Dear Mr. Fantasy: We'll say it again ...

You've heard it before: Start the guys who got you there.

You're sick of it. I'm sick of it. It's sickening. And nobody wants to be sick now, during the holidays. That's why you got your flu shot.

So let's make a pact here and now never to say it again, or at least not until the festivities have concluded, the season has ended, and the sporting world has turned its attention to spring baseball. That way, we can focus on the other questions you have about Fantasy Football. And best of all, we won't get sick.

Deal? Deal.

What's that? You mean some people, no matter how many times they hear that rule, still think it doesn't apply to them?

Oh well, maybe next year.

I need a win (and help) to sneak into the playoffs at 8-6. I know I'm one of the worst at over-coaching and over-thinking matchups and statistics, but this week I'm actually thinking about doing the unthinkable: benching Peyton Manning in favor of Vince Young.

Conventional wisdom says you always start your studs, especially when the season is on the line. But Manning faces Denver, ranked second against the pass and second in points against. And since the Colts' bye in Week 6, Manning has scored more than 16 points just three times (27 at St. Louis, 33 vs. New England and 23 at Houston) and 16 or less four times. Young, meanwhile, faces the Rams, and while he hasn't put up huge numbers, he has scored 20-plus points in his last two games and seems like a lock to do so again this week.

Last week, you told someone to stick with Donovan McNabb over Young (which I would have done, based on the matchups), and McNabb had 16 points to Young's 20. Not a big difference, sure, and I'm not saying it was a bad call -- 16 points is still a decent day for a quarterback. Still ...

While you could say "go with who got you here," the fact is "here" is 7-6, on the outside looking in, and Manning is one of the reasons I'm not 9-4 or 10-3 and already locked into the playoffs. Your thoughts? -- Mike Donnelly, Carnegie, Pa.

SW: Normally, I don't post e-mails this long, but this one was so carefully written, with so much of the research already done, that editing it down to its bare bones would only do it a disservice.

Still ...

You can't do it, Mike. For all the compelling arguments you make, you can't bench Manning for Young -- or anybody, really. It's a matter of upside, of the risk you take by limiting your team's ceiling.

According to the benchmarks you've set -- and I wouldn't disagree with them -- the worst-case scenario for Manning is about 16 points, and the best-case scenario for Young is about 20 points. So yes, Young will sometimes outscore Manning by a whopping four points. But Manning will often outscore Young by far more than that, as he has nearly half the time (three out of seven weeks) during this so-called "cold" period.

If you own Manning, you used your second-round pick to get him, maybe even your first. You drafted him to be a difference-maker, and by benching him now, you don't allow him to make that difference. And for what? The possibility Young might outscore him by four points?

Yes, four points can sometimes mean the difference between winning and losing, but without guarantees, the margin for error is too thin to justify the risk. Regardless of matchups, Manning is still the safer bet to score more points and the only bet to score far more points.

My starters have managed to stay healthy for most of the season. Except for bye weeks and a few minor injuries, I've had the same lineup going every week: Aaron Rogers, Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice, Wes Welker, Miles Austin, and Mike Sims-Walker. My bench has been nonexistent all year, but I picked up Fred Jackson recently. Our playoffs start this week, and I was considering starting Jackson at flex and benching Sims-Walker, who hasn't been very productive the past two weeks. Jackson has a good matchup at Kansas City and should get the bulk of the carries, but Sims-Walker seems due for a big game. Is the first round of the playoffs a smart time to make a change in the lineup that got me there? -- John Romano, Boulder, Colo.

SW: Generally speaking, no. For permanent changes, no.

But in this case, yes.

I'm a walking contradiction, I know, but here's where I make the distinction: Sims-Walker isn't a stud.

Again with the contradictions! Nobody trumpeted Sims-Walker's name louder than me earlier in the year, when he wasn't getting the credit he deserved, but after a few down weeks, I think we can reassess a player with his lack of track record.

Is he good? Yes. Does he deserve to start in Fantasy most of the time? Yes. But he plays for a team that prefers to run the ball, and he's no longer the end-all, be-all of what little passing game it has. With less than 50 yards receiving in three of his last four games, I wouldn't call him an automatic start.

Of course, I wouldn't call Jackson an automatic start either. He plays for a poor offensive team and has to split carries with Marshawn Lynch. But the new coaching staff has demonstrated a clear preference for Jackson, which bodes well for his chances against the Chiefs defense -- one nothing like the Jets defense that stifled Jackson in Week 13. The Bills should win that game, and you can bet they won't win it on the arm of a barely competent Ryan Fitzpatrick.

