Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ignoratio Elenchi

***Official*** 2012 FBG Subscriber Contest Thread

Recommended Posts

The contest we're in doesn't eliminate everyone who guesses wrong.

Nobody stated that it did.

And yet the situation that he used for his analogy implied that it was. His analogy is useless specifically because of this quality of the contest.

You want to basically have the exact same roster as everyone else, and then have a different single player who outperforms all other unique players in the playoff weeks. That would be the "perfect" scenario.

He wasn't trying to demonstrate the perfect scenario. He used a very simple example to demonstrate the advantage of uniqueness.
He did a bad job. He used a situation not analogous to ours, at all. It was so simple that it was flat out wrong. Because his scenario was not at all like the one in which we are in, it's ramifications are not applicable.

Uniqueness is vastly overrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, literally a thousand different roster combos so my thought process is a little blurred but...

I eventually decided to go with a smaller roster and take risks that guys won't get hurt. the stud prices seemed cheaper and the values picks didn't seem as plentiful as other years.

At QB Matt Ryan seemed to wind up in about 80% of my rosters. Usually with RG3 as back-up. I decided to go with Locker as back-up instead and use the extra money elsewhere. I really can't remember why now. If Ryan gets hurt my season is prob over early. I think Locker will be fine, but he'll put up average numbers and that won't keep me in the game long.

Matt Ryan $19

Jake Locker $9

Only 4 RB's is pretty scary, especially since Benson is RB#4. I think my second biggest risk in the contest is that he gets benched before the bye weeks are over. I personally think that won't happen or I wouldn't have drafted him, but the risk is huge. I am pretty damn confident about my first 3 guys scoring more than just about every other team if they are healthy. Benson has a limited job to do for GB and I think that he can do it.

Arian Foster $34

Doug Martin $21

Adrian Peterson $21

Cedric Benson $3

Ok now to my biggest worry... I have 2 Wr's, Matt Ryan, Matt Prater and Philly's Def on week 7. I figure that I'll prob score about 12 less points if every is healthy week 7. If another WR is hurt week 7 then my contest is over. I think Douglas and Gordon will break out mid-season and will contribute by that time. So hopefully Gordon has a nice week 7.

Julio Jones $23

Brandon Marshall $22

Percy Harvin $20

Kenny Britt $13

Harry Douglas $3

Josh Gordon $3

I'm fine at TE even if Graham gets hurt. Davis also has a good match-up during his bye week.

Jimmy Graham $29

Fred Davis $14

I have guys that kick and aren't off at the same time. Seriously, I think Prater is a value.

Matt Prater $3

Justin Medlock $3

Philly will prove to be the best fantasy defense this year and AZ will surprise and has a good match-up when Philly is off.

Philadelphia Eagles $6

Arizona Cardinals $4

Just my humble thoughts and worth the price you paid. This year, I'm going big or going home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contest we're in doesn't eliminate everyone who guesses wrong.

Nobody stated that it did.

And yet the situation that he used for his analogy implied that it was. His analogy is useless specifically because of this quality of the contest.

You want to basically have the exact same roster as everyone else, and then have a different single player who outperforms all other unique players in the playoff weeks. That would be the "perfect" scenario.

He wasn't trying to demonstrate the perfect scenario. He used a very simple example to demonstrate the advantage of uniqueness.
He did a bad job. He used a situation not analogous to ours, at all. It was so simple that it was flat out wrong. Because his scenario was not at all like the one in which we are in, it's ramifications are not applicable.

Uniqueness is vastly overrated.

Agree. That example would make sense if the rules were that everyone with one same guy that scores the same gets eliminated, even if 90% have him, but that's not how this contest works. If 90% of the remaining players had the same guy and he has an off week, a good portion of those 90% will still make it to the next week, depending on who else they have, whereas if that guy has a big week, most of the other "unique" 10% will be gone. The rules of this contest are very different from the rules in that example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the very few 30 player entries chiming in. My overall strategy is to have lots of shots on goal outside of the RB and TE positions. RB value was crazy at the very top compared to the other positions. TEs have extra value from the 1.5 ppr scoring setup for the contest, so investing in a top TE in Graham plus a solid second in Keller felt smart. Expecting TE will be my flex at least a couple of weeks. Predicting big weeks with top K and DST selections is unwise at best, as juicy matchups, bad weather, or luck often dictate scoring more than low points or yards allowed (both worth nothing in the contest). Tried to get many, many reasonable WRs to have shots at TDs when the top candidates have off weeks. Nobody huge at WR, and I'll need some late season help from two #1 WRs in Britt and Blackmon reaching top form.

