Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
2008 $35,000 Subscriber Contest (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Makavity
- Start date
I had Rivers, Schaub, and Warner (31$)I agree with your overall strategy to go for the win, and avoid the conservative moves you might make in a 50 person contest. For QBs, I didn't think Brady would repeat 07, which means he wasn't worth the price, IMO. After that, I didn't think any of the next tier was going to consistently put up big weeks to justify them (I was wrong about this). It came down to money vs roster spot decision. I had toyed with a few Romo pairings, but I didn't like anyone in the bargain bin outside of Warner. QB is such a huge scorer, I thought you were risking too much by having a Romo-Shaub, Romo-Rivers pair alone. I didn't think Warner would finish the season in a million years, but I knew he would be on a ton of rosters, and was capable of weeks where he outscored my combo by 20 pts. So, I went Warner and the middle tier QBs I thought had the best value. Adding the 3rd QB, is a bit of a conservative move I guess, but I figured, I could spend the money I saved avoiding a wasted roster spot elsewhere. 2 or 3 QBs was definitely my biggest strategic decision. It basically set the tone for my team, where I went for a more level roster than I usually have. There are two ways to approach the randomness in these things. One, you grab guys that you think have an outside chance to completely explode, and mix them with studs. I chose to have a bunch of guys I thought would have good years, and let the random big weeks work in my favor. It worked for QB and RB, not for WR. I drafted Reggie Williams over Bryant, b/c I was afraid Bryant could be a string of zeros, while I thought Williams would be pretty likely to scored enough to matter 4-5 weeks.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Thanks for the reply, I find the aftermath discussion interesting. You mentioned earlier that Warner saved you 2 weeks. Would you have made it with Warner/Rivers or Warner/Schaub? I agree that rolling with Warner and another was a big risk. I really wanted McNabb and/or Romo on my team. I had Warner/Romo loaded on a couple of occasions but couldn't trust Warner to last until week 10. He shared a bye with McNabb. Went with McNabb/Romo and got tripped up by a point or two when they were both out when Marshall and Prater pooped the bed.I've heard a bunch of people swear by 3 QBs. I'm curious how much those folks actually use all three when none miss significant time. I'm still in the camp that risk management is a losing strategy most of the time when you're competing against a field this deep and strong.Doug...do you have any way to setup a query that would give you results back based on the total score over the last three weeks?
I agree, I love the breakdown as much as the preseason analysis. I would have still finished 2nd without Schaub. I started him 3 times, including week 15 (Rivers was <2pts behind). The earlier weeks, I would have lost 3 and 4 pts respectively, but I was far enough ahead of the cutline. Without Warner, I would have missed the week 9 cut by 20+. As it stands, I made it by 1.3 pts, with Rivers on bye and Schaub tossing up a 5 spot, when he got hurt. Thats pretty funny, I was high on McNabb as well. If he was a few dollars cheaper, that may have been my QB combo.These are the players from my roster that I would have finished exactly the same withoutSchaub 13$Muhamad 5$R. Williams 8$M Nugent 1$If it weren't for 7/10 of a point in week 9, I would have done the same without my most expensive player in Portis.
