Dear Mr. Fantasy: A scenario to bench Peyton

This is it. Don't get scared now.

I don't mean to go all Kevin McCallister on you, but I can't help it. I'm scared for you, agonizing over your starting lineup for the championship game, convinced the wrong decision will undo four months of flawless ones.

I'm also scared for me, because if I cause someone to steer away from his own instincts and he loses the championship game because of it, I know what's coming: "Look what you did, you little jerk."

I'm living alone.

I'm in my league's championship game but have some big decisions at wide receiver for Week 16. Out of Roddy White, Reggie Wayne, Steve Smith (Giants), Terrell Owens and Josh Cribbs, which three should I start? Wayne has been solid all year, but with Darrelle Revis shutting down wide receivers every week and the Colts possibly resting their starters for the playoffs, I'm seriously considering benching him this week. -- Kris Young, Binbrook, Canada

SW: Yep, looks like Revis dominates this question over any of the wide receivers you mentioned. Funny how a player you can't even own in most Fantasy formats can have such an impact on it.

Smith, with six-plus catches in five of his last seven games, is probably the safest option you have, and I'd still consider White a no-brainer. He's at the doorstep of his third straight 1,000-yard season and is a threat to go for 80 yards and a touchdown any given week. Granted, he's coming off two of his worst performances of the season, but one of them came against -- you guessed it -- Revis. You kind of have to give him a free pass.

So your choice comes down to Wayne, Owens and Cribbs, with Wayne having all the problems you mentioned. By starting him this week, you'd be asking him to do what no wide receiver has done this season: get the best of Revis.

Still, you have to consider your alternatives before automatically sitting a guy just because he happens to face Revis. I found myself in a similar situation last week and chose to start White. It didn't work out, but it wouldn't have worked out with any of my alternatives either. It's a matter of gauging which of two unlikely outcomes is more likely. Personally, I'd rather take the chance on a stud finally getting the best of Revis than have to start waiver fodder like Cribbs.

And I hate to say it, but Terrell Owens, apart from that two-week stretch right after the Bills fired coach Dick Jauron, fits into that same category.

So I'd stick with Wayne as my third wide receiver. I wouldn't hope for much from him, but at least I could hope for something.

Like most people, I had Jerome Harrison on the bench last week. I started Chris Johnson and Thomas Jones, so I can't be mad at myself for making the smart move. But moving ahead, I have concerns about Thomas Jones' health and stamina. He's getting older and has a lot of carries this year while Harrison's legs are fresh and quick. Plus, the Browns have an easier schedule than the Jets over the last two weeks. I'm not expecting anything like last week out of Harrison, but is it crazy to think he could finish stronger than Jones? Also, I'm in a league with no playoff system. The winner is the person with most total points over the course of the year. Head-to-head matchups don't matter. In this format, who would you start between the two? -- Paul Schroeder

SW: Yeah, nobody saw Harrison's 286-yard, three-touchdown day coming. Nobody even saw a 28-yard day coming, not after he got only seven carries Week 14 against the Steelers and appeared on his way out of a rushing rotation headed by Chris Jennings and Josh Cribbs. I don't understand the people who complain about their decision to bench Harrison last week. They should try starting Larry Johnson or Shonn Greene this week and see how that goes.

Fortunately, you seem to take a more sensible approach to your "mistake," Paul, examining what it means for your future instead of your past. You have to think the Browns wouldn't steer away from Harrison now, not after he had a near record-setting performance. Then again, you wouldn't think they'd have steered away from Jennings after he ran for 73 yards and a touchdown against the Steelers one week earlier. Apparently, 3-11 teams can afford to act on impulse, willing to entertain whatever whim strikes them at whatever moment.

For that reason, I'd probably stick with Jones just because I wouldn't want to have any regrets. You know he'll give you 10-15 points like he has every week, with last week being only one of three exceptions, the last one coming way back in Week 3. Harrison would most likely put up similar numbers as the Browns every-down back, but since they haven't shown any loyalty to any of their backs this season, you have to wonder how quickly they'll pull the plug on him if he gets off to less than a record-setting start. Would I start him? In most cases, yes, but not in place of an every-week starter like Jones.