-------

Alex Smith $12

Andrew Luck $11

Jake Locker $9

Blaine Gabbert $6

Weakest position for my team, but not too bad. QB is excluded from the flex position, so if more than one guy has a decent week, it's just wasted points. Luck has excellent upside, as does Smith. Counting on Gabbert for garbage time stats.

-------

Arian Foster $34

Darren McFadden $26

Michael Bush $10

Rashad Jennings $9

David Wilson $9

Cedric Benson $3

I wanted Rice and Foster, but Rice and Foster have the same late week 8 BYE. I like Foster a bit more than Rice, plus Rice may see some late season weather issues outdoors at M+T Bank Stadium. A bad snowstorm may end up being a contest killer for Rice owners. McFadden seemed excellent value. Bush should be the goal-line vulture in Chicago. Not trusting MJD to have a good year after his holdout, so Jennings may see some extended duty. Like many others, Bradshaw's stem cell injected foot worries me so Wilson felt like a very high upside choice (except he just fumbled tonight). Benson was too cheap not to take for a starting RB.

-------

Malcom Floyd $13

Kenny Britt $13

Justin Blackmon $7

Jonathan Baldwin $4

Kevin Walter $4

Jeremy Kerley $3

Andre Roberts $3

Early Doucet $3

Louis Murphy $2

Really, really like Britt for obvious reasons. Blackmon is a cheap #1 WR who should get decent garbage time stats in ppr. Floyd doesn't have to compete with VJax anymore, VBrown is out with the ankle, and Gates will draw a lot of attention. Meachem is a threat, but Rivers knows Floyd and Floyd knows the offense. For the others, I tried to focus on guys opposite good WR#1s that team may game plan against (e.g., Fitz, Andre, Bowe). Chiefs will see the defenses stack against the run and Bowe will draw primary coverage, giving Baldwin some chances. Walter is hot and cold, perfect for this kind of contest as his $4 cost is worth maybe three or four weeks of decent scoring. Kerley is a lottery ticket, as there are few options for the Jets. Either Roberts or Doucet should have some opportunities across from Fitz, although the QB situation is scary. Murphy on new team across from Steve Smith. Last report was "impressive", for what that's worth. Between these WRs, I need some luck here and there. But really every team does.

-------

Jimmy Graham $29

Dustin Keller $10

Scott Chandler $6

TEs get 1.5 ppr, so went a bit stronger with the position. Graham is a lock, and Keller is good for the price. Chandler is like six and a half feet tall, and another year with Fitzpatrick won't hurt his goal line TD totals (which is pretty much his main value).

-------

Rob Bironas $3

Matt Prater $3

Shaun Suisham $3

Justin Medlock $3

Predicting kickers is dicey at best. 50+ yard FGs are worth 6 points (same as TDs), so Prater in Denver seemed like a good choice. Other than that, just took the cheapest kickers with best projections (#13, #14, #15, and #16), and all with unique BYE weeks. Have some minor concern over not many dome kickers, but weather can't be bad everywhere.

-------

Bengals $3

Saints $3

Chiefs $3

Browns $3

Strength in numbers approach. No scoring bonuses for low points or yards, so just playing the field with unique BYE week options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those who emphasize uniqueness in this contest:If I'm completely unique with 3 of the 6 most-owned PK's and 2 of the 6 most-owned D's, why do I need to worry about uniqueness for the rest of my roster?It seems like it would be pretty darn hard to come up with a roster that's not unique, so I don't get why we need to strive for uniqueness in putting together rosters. I would think it's much more important to score higher, but maybe I'm missing something... :shrug:

I'll make it simple. Say you have a totally random coin-flip contest between you and 9 other people. You all choose heads or tails and whoever chooses wrong gets eliminated. The winners flip again and start the process over. When the coin is in the air, you disclose which side of the coin you chose. Which of these would you rather have be the case?...Scenario 1:You - HeadsOther guys - Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, TailsScenario 2: You - HeadsOther guys - Tails, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads?Of course, you'd rather be the one guy whose choice was unique. Under scenario 1, you have a 50% shot at winning the contest on the first flip and 50% chance to lose. Under scenario 2, you have a 50% chance of losing on the first flip, but if you win the coin toss, you still only have a 11% chance to win the contest.Not a perfect example, but you should get the idea by now. Assuming that all else is equal (and you think your players are as good as everyone else thinks their players are), uniqueness is very very good.With that said, all that really matters is that your players are better than everyone else's players. But when the probability of you winning this contest is very very small, you want to have players that the other contestants don't have.
well put
No it's not. This is a terrible example that has no parallel to this contest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided that (2 kickers + Julio) > (3 kickers + Decker + scrub WR). It seems like there is more variability in Defense scoring compared to Kicker scoring so I sacrificed a Kicker rather than a D.