Das Boot
Footballguy
What would also be interesting would be to see how many teams would have taken first place if they'd only taken Warner instead of spending $5 somewhere else that didn't end up helping them. But since they didn't take Warner, they got knocked out at some point due to a low or zero scoring QB week.The team that won this year could have been knocked out in week 9 when Romo was injured and Brees had a bye - he took a zero at QB that week. Warner put up 28.9 points in week 9.There are an infinite number of what-ifs, and tons of ways to reverse engineer teams that would have done great without Warner.208 out of the final 250 teams had Warner. That pretty much says it all.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
I breifly looked at this for the first few weeks. I took a look at the teams who just missed the cut and surprisingly enough Warner would not have helped most of them as they already had a QB who out pointed him. Now I didn't look at a large population, but what I found was that most of the close misses resulted from week WR or TE scores moreso than a weakness at QB. One explanation might be that the field as a whole is overvaluing the QB position and weighting it's team accordingly. As someone mentionede earlier, Brees/Warner would have been money.Das Boot said:
massraider
Footballguy
BINGODas Boot said:
Das Boot
Footballguy
as a 2nd QB.I'll throw in my $.02.1. The annual results in this contest basically reflect how each season evolves. The 2008 season did not have extremely dominant performances by high-priced stud players, and the major difference makers in weeks 14-16 were players like A. Bryant, Rivers, D. Williams, etc. The 2007 season had dominating performances by Brady and R. Moss. The 2006 season had dominating performances by LT and P. Manning IIRC. Thus, in many years, if you are lucky enough to pick the right high-priced stud(s) (and a decent supporting roster), they can carry your team throughout the 13 weekly cuts and weeks 14-16.2. The fact that prices are set on August 1st and not updated means that a subgroup of players are substantially "mispriced" and undervalued on Sept. 1st at the end of camp because of (1) injuries to starters and back-ups moving up, (2) players in competitive situations winning starting positions, etc. Basically, the expectations for this subgroup of value players have improved significantly by the end of training camp.3. Roster structure - Should you have 2 or 3 QBs? Should you have 1, 2 or 3 TEs? How many kickers and DST's? How many RBs and WRs? With starters of 1 QB, 2 RBs, 3 WRs, 1 TE, 1 Flex, 1 K, 1 DST, then I think it's obvious that you need, at a minimum: 2 QBs, 4 RBs, 5 WRs, 2 TE, 1 K, and 1 DST -- or 15 players. What's the best way to allocate the remaining 7 roster slots? Are 2 very good QBs sufficient? Can you get by with 1 K or 1 DST? Do you need a 3rd TE to provide support for the Flex position? Obviously, a lot of RBs and WRs are desirable for depth and to cover bye weeks. The "default" roster has 3 QBs, 6 RBs, 7 WRs, 2 TEs, 2 Ks, and 2 DSTs. Another low-priced, high-value RB/WR/TE could be very valuable, especially considering the Flex position. But do you take the slot from the 3rd QB, 2nd K, or 2nd DST? And is the additional RB/WR/TE more valuable than the 3rd QB or 2nd K or 2nd DST? It might be an interesting study -- but of course it depends on who exactly is selected at each position -- so there's a huge amount of possible variation.4. Of the final 250 teams, over 60% had 3 QBs. Similarly, over 60% had exactly 2 TEs or 2 K's or 2 DST's. Only 3 teams had a single TE, only 1 team had a single K, and only 6 teams had a single DST. But some of these teams finished in the top-50. What is more valuable: (1) a 3rd QB, (2) a 3rd TE, (3) a 2nd K, or (4) a 2nd DST? I don't know. I did some quick calculations that indicated that a 2nd kicker was worth, on average, between 3.5 and 4 additional points per week. If you pick one of the kickers who performs among the best, then you might only be sacrificing 2 points per week, on average. But if your single kicker gets hurt or has a bad year, then you might be sacrificing 5 or more points per week, on average -- and 3-15 points in any single week. Is a 3rd low-priced QB like Warner worth more than 4 points per week? Probably so because of the big points scored by QBs -- but I really don't know. I think the reason that 208 of the final 250 teams had Warner was because it was obvious that he was a good value pick on Sept. 1st -- and the teams that survived 13 cuts made wise roster selections in general. A total of 6,496 teams (out of 12,650) -- about half -- selected Warner, but he was on over 80% of the final 250 teams. IMO, picking Warner alone did not substantially increase the odds of the 208 teams surviving to the final group -- but it's consistent with those teams making smart decisions overall.5. Do you focus on surviving the 13 weekly cuts, or do you focus on winning the contest (assuming you survive the 1st 13 weeks)? IMO the correct answer is that you've got to focus on both objectives simultaneously -- which means optimizing value of the entire roster while maintaining maximum diversification. Should you not select Slaton at $1 because it's obvious that the vast majority of other teams will also select Slaton -- of course not. I'd argue that you should fill your roster with all the low-priced, high-value players you can find. All of them will not work out, but if you get a bunch of them, then some will work out very well -- and others will be valuable in certain weeks which will help you avoid elimination -- and maybe turn into players like A. Bryant in weeks 14-16.
Verbal Kint
Footballguy
so, when does this start up this year? 
gobrowns33
Footballguy
I was wondering the same thing......Verbal Kint said:so, when does this start up this year?
a_troll00
Footballguy
Probably the first week of August like last year. We still have a few more weeks to wait... :(I was wondering the same thing......so, when does this start up this year?
Similar threads