You can afford to take a chance on him and his upside a little more than most Fantasy owners, Paul, because your entire season doesn't ride on this one week. If you start Harrison and he lays an egg, oh well; you'll make up for it next week. But a lousy performance from Harrison would cost most Fantasy owners the season when all they might have needed was another dozen points from Jones.

Who do I start in Week 16: Alex Smith against the Lions or Peyton Manning against the Jets? I would start Manning if the Colts were playing for something, but I'm not sure an undefeated record is enough for the Colts to push hard between now and the start of the playoffs. -- Claude Raposo

SW: Every week, someone asks this same basic question, and every week, it gets harder and harder to answer.

This week, it comes with the added wrinkle of matchups. Smith faces a Lions defense that ranks dead last against the pass, allowing a total of 31 touchdowns through the air this season, while Manning faces a Jets defense that ranks first against the pass, allowing only eight passing touchdowns in 14 games.

And oh yeah, they have that Darrelle Revis guy.

This is the kind of decision that'll keep you up at night from now until you have to finalize your lineup Sunday afternoon. I wish I could give you some clarity with a well-reasoned argument that would leave you convinced you made the right decision even if you didn't get the right outcome, but I can't make up my own mind. I could see it going disastrously wrong for you either way.

On the one hand, the Colts already showed they'll keep playing their starters with nothing on the line but an undefeated season, leaving Manning in for a full 60 minutes last week at Jacksonville. And he responded with one of his best performances of the season, throwing four touchdown passes. On the other hand, they weren't playing the Jets.

I can't get over that aspect of it. Yes, the Colts could decide three weeks is a reasonable enough amount of time to rest their starters for the playoffs and remove Manning and company at halftime. It's possible. But of equal concern to me is how well Manning will play even if he does stick around for the whole game.

Together, the two threats might just convince me to start Smith, who usually throws multiple touchdown passes and has the perfect opportunity for several more this week. Then again, he's coming off his worst game of the season, giving the 49ers reason to lean on Frank Gore instead.

You never bench Manning -- never. It's one of the easiest calls in Fantasy. But my gut tells me to fear the Jets defense more than the 49ers playcalling, especially with the added threat of Manning playing less than 60 minutes. So even though it goes against everything I've learned from past failures, I might just bench a first-round pick in Manning for a midseason waiver claim in Smith.

But my decision has just as much to do with starting Smith as sitting Manning. I am in no way calling Manning a must-sit.

I came into the playoffs as the first-place team and have advanced to the finals for Week 16. I have gone with the "stick with your big guns no matter what" mantra all season, but I'm wondering if there is a time and place to go against it. I can only start three of Maurice Jones-Drew, Ray Rice, Rashard Mendenhall, Pierre Thomas, LeSean McCoy and Justin Forsett. Jones-Drew is a starter no matter what, but with Rice and Mendenhall having tough matchups against each other, should I consider sitting either or both? -- Ed Vance

SW: There's a time and place for everything, Ed, which includes sitting your studs. That's why, in between pulling out fistfuls of hair, I just suggested sitting Peyton Manning for Alex Smith.

I still feel sick about it, though, after spending much of the last two weeks convincing you and everyone else to stick with elite players during this crucial part of the season. But even the most rigid guidelines apply only 95-99 percent of the time, which of course leaves 1-5 percent of the time for me to contradict myself.

Given those figures, you might guess the odds of me going against conventional wisdom twice in the same column aren't especially good. And you'd guess right.

You have two must-start running backs, Jones-Drew and Rice, and for most teams, Mendenhall would fall into that same category. Yes, the Ravens probably won't let him rush for 100 yards, but Matt Forte and Kevin Smith each topped 60 against them in the last two weeks. And you know Mendenhall will get the call if the Steelers get inside the 5-yard line.

I understand the temptation to bench Mendenhall for Thomas and don't think it would be the worst move in the world considering Thomas' favorable matchup against the Buccaneers. But I can't get over the fact he has only six carries in two of his last three games and no more than 13 in any of his last seven. The Saints don't use him consistently enough to make him a sure thing no matter who he faces.