Jackson has a big game in store. Sims-Walker has ... well, you really don't know what to expect from him. I'm not calling Sims-Walker a sit, but I consider Jackson the more reliable option this week.

So yeah, I'll go against the book this time. Just goes to show why, for all the "rules" you'll find in Fantasy Football, you still wouldn't want a robot setting your lineup for you. The process takes a little finesse.

Scott, please stop me from doing something dumb. This week is the first week of the playoffs, and I have some doubts about which wide receivers to start. I have been starting Vincent Jackson, Miles Austin and Percy Harvin. The rule is to stick with your studs in the playoffs no matter how they have performed recently, but Vincent Jackson hasn't been getting it done. I have Roy E. Williams and Mario Manningham on my bench. I'm toying with the idea of sitting Jackson for Williams. Am I overthinking this? -- Jasen Hansen

SW: Don't do it, Jasen. It's dumb.

I had my choice of a few Jackson e-mails this week, all of them asking the same fundamental question: What's wrong with him?

Why fumble my way through an answer when you can get one from Jackson himself?

"Teams are putting their best cornerback on me and rolling a safety over to me," Jackson said leading up to last week's game at Cleveland. "I'm not surprised."

Yeah, me neither.

What Jackson's Fantasy owners might overlook is the fact that as his numbers have fallen, teammate Antonio Gates' have risen. Gates has 285 receiving yards over his last two games -- more than he had over his previous four.

It's a matter of opposing defenses choosing which player they want to let beat them, and it's cyclical. Gates will eventually draw coverage away from Jackson, allowing Jackson to become the Chargers' leading receiver again.

Just look at what happened to Miles Austin with the Cowboys earlier this season. After he broke out with 421 receiving yards and four touchdowns in two games, opposing defenses caught on to him, limiting him to an average of 44.3 receiving yards over his next four games. But in their efforts to stop Austin, they freed up Williams, who had a total of 180 receiving yards in Weeks 9 and 10 -- two of Austin's softer games. Williams, then, forced opposing defenses to keep him in check too, and low and behold, Austin has 249 receiving yards and two touchdowns in his last two games.

Jackson will have a similar bounce-back. I can't say when exactly, but opposing defenses will eventually learn they can't afford to let Gates beat them either. And when that time comes, you won't want to miss it.

For another wide receiver, maybe I could understand your reluctance to start Jackson, but Williams hasn't been any more reliable than Jackson lately. He has less than 20 yards receiving in four of seven games since the Cowboys' Week 6 bye, making him a touchdown-or-bust type of player.

Do you dare start both Robert Meachem and Marques Colston at Atlanta? Or do you go with either Hines Ward or Tony Gonzalez instead? -- Paul Dondero, Virginia Beach, Va.

SW: No more of Meachem! Please, no more! Just because he scored a touchdown on the play doesn't mean -- oh, wait a second. No mention of a fumble recovery or the Saints DST? Looks like we've got ourselves a legitimate question and not more of the same tired complaints.

I really am tired of those complaints.

Lost in the debate over whether or not Meachem's incredible defensive play should or shouldn't count toward his Fantasy numbers is the fact he had eight catches for 142 yards, finally getting some significant yardage to go along with his usual touchdown ... or two.

Ah! Get out of my head already!

For the first time this season, I'm convinced Meachem has legitimately broken out and hasn't just benefited from a few lucky looks in the red zone. Took me a little longer than most, but I got there. So as a general rule, I have no problem with you starting both Colston and Meachem. Both look too valuable to sit.

Then again, so do Gonzalez and Ward.

Gonzalez might actually be the most consistent of the bunch, and Ward faces a pathetic Browns defense, making a touchdown more likely than usual this week. Neither offers quite the upside of Colston or Meachem, but at least they wouldn't leave you living and dying with the Saints.

Still, the fear of picking the wrong one of Colston and Meachem might be reason enough to start both, especially this time of year. If you needed an easy victory against a weak opponent during the regular season, you might hedge your bets and go with a safer option like Gonzalez, but in the playoffs, you have to figure every team will put up points. Might as well go for as many as you can get.

I'd start Colston and Meachem and hope the Falcons don't limit Brees to less than 200 yards passing, which seems pretty unlikely anyway.

