Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

flc735

Members
  • Content Count

    1,178
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About flc735

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. There is no such thing as revenge games. Physical specimens going at 100% on both sides of the ball can't suddenly will themselves into a magical performance. Sure sometimes they will have a good game against a former team but that just has to do with them being able to perform.I don't agree. I don't think it's the players ability but I do think it's reasonable for coaches to take this into account when they put together the game plan. "Hey it's Andre going up against his old team. Let's see where we can get him involved more in this game".
  2. Whelp, same story 2 years in a row. My team was doing very well except I spent $58 on Charles and CJA. Last year it was $55ish lost on ball and Martin. I still have bell, Ingram and cmike so I'm hoping for CJA or cmike break out and save me.
  3. I think it's easier to reliably increase your total points over the course of a season by spending the $3+$3 on the 3rd & def and kicker than it is by using that $3+3 for a skill position flyer or upgrade.I spent $15 on NE and IND kickers and it's already paid off. I made the week 2 cut by 5 thanks to Gradkowski's 19 points and I'm going to have a big advantage there for as long as these cheap kicked struggle. I spent $7 on 3 kickers (OAK PIT CAR). I got 11.00 in week and 16.40 in week 2. That's compared to 4.0 and 19.60 for yours. I just think that diversification is better and can be done cheaply at that position.-QG I think using those $2 kickers to further strengthen a strong Kicker group is a good use of money. Using the $2 kickers as a way to avoid spending at the position at all is not a good strategy. A lot of teams did this spending only $4 or $5 at the position. I think you would be better off if you added up to 2 more $2-$3 kickers to that group and took the downgrade where ever you could most afford it Assuming you have a medium or large roster size
  4. To me it is. Historically, rostering three of each leads to a higher survival rate. Both positions are volatile and unpredictable, so spending an extra $2-3 on each is definitely worth it to me. Maybe it's a question of whether you're trying to give yourself the best chance to make the final cut, or give yourself the best chance to finish in the top 10 if you do make the final cut.I'm not so sure that is the tradeoff. There are a lot of kickers that are capable of 18 point games randomly throughout the season. The lesser kickers will have a lower weekly floor which brings thier expected ppg and cost down. The more you have, the more likely your kicker group will have a big week or three through the playoffs.
  5. I think it's easier to reliably increase your total points over the course of a season by spending the $3+$3 on the 3rd & def and kicker than it is by using that $3+3 for a skill position flyer or upgrade.I spent $15 on NE and IND kickers and it's already paid off. I made the week 2 cut by 5 thanks to Gradkowski's 19 points and I'm going to have a big advantage there for as long as these cheap kicked struggle.
  6. What was the thinking behind rostering DAW without bell? Why not handcuff miller or forsette if you are going that route?
  7. Were the starting req's different last year?
  8. He was a no brainer at $26. I don't see how a team can win it all without him.I had him all preseason and decided to switch him out last minute after seeing him on just about every roster that was posted on this thread to increase my uniqueness. Lesson learned :/
  9. Not picking gronk doesn't mean you are opting for 1 less stud on your roster. Most of the non-gronk users have chosen to spend that extra money on a stud at another position. For me, I decided to go with L Bell over Gronk. Either way I was using those $33 on a stud. Only problem with spending it at RB is the return on investment isn't as good. Obviously you need a stud RB performance to win. I can see Bell over Gronk in many situations, but anyone passing on Gronk or WR for flex points from the RB position is making a mistake. If it was strictly an either or situation, FBGs has Gronk projected for more ppr and he obviously has the early bye week. Sorry I typed a long reply to this and lost it. Dodds has gronk scoring 0.7 ppg more than bell in 1.5 te ppr I agree te and wr are better values than rb. I went with bell so I wouldn't have to roster mid rbs that I would be counting on to help at my flex spot. Going stud rb heavy allows me to add multiple te's and wr's that would give me more games with wr's and te's counting at my flex spots. I agree, I just approached it in a different way.
  10. Not picking gronk doesn't mean you are opting for 1 less stud on your roster. Most of the non-gronk users have chosen to spend that extra money on a stud at another position. For me, I decided to go with L Bell over Gronk. Either way I was using those $33 on a stud.