Mendenhall won't have his best game of the season, but his role on offense makes him a safe bet to put up worthwhile numbers regardless of his opponent. I'll take that kind of security this time of year.

I have four good running backs: Chris Johnson, Frank Gore, Laurence Maroney and Knowshon Moreno. Johnson is a clear must-start. After that, it's as close of a toss-up as you can get. What's the scoop? -- Jarrett Jobe

SW: As close of a toss-up as you can get? What did Gore do to get on your bad side?

Sure, he missed two games early with an ankle injury. Yes, he had a quiet three-game stretch when the 49ers went with more of a spread offense. But over the last two weeks, Gore has reemerged as the focal point of the 49ers offense, rushing for more than 100 yards each time. And he has a dream matchup this week against the Lions.

How does he even compare to Moreno, who could only muster 42 yards on 19 carries against a 26th-ranked Raiders defense, or Maroney, who for all of his touchdowns, still plays for an offense aching to throw the ball?

Gore is hands-down your No. 2 and a must-start for anyone who owns him. If you need a third running back, go with Maroney. He has a good machup against the Jaguars and has proven more reliable than Moreno.

I have Adrian Peterson, Ricky Williams and Jamaal Charles at running back and Brandon Marshall, Mike Sims-Walker and DeSean Jackson at wide receiver. I can start two and only two at each position. I'm leaning toward Peterson and Williams at running back, mostly because Charles faces the Bengals, who have a tough defense. Sure, Peterson tore them up a few weeks ago, but the Vikings have a good offensive line and Brett Favre to keep defenses honest. The Chiefs have neither. I hate benching Charles now, but Ricky Williams has also been good and faces a mediocre Texans defense. At wide receiver, Marshall and Jackson seem like the obvious choices, but I hate the fact Jackson faces the No. 2 pass defense and could have to go against Champ Bailey. Sims-Walker has a decent matchup against the Patriots, but he has been inconsistent on the road. What should I do? -- Jerry Enger, Philadelphia

SW: Seems like you reasoned your way through these decisions pretty well, Jerry. Maybe I can help put the finishing touches on them.

You wouldn't want to bench Peterson -- that's a given. So your choice, as you surmised, comes down to Williams and Charles. I'd hate to bench Charles after he rushed for 297 yards over the last two weeks, but I'd hate to bench Williams any time. Considering Charles' two big games came against the Bills and Browns, two of the worst run defenses in the league, you can expect him to take a step back against the third-ranked Bengals. Williams, on the other hand, should continue to do what he always does against the Texans. Sounds like a good tiebreaker to me.

Try not to overthink your decision at wide receiver. Bailey is one of the best cornerbacks in football, but he doesn't have the same shutdown ability Darrelle Revis does. Jackson earns his points with big plays, and he needs only one to make him worth your while. Besides, the Eagles pass the ball no matter who they face (as all LeSean McCoy owners know).

Sims-Walker isn't a bad start, especially after he bounced back with a touchdown last week, but his inconsistencies lately have put him a good two steps behind Jackson in terms of Fantasy relevance. Matchups won't make up for that difference.

Anyone who has Tom Brady probably is in their league's consolation game, at best. I started him faithfully all year, again, only to have him fail in the semifinals. He's still a top quarterback, but his value will be down next year. -- Bob Hoffman, Schenectady, N.Y.

SW: I'll admit Brady's worst game came at the worst possible time for his Fantasy owners, but you can't hold it against him when assessing his value for next year. I can assure you he didn't go into last week's game at Buffalo thinking about the Fantasy ramifications of his performance and then choke because of it.

I realize you never said he did, but you seem to suggest this bad game carries more weight than most. Every stud quarterback will have a bad game now and then. They can't control when it happens. Drew Brees' came in Week 3, Aaron Rodgers' came in Week 14, and Brady's happened to come in Week 15.

I'll agree too many people drafted him with the expectation he would repeat -- or at least approach -- his 50-touchdown season of 2007, but 4,000 yards and 25-30 touchdown passes would still place him among the top five quarterbacks in Fantasy every year. I'd take him fourth behind Peyton Manning, Brees and Rodgers.

And if I managed to survive last week even with his disappointing performance, you can bet I'd start him again this week.

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.