Already having regrets about my lineup as that scrub WR that I got rid of last night was Ogletree. :cry:Of course, another half like that and he will have almost exceeded 3 out of 4 of his projections for the entire year which are shown on the website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on uniqueness, which certainly could be wrong, was that it was "bad" in the regular season (weeks 1-13) but "good" in the playoffs (weeks 14-16). In the regular season, with eliminations, you want the guy that everyone owns. If Benson goes for 30, you need that to avoid elimination. But in the playoffs, although you'd like Benson's 30, it's cumulative score over 3 weeks so you'd rather hope that Emmanuel Sanders goes for 30 on your team. So you want a lot of the common guys on your roster, but you'd like to have several that you don't think other teams have AND that you think could do well in weeks 14-16. That's how I approach it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I got OTree for 3 bones.

I looked many times to try and squeeze 3 bucks from somewhere, but NO, could not find a way. Idiot. I know it's 1 half of the 1st game, but he looks like he was worth 3 bucks so far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My team. Finished in the money last year:

QB: Matt Ryan $19

QB: Andrew Luck $11

With Atlanta's new quick paced, no huddle offense, I think Ryan will put up stats close to the most expensive qbs. Debated my # 2 with Flacco (Ravens also going to try new fast paced O), and Luck. I went for the upside with Luck. Think he has a lot of monster games in him. Before last year I always went 3 qbs. It burned me last year as I lost Schaub to injury late in the year, and only had Stafford. Just couldn't make 3 QB's work financially.

RB: Ray Rice $33

RB: LeSean McCoy $32

RB: Jacquizz Rodgers $10

RB: Robert Turbin $6

RB: Kendall Hunter $6

RB: Jonathan Dwyer $4

RB: Cedric Benson $3

RB: Evan Royster $3

Love my rb stable. PPR puts more value on rb's who can catch and I feel like I got the two most complete backs in Rice and McCoy. I am all in with the Falcons Offense, and I think Rodgers will see a ton of playing time. Lynch is already banged up, so Turbin is a good bet to pick up starts during the year. Same with Hunter, as Gore has a ton of tread on his tires. I think Dwyer has a great shot of being the feature back for the Steelers. Benson and Royster are just great value at $3 a piece.

WR: Julio Jones $23

WR: Reggie Wayne $15

WR: Pierre Garcon $14

WR: Justin Blackmon $7

WR: Danny Amendola $6

WR: Harry Douglas $3

I like the quality, abhor the quantity. Only 6 wr's (2 from the same team) leaves the margin for error thin. Did I mention I was all in with the new Falcons O this year? Reggie Wayne is nowhere near the receiver he was 5 years ago, but Luck will look for him a ton. Julio Jones should take the next step to elite status, and I feel Harry Douglas offers value as the # 3 on that offense. RG3 looked Garcon's way quite a bit during the preseason, and I am hopeful it carries over. Blackmon at $7 was too good to pass up, and Amdendola should be back to form after his elbow injury. He is the perfect low cost receiver in this contest. Doesn't score, but is a reception machine. Every little bit counts in this contest, so it's nice to count on a 10 point effort each week. One injury to this crew will sting.

TE: Aaron Hernandez $23

TE: Martellus Bennet $4

TE: Joel Dressen $4

Wanted 4 tight ends, couldn't make it work. I think Bennet has a solid year for the Giants, and although Tamme gets all the fantasy hype, I think Dressen might end up being the better fantasy option.

K: Matt Prater $3

K: Connor Barth $3

K: Josh Scobee $3

K: Matt Nugent $3

Don't need expensive kickers, just alot. The times I was close to missing the cut, it was always a great performance from a kicker and defense that saved me. I just made sure that none of my kickers or D's had the same byes.

D: Redskins $3

D: Rams $3

D: Bengals $3

D: Saints $3

See above. In those close weeks, it is often the kicker or D that makes all the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the 1st page update. :thumbup: Shocked at the overwhelmingly large amount of people using 18 roster spots

Studs > duds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, you don't want any of your players have big games week 1. everyone moves on I believe, so why waste a big game, it is not like they will score a lot of points every week. a handful of players do, but most players have a few big weeks and the bust/boon ones are all or nothing. I'd take the all's in the critical cutdown weeks and byes to save my team from the Turk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My squad

Tom Brady $30

Andrew Luck $11

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm in on Brady this year, looks like not many of you are, I'll take my chances.

