How to deal with positional scarcity in NFL DFS

ByRENEE MILLER
August 26, 2015, 3:43 PM

— -- Positional scarcity -- it's a term you're going to hear a lot if you get into NFL DFS. It sounds outright terrifying, as America is nothing if not the land of excess. We expect, even demand, choices, options, a multitude of opportunities in every facet of our lives. Sixteen brands of toothpaste, 100 different four-door sedans, nine different salad dressings, more DFS sites every day. We are accustomed to being able to select from numerous viable options, no matter what the context.

I think (and have written) quite a bit about decision-making, in terms of how we go about it and how we deal with it when we do it well or poorly. Positional scarcity -- any scarcity, really -- robs us of a full decision-making process. When there aren't a lot of satisfactory options to choose between, for whatever reason, it's easy to feel backed into a corner, forced in a single direction, and that is accompanied by a loss of autonomy.

In the NFL, you have 32 teams taking the field each week (ignoring bye weeks). That's 32 quarterbacks, around 40 running backs, perhaps 80 wide receivers and let's say 34 tight ends with whom to build your DFS lineup. Seeing as how you need only one QB, two RBs, three WRs, one TE and maybe a flex player, you might feel like we should never encounter positional scarcity. Well, here are some of the contexts in which we do.

1. Small slates

If you choose to play in the Monday-Thursday slate, the "Primetime" Thursday, Sunday, Monday night games slate, the Sunday early or late only slates, etc., you are putting yourself in a position where options are going to be more limited. There are only a few games, so the player pool shrinks dramatically.

2. Bye weeks

We get eased into the middle of the season in Week 4, with only two teams on bye, followed by seven more difficult weeks with four to six teams out of action. Week 9 looks the worst, with six teams off, but I'm fearing Week 7, considering  who is missing is more important than how many are missing.

3. Late season

Three months into the season, injuries will have decimated the "viable" options, which means while teams place warm bodies on the field, they aren't the talented starters we can rely on for DFS. Plus, playoff-bound teams with seeding locked up might rest starters at this time of the year, so that they're healthy for the postseason push.

4. Defensive matchups

Some weeks, all the best running backs face all the best rushing defenses, the best quarterbacks face the best secondaries, and ... and you get the idea.

There are really two scenarios: All positions are limited, and one position is limited.

Let's take the first case. I love small slates. Some view them as forced positional scarcity -- a negative -- but consider that your goal is to pick the players who will score the most points at each position. This is a typical cash game strategy, but on small slates, I put less stock in game theory, regardless of the type of contest I'm playing (see our DFS dictionary for more on this). When there are fewer options to choose from, that task gets a lot easier if you know what you're looking for. When you're playing a small slate, don't try to go too contrarian. There will be a lot more overlap than usual, but don't stray from the most talented players. Let your opponents do that. Get your advantage by doing better research than them.

Take home: Don't overthink it during bye weeks or when playing small slates. Simply use the best players in the best matchups when options are scarce all around.

What do you do when only one position is scarce?

Often, you have one top-tier option -- high priced, elite talent, sweet matchup, guaranteed touches -- and a slew of mediocre players with low or split touches at the other end of the spectrum. Maybe it's because of injuries, maybe it's because of matchups, but there simply aren't a lot of desirable, affordable players at a certain position. Tight end is the one that comes to mind for many people, but last year, I thought running back was scarce most weeks. I rarely feel backed into a scarcity corner by limited quarterback and receiver options in DFS on full slates.

Let me illustrate what I mean with these divided DFS tiers. The past season, at running back, you had a few clear-cut elite options, such as  DeMarco Murray, Le'Veon Bell, Eddie Lacy and  C.J. Anderson down the stretch, followed by an inconsistent pack of medium-priced guys, such as  LeSean McCoy, Justin Forsett, Mark Ingram, Lamar Miller, and then a bunch of low-priced questionable backs, such as (my favorite) Chris Ivory, Bishop Sankey, Latavius Murray, Lorenzo Taliaferro, Terrance West, Matt Asiata, etc.

At tight end, it was Rob Gronkowski in the elite tier, followed by the inconsistent but talented bunch including Jimmy Graham, Martellus Bennett, Greg Olsen and maybe Julius Thomas. Then came the minimum-priced guys who catch a few passes a game and four to eight touchdowns a year:  Scott Chandler, Jace Amaro, Coby Fleener, Heath Miller and  Larry Donnell. Then there was Travis Kelce, who, let's just say, I used a lot more than Andy Reid did last year.

The strategy to navigate this perceived positional scarcity does depend on the type of contest you're playing. For cash games -- head to head and 50/50 contests -- I do one of two things. First, take the big dog if you can find value elsewhere, especially at quarterback. This is going to be a viable strategy as long as Tom Brady is out, for example. I think the Jimmy Garoppolo-Gronkowski combination will be very popular in cash contests that include the Week 1 Thursday opener. Second, take the minimum-priced option with the best matchup. Use ESPN's fantasy points against stats to look for defenses that are especially lax about covering tight ends or running backs, and do this when you really want to spend up on a QB-WR combo such as  Aaron Rodgers and Jordy Nelson and need to save at an uncertain position.

You're not risking a lot in either case. Paying up for the best player is a solid cash game play, and paying down for a known commodity with a small amount of upside allows you to maximize fantasy potential elsewhere in your lineup. This is what your cash game strategy should be about.

In tournaments, I look to the inconsistent, mid-priced tier. When there is perceived positional scarcity, those guys all have huge question marks. None of them feels safe. That drives their ownership down, even in tournaments (it's just human nature to flee from uncertainty, plus ownership of the tier will be split among several players). Talent isn't an issue in this tier; it's opportunity, so use what intel you can glean about game plan.

Prioritize the risks ... I'll avoid competition over weather, for example. If I'm entering multiple lineups in a tournament, I will rotate these second-tier options through my lineups so I have some exposure to all the "wild cards" at the scarce position around my solid core lineup. When Alfred Morris has that elusive three-touchdown game, I'll be ready.

Take home: Either pay up for the elite option or pay the minimum at a scarce position in cash games, but take one of the mid-priced talents with some red flags in tournaments.

Overall, don't think of positional scarcity as a negative. Your opponents are facing the same player pool. There is no disadvantage, unless you fail to turn a perceived negative into a strategic play. While others simply shake their heads and "punt" a position, dig a little deeper in your research and find the right combination of talent and opportunity to fit your lineup. Recognizing scarcity for what it is allows you to incorporate it into your lineup strategy. Every week is different, but hopefully these guidelines get you on the right track.