  11. Meh. Gronk is awesome, but at $33 he better be awesome. I managed to roster Miller, Daniels, and Ebron at TE and still have an extra $8 to spend on something like Eddie Royal and Cole Beasley.Sure, Gronk will outscore my starting TE the vast majority of the time, if not every week but his bye. But I've added 2 viable flex options and 2 viable high-variance WRs (or some other combo of players) too. The goal isn't to maximize TE scoring. Agree. I got all six guys below for $33. I'm sure Gronk won week 1, but I think my six guys will hold their own even if Gronk stays healthy (big if). $9 - Eifert - 7 $7 - V.Davis - 10 $6 - L.Green - 10 $4 - Gillmore - 9 $4 - G.Graham - 9 $3 - V.Green - 7 Funny, as I basically did the same but with receivers (adams, dorsett, Wheaton, locket, cbrown instead of Julio or Calvin) but I'd rather have Gronk and risk injury. If I was a betting man, I would put my money on Gronk every week to out perform the highest player from this group. And in the finals, when you need huge games, no one from this group has the ceiling of Gronk. He can put up the 30+ point games....these guys don't have the talent or opportunity to do this.I used a similar TE strategy. Gronk was very reliable last season with the majority of his games scoring 15-20 points. The TE group he has will get him those points consistently through the season. With that said, Gronk had two (but only two) big games last year that this group can't replicate. On the other hand, this group will also be able to help out with flex scores and will minimize risks of injury and bye weeks. Gronk only had two 30+ point games last season. If you want to increase your monster games you should focus on wr's. If you think Gronk will have a record breaking season than he is the obvious choice. If you think he will have a season similar to last year, I think a group of lesser TD's is the better option.
  12. Is gronk going to have 36 touchdowns this season? Is that possible?
  13. When I say luck I mean "the top qb". I think he was $20 last year vs Aaron Rodgers at 25ish? My point is the top scoring qb is going to out produce virtually any best ball combo of qb's for the same price. The strategy here should be to aim to roster the #1 qb no matter what price. If it's cheaper than $26,thats a nice bonus for you. Rostering the #1 and #18th qb is better than rostering the #3 and #5 qb, for example I rostered Luck but in a best ball format I disagree. There will be plenty of mid priced combos that keep pace or even outdo Luck. Well that's just not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it's the numbers.Last year, luck+bortles best ball scored 452 points through 17 weeks Brees+Peyton best ball (the #3 and #4 scoring qbs) scored 451 through 17 weeks and cost a lot more What happens is a lot of the 15-25 point games that the unused qb gets each week do not get counted in best ball and go to waste. It seems like you have 2 near stud qb's but you are only getting half of thier value out of each. I don't know the answer, but total points is irrelevant for 1st 13 weeks. It's each weekly total that matters. How many times do the cheaper combo out score the pricey stud (if they do at all)? That's what matters for 13 weeks anyway. For the 1st 13 weeks Luck/Bortles outscores Brees/Manning 8 out of 13 weeks. I think the other important question is this no1/cheapo better than 3/4 just happen to be the case last year or is norm in any given year. My guess is in 2013 the no1 guy would of been best as well as Manning was the clear no1. But in 2012 the top 4 were pretty close and better play might of been 3/4.It would have held true with Rodgers as well. There is a big difference between those top 1-2 qb's vs the next tier or qb's. Who ever you think will be the top qb is the guy you should take. Save money on your backup and use it to help you elsewhere. That is the best use of your money at qb in this contest.
  14. When I say luck I mean "the top qb". I think he was $20 last year vs Aaron Rodgers at 25ish? My point is the top scoring qb is going to out produce virtually any best ball combo of qb's for the same price. The strategy here should be to aim to roster the #1 qb no matter what price. If it's cheaper than $26,thats a nice bonus for you. Rostering the #1 and #18th qb is better than rostering the #3 and #5 qb, for example I rostered Luck but in a best ball format I disagree. There will be plenty of mid priced combos that keep pace or even outdo Luck. Well that's just not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it's the numbers.Last year, luck+bortles best ball scored 452 points through 17 weeks Brees+Peyton best ball (the #3 and #4 scoring qbs) scored 451 through 17 weeks and cost a lot more What happens is a lot of the 15-25 point games that the unused qb gets each week do not get counted in best ball and go to waste. It seems like you have 2 near stud qb's but you are only getting half of thier value out of each. I don't know the answer, but total points is irrelevant for 1st 13 weeks. It's each weekly total that matters. How many times do the cheaper combo out score the pricey stud (if they do at all)? That's what matters for 13 weeks anyway.As far as data goes, I'm analysing all 17 weeks to get a bigger sample size. Divide 451/17 and 452/17 to get the points per game = 26.2 ppg. The answer is the same. I made a fake mfl league with the scoring this contestcontesto get these uses to compare the numbers if you want to look for yourself http://football23.myfantasyleague.com/2015/top?L=64425&SEARCHTYPE=BASIC&COUNT=500&YEAR=2014&START_WEEK=1&END_WEEK=17&CATEGORY=overall&POSITION=QB&DISPLAY=points&TEAM=*
  15. When I say luck I mean "the top qb". I think he was $20 last year vs Aaron Rodgers at 25ish? My point is the top scoring qb is going to out produce virtually any best ball combo of qb's for the same price. The strategy here should be to aim to roster the #1 qb no matter what price. If it's cheaper than $26,thats a nice bonus for you. Rostering the #1 and #18th qb is better than rostering the #3 and #5 qb, for example I rostered Luck but in a best ball format I disagree. There will be plenty of mid priced combos that keep pace or even outdo Luck. Well that's just not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it's the numbers.Last year, luck+bortles best ball scored 452 points through 17 weeks Brees+Peyton best ball (the #3 and #4 scoring qbs) scored 451 through 17 weeks and cost a lot more What happens is a lot of the 15-25 point games that the unused qb gets each week do not get counted in best ball and go to waste. It seems like you have 2 near stud qb's but you are only getting half of thier value out of each.