Marshawn Lynch $19

Peyton Hillis $14

Rashad Jennings $9

Bilal Powell $4

Rashard Mendenhall $4

Cedric Benson $3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still think Lynch is a steal at that price, especially if the back doesn't flare up. Hillis is also a nice deal and then I just need one of the other four to score consistently.

Brandon Marshall $22

Percy Harvin $20

Brandon Lloyd $18

Titus Young $10

Kendall Wright $6

Danny Amendola $6

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hoping for 100 catches for Marshall and Harvin, 85 for Lloyd and Young.

Jimmy Graham $29

Antonio Gates $20

Martellus Bennett $4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two studs and a backup.

Mike Nugent $3

Matt Prater $3

Shaun Suisham $3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New England Patriots $5

Arizona Cardinals $4

Kansas City Chiefs $3

Gotta have three K's and D's in my opinion.

Good luck everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried something different this year. Instead of over thinking it, I just waited until 10 pm Tuesday, went down the list, and clicked the names that looked like the best values. I checked what I had, and was shocked to find that I was at $259 and 31 players. I checked my byes and only found one potential conflict, so I cut two players, added another to patch my bye issue, and hit submit. Easy. We'll see how it goes this year, but I like the squad.

QBs-

Vick ($22)

Locker ($9)

Skelton ($7)

Tannehill ($4)

I love Vick in this contest. Love him. People are forgetting just how unreal he was in fantasy back in 2010. He's got higher upside than the big 3 at a lower cost, and this game is all about upside. Plus, he's relatively unique, which means if he goes off I've got a huge advantage against the field. Locker was my last addition to help get me past Vick's bye. Skelton and Tannehill finish out a corps that has four starters for the price of two to help cover for Vick's added risk.

RBs-

Doug Martin ($21)

Jonathan Stewart ($16)

David Wilson ($9)

Robert Turbin ($6)

Rashard Mendenhall ($4)

Jonathan Dwyer ($4)

Cedric Benson ($3)

Evan Royster ($3)

Between Martin, Stewart, The Pitt Pair, and Benson, I love my chances of getting two startable scores a week. Stewart gives me all-world upside and some more differentiation from the pack. Turbin, Royster, and Wilson are lottery tickets- I looked at trading them in for a single $17 back, but there was no one else in that range that I liked.

WRs-

Steve Johnson ($18)

Mike Wallace ($16)

Lance Moore ($11)

Randall Cobb ($9)

Justin Blackmon ($7)

Kendall Wright ($6)

Alshon Jeffery ($6)

Eddie Royal ($2)

I've really been warming on Steve Johnson recently, and thought he gave me a good, dependable value play. Wallace continues giving me upside. I like Lance Moore as a sneaky play with Meachem out- any injuries in NO and he can blow up. Cobb, the three rookies, and Royal were obvious value plays, IMO. Huge upside for the cost.

TEs-

Jimmy Graham ($29)

Lance Kendricks ($9)

Joel Dreessen ($4)

Graham was my one big splurge. I didn't like very many value plays at TE this year, so I decided to spend big and get a stud. The two values I did like are potential second-year breakout Kendricks, and stupidly-underpriced Dreessen.

PKs-

Jason Hanson ($4)

Randy Bullock ($4)

Matt Prater ($3)

Greg Zuerlein ($3)

A pair of $4 guys in great offenses, a pair of $3 guys with huge legs.

Ds-

New York Jets ($4)

Denver Broncos ($4)

Cincy Bengals ($3)

The Jets are the chalk pick. Denver is because any defense with a pair of pass rushers like Miller and Dumerville has explosive upside. Cincy was the best of the $3 bunch.

So there you have it. Not a lot of studs, but I focused on potential difference makers. I'm not interested in finishing in the 90th percentile, I want to finish in the 99.9th percentile. I wanted to leave myself with a plausible and clear narrative which could leave me with the best team, and I think the Vick/Stewart combo accomplishes exactly that. If those two players go big (which they're demonstrably capable of doing), then my team is going places. Only 8 other teams in the entire contest features that duo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew Stafford $26

I think the one QB play is the right risk to take in this format. I took a top tier QB with an early bye. I flirted with the Vick/Flacco combo but wanted the money elsewhere.

LeSean McCoy $32 Darren McFadden $26 Stevan Ridley $16 Jonathan Dwyer $4 Cedric Benson $3

Went top end RB with value guys that I'm sure most rosters have. Ridley was a tough call and a player I went back and forth on. Also went back and forth on McCoy vs. Chris Johnson vs. Arian Foster.

