Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Hunter11

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Hunter11

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Dallas Cowboys

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't think he's saying he's sorry that he used those guys. He's just apologizing for saying 3 guys when it was really 4.
  2. Hyde is an easy fade for me. I don't feel like his price has been discounted at all based on the injury. I wouldn't love him @AZ even if there wasn't that added worry. In fact, it's such a bad spot that even if he scratches, I'm not sure I want anything to do with Breida for $5,000 either. Baldwin is priced well enough on Yahoo that he's worth a look in GPPs, but on FanDuel there is again no discount for the injury. It's just a few hundred dollars to "pay up" for Michael Thomas or AJ Green, or you can take Hopkins or Keenan Allen and actually save money, so I'll pass on Baldwin. Yeah, the ownership % will be low, but when the reasons not to own him are so obvious, I don't mind following the crowd.
  3. That's a neat find, as there isn't a lot of coverage out there for Yahoo DFS. I've never heard of Dean Shavelson, so can't vouch for him. I've been reading articles and listening to podcasts from Pianowski for several years, and felt like he was the 2nd-best Yahoo analyst, with Dalton Del Don being #3. (I believe Andy Behrens was the best Yahoo had to offer, but Pianowski and DDD were ahead of Funston/Evans/Loza, and especially Salfino.) I'm not sure how well-versed Scott and Dalton are with regard to DFS, but they at least know fantasy football. I may not trust them yet, on things like DFS roster construction, ownership percentages, and the like, but they'll bring a lot of knowledge and experience, when it comes to simple "this player should do well/this player should struggle" commentary. As far as the Leveon Bell take, I may not have high exposure to him this week, but I'm not going full fade either. He's the 7th-highest priced player at running back, and there haven't been many chances to get him that cheap. He was 2nd-highest at FanDuel this week, which is more like what we're used to. I don't expect a "middlin" performance out of the Ravens this week. Either they rise up at home, and blast a division rival that is supposed to be the class of the AFC North (to get the taste of the London game out of their mouths) or they fold under the weight of that Week 3 loss and the travel schedule (used to be that teams always got a bye week after a London game). If they fold, it could be a big week for Bell, and I'm not going to miss out on it altogether, while his price has bottomed out.
  4. I think the reason they all have Hyde, and Gurley wasn't quite as prevalent, is because so many of them were Goff stacks. And people aren't as prone to use a RB from their QB stack as they are to use the RB opposite their QB stack. (Generally speaking.) In my original post, I didn't say that catching the Thursday game stacks would be "impossible." What I said was "Catching the people who hit big in the Thursday game is going to be extremely difficult." And it proved to be extremely difficult. When I said that there turned out to be no way to make up the ground, it might be better stated as "no one managed to make up the ground." Yes, I'm sure that the perfect Sunday lineup would have outscored all of the Thursday stacks I was looking at. But nobody found those perfect Sunday lineups, so nobody made it to the top few slots in these GPPs if they had zero Thursday players. Anyone who skipped the Thursday game also skipped winning the tournament.
  5. I also pay much more attention to the Yahoo contests, and also do so because of the overlay. I don't play cash on FD at all, just a few tournaments each week, like you. But then I'll usually have $200-$500 in play each week on Yahoo. If you start a "Yahoo Week 4" thread, I'll participate. lol
  6. Looking at my main Thu GPP, 27 of the Top 30 have Carlos Hyde. 15 of the Top 30 are Goff stacks, and another one is a Hoyer stack. All 30 have at least one player from the Thursday game. So yeah, people in this contest who faded the Thursday Night game not only didn't win, but didn't get particularly close, either. And the Top 30 is dominated by lineups that used multiple players or stacks from the Thursday game. Feels like things played out pretty much exactly how I said, in my first post of the thread. And unfortunately, the idea of "going for differentiation all the way up and down the card" and avoiding the chalk plays that the Thursday stacks used, didn't pan out for anyone. It wasn't possible to catch up to the Thursday stacks using that strategy,because there really wasn't enough "chalk" used by the Thursday stacks. I saw tremendous variation, in the players selected by the Thursday stacks. They weren't sitting on enough of the same guys, so there was no way to make up enough ground against all of them.
  7. 150 lineups is way too much work when you're first dabbling in GPPs. These events are way more fun than cash games, and building lineups for them is way more fun than constructing lineups for cash games. But in order to KEEP it that way, you don't want to overwhelm yourself by putting together 150 lineups. That's a whole lot of clicking. If you want to put $150 in play, consider 50 lineups in a $3 event, or 75 lineups in a $2 event. If you really want to put the maximum number of entries into an event, then just play an event with a lower cap than 150 entries.
  8. Completely agree that the people who went super-crazy-all-out with 7 or 8 roster spots in this game (and who are the current leaders) will not finish at the top. I just think that it is more than "a little" worrisome that this game went off, for people who faded it. It's a lot worrisome, and I don't feel like the people who faded this game should just ignore that it happened, and build their lineups the same as they would if this game had finished 17-10. It's worth looking at the salaries of Gurley/Hyde/Watkins (and to a lesser extent, Goff and Garcon) and seeing what kind of money these people will have left, and what the "chalk" plays for them are NOW likely to be. And then try to avoid THAT chalk. That doesn't mean avoiding all chalk, just the chalk that these particular contestants will be on. Because you don't want to share 3 or 4 players with them, and then hope that the players where you differ will be able to outscore the names I just listed. That's a very low-percentage approach. You have to hope that some of their chalk plays bust, and that means you need to not be on those players. I play GPPs mainly on Yahoo, and I had maybe 8-9% exposure to Gurley and 15% to Hyde. More like 2-3% on Watkins. The ownership percentages on those players (most especially Hyde) are way higher than my own exposure to them. Hyde's ownership was over 40% in a lot of events there. I have a lot of ground to make up, and I don't think I can do it by landing on the same players that those people will fill out the rest of their rosters with, and then just telling myself that "well, maybe the guys I have that they don't have will score even higher than Gurely/Hyde/Watkins did."
  9. Have to disagree with KarmaPolice on this. Catching the people who hit big in the Thursday game is going to be extremely difficult. It doesn't matter that the people at the VERY top of the standings only have one player left to go. It matters that there are so many people who got the lion's share of those points using fewer players. My Thu-Mon tournaments are full of lineups that go Goff/Gurley/Hyde/Watkins, or Goff/Gurley/Hyde/Watkins/Garcon, or (less commonly) even Goff/Gurley/Hyde/Watkins/Woods/Garcon. These guys don't need to dodge many pitfalls, to guarantee high placings. All of these lineups have a good amount of money left to spend, you can't catch them by using the same players that they'll fill out the rest of their rosters with, and hope that the players where your lineup differs from theirs will outscore the likes of Gurley/Hyde/Watkins. It's just incredibly unlikely to pan out that way. You need differentiation all the way up and down the card, now. Winning with lineups that faded Thursday in Week 3 is going to be at least as tough as winning with lineups that faded Thursday in Week 1 (where the top finishing lineups were dominated by entries that included the likes of Tyreek Hill, Mike Gillislee, and especially Kareem Hunt).
  10. Ah, okay. So going forward, we should expect to see only 1 entry from each of the staffers? In that case, I would likely give this contest a try next week.
  11. I notice there's more than one entry from "tipandpick" in the contest. Not sure if all of the staffers have multiple entries or not. In order to finish ahead of all 5 staffers, do you need to finish ahead of all of their TOP lineups? Or just finish ahead of all of their WORST lineups?