas City having to travel TO Mile High Stadium and face the dreaded Broncos' D, which is a very bad matchup).
So it is definitely a bad week to plug in Maclin widely, while it is likely a below-average week to plug in Cooper, in my opinion.