I think I have a great Fantasy lesson for this week, but I'm only a few years into this game, so who knows? I play in a league that awards four points for passing touchdowns and six points for receiving touchdowns. I have both Alex Smith and Vernon Davis. I also have Kurt Warner, but my opponent has Anquan Boldin. If I start Smith and he and Davis combine for a touchdown (which has happened seven times in the last seven games), I'll get 10 points. But if I start Warner and he and Boldin combine for a touchdown, I'll get only four points to my opponent's six. So should I consider starting Smith instead of Warner? -- Drew Vonderahe

SW: True, your opponent would benefit more from a Boldin touchdown than you would, but the Cardinals also have Larry Fitzgerald, not to mention Steve Breaston, Tim Hightower and any of the other receivers that might wind up on the other end of a Warner pass. What if Warner throws three touchdown passes, none of them to Boldin? You'd feel pretty silly then, wouldn't you?

Here's the dirty little secret Fantasy owners seem to overlook whenever they consider taking the same sort of defensive approach you've outlined here: Boldin will score whatever he scores whether or not you start Warner.

You have one goal when setting your Fantasy lineup: to get as many points as possible. How those points relate to your opponent's shouldn't even cross your mind. In the end, all that matters is the totals, and if you limit yours because you didn't want some of your points to coincide with your opponent's, what exactly did you gain?

Let me paint you a picture. Let's say Warner throws for 340 yards and three touchdowns, finishing with 25 Fantasy points, but two of those touchdowns go to Boldin, giving him 22 Fantasy points. Let's say Smith throws for 210 yards and a touchdown, finishing with 12 Fantasy points, but that touchdown goes to Davis, giving him 15 Fantasy points.

If you started Warner along with Davis, you got 40 Fantasy points, but if you started Smith along with Davis, you got only 27 Fantasy points. And guess what? Boldin scored 22 Fantasy points either way.

Just start the quarterback you think will score the most points and stop trying to control things you can't. If you think that quarterback is Smith, go for it, but I'd put my money on Warner.

Who do I start at running back this week: Michael Turner (assuming he starts) or LeSean McCoy? -- Michael Ballard

SW: Easy call here. Go with McCoy.

Let's set the record straight right now: Turner shouldn't play this week. He might, but if I had any say in the matter, he wouldn't. He has a high ankle sprain, an injury that takes weeks to heal, yet he's treating it like a scraped knee. He already tried to come back the week after the injury, carrying the ball 12 times for 33 yards before leaving the game in worse shape than when it began. Now, he's at it again, trying to defy an immovable timetable. Hate to break it to you, Michael, but one week of rest isn't going to cut it.

If Turner plays, you can expect him to struggle, and you can potentially expect him to limp off the field again.

McCoy might concern you after he had six carries for 2 yards last week, but the Eagles hardly made an effort to establish him in an easy 34-7 victory over the Falcons. You can bet they'll need him in this week's game against the division rival Giants, which means he should get back to scoring his usual 10-15 Fantasy points.

Like I said, easy call. Of course, I can think of a few scenarios where I might end up starting Turner this week. Not everyone is lucky enough to have McCoy as an alternative.

Who is "the" wide receiver in Minnesota? Early in the year, it was Percy Harvin. Then, Sidney Rice exploded on the scene. Now it seems like it's back to Harvin. I don't like to start two wide receivers from the same team, but I've gotten away with it the last two weeks even though I had to watch Pierre Garcon and Calvin Johnson go off on my bench. Of those four, which two should I start? -- Paul MacLean, Singapore

SW: It's still Rice. He's the one I'd trust, anyway. Harvin has topped 100 yards receiving only once this season. Rice, on the other hand, has topped 135 yards three times. And for as much as Harvin has improved in recent weeks, he had 79 yards receiving to Rice's 72 last week. I wouldn't call that 7-yard difference a changing of the guard.

Of course, with the alternatives you have, you can afford to sit both. I can't imagine having enough depth at wide receiver that I'd voluntarily sit Johnson, and Garcon is just as likely to get 100 yards as either Rice or Harvin.

Johnson is a must-start, even for you. His ceiling is too high, regardless of the competition. When injuries haven't held him back, he has done exactly what he should have done this season, putting up 123 yards and 161 yards in his last two healthy games. That 10-yard performance against the Packers on Thanksgiving Day doesn't count because, hey, his knee was sore.

I'd sit Garcon because he has to compete with two elite receiving options in Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark. He seems more likely to get the short end of the stick than any of these other four.

So I guess I'd go with Johnson and Rice. I should point out Johnson runs the risk of disappearing if the Ravens can eliminate the Lions' passing game, so if you want to take an ultra-cautious approach, making sure you get at least something from both of your receivers, you should stick with your two Vikings. But again, Johnson has the most potential for a monster game, even with the tough matchup.

You can e-mail your Fantasy Football questions to DMFantasyFootball@cbs.com. Be sure to put Attn: Dear Mr. Fantasy in the subject field. Please include your full name, hometown and state and we'll get to as many as we can.