Larry Fitzgerald $25 Julio Jones $23 Brandon Marshall $22 Pierre Garcon $14 Justin Blackmon $7 Danny Amendola $6

Like RB, I went top tier here. I would imagine Blackmon and Amendola are on most rosters. I wanted WRs that could put up 30 point games and I think I have that here.

Antonio Gates $20 Martellus Bennett $4 Kellen Davis $4

Loved Gates' value and then selected a couple 40 reception guys. I thought there were several good values at TE this year.

Adam Vinatieri $3 Matt Prater $3 Rian Lindell $3 Jacksonville Jaguars $3 Carolina Panthers $3 Washington Redskins $3

You need to go 3/3 here IMHO.My risks are A) week 5 with no QB. B) Weeks 6 and 7 I have a fair amount of byes. C) Of course McFadden, Gates and Stafford haven't been ironmen so there is obvious risk there. IMHO, the best bet is to take risk early and have your guns loaded for weeks 9+.Garcon/Ridley are my most unpredictable...those guys are probably what makes or breaks this squad's chances.
My team will beat your team and sell it at a yard sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just said uniqueness is bad in the regular season, I'm the only entry with my QB, RB, RB, WR, WR starters. Lovely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Stafford for most weeks with a few explosions by Locker.

Matthew Stafford $26

Jake Locker $9

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I great depth and production from McCoy and Martin with some good depth from the rest.

LeSean McCoy $32

Doug Martin $21

Stevan Ridley $16

Jonathan Dwyer $4

Cedric Benson $3

Evan Royster $3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really like my WR corps from top to bottom...the strength of the team.

Julio Jones $23

Percy Harvin $20

Brandon Lloyd $18

Antonio Brown $17

Titus Young $10

Justin Blackmon $7

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big bounce back year for Gates and some surprise #'s for Bennet.

Antonio Gates $20

Martellus Bennett $4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jason Hanson $4

Matt Bryant $4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Francisco 49ers $6

Indianapolis Colts

Short roster overall, but with some serious quality and no real bye week issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple posts earlier showed how uniqueness can be desirable.

It has to do with the risk/reward of being different from the crowd when it gets down to the final 250.

It's clear that every team that makes the final 250 is a good team - one way or another they've consistently scored good point totals.

Here's a simple example to illustrate the reasoning behind why uniqueness can be a desirable roster characteristic:

Final 250 teams, 249 teams have RB-A, 1 team has RB-B. These 2 RBs have been nails all year, scoring high consistently and a key part of why each of the 250 teams are in the finals.

In the final 3 weeks of the season, there is always a chance that one of these RBs will get injured, or have a bad game, or will only play half a game because his team has clinched a playoff spot, etc.... Or conversely will go nuts with a 250 yard game and 4 TDs.

It could be either of these RBs that has a great week or a poor week, or perhaps even a good or bad 3 week stretch.

If it is RB-A that suffers misfortune, the RB-B owner disproportionately BENEFITS and has a leg up on the ENTIRE field. On the flip side if RB-B is the one that finds the Hawaiian idol on game day and gets injured that day, the RB-B owner disproportionately suffers and is at a severe disadvantage to the other 249 teams.

So if right now you were told your team is in the final 250, and you can have the same high scoring RB as 249 other teams, or you can have an equally high scoring RB that no one else has, which would you choose?

If you agree with this concept, then just back the numbers down to more reasonable ratios to see that it would still be true... e.g. you get to have a RB that 200 other teams have, or one that only 50 other teams have.

Uniqueness is yet another little risk/reward advantage you can use (or avoid) when constructing your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a believer in larger rosters and I think we'll see the same results this year. My personal approach is to have a few studs at the RB/WR position and to manage bye weeks pretty heavily by having studs with early byes. So here we go:

-------------

Josh Freeman $16

Ryan Fitzpatrick $11

Ryan Tannehill $4

Definitely not a sexy trio. I looked at guys that I thought had value here. I believe in Freeman this year and for his cost I thought I would have a potential top 10 QB this year. I believe Carl Nicks will greatly improve Freeman's stats this year. I also believe Fitzpatrick has great upside for his cost. Tannehill I am not depending on, but for $4 as a starter all year, I'll take that every time.

---------------

Matt Forte $27

Darren McFadden $26

Stevan Ridley $16

Rashard Mendenhall $4

Cedric Benson $3

Evan Royster $3

With the increase in RB PPR, it was a no brainer to pick guys that are big PPR beneficiaries. Additionally the bye weeks fit for me with Forte (6) and DMac (5). Early byes so I will be at a strong point for later in the contest. For Mendy, Benson, Royster I personally believe everyone should have them on their squads. 3 starters for $10... not bad.

-----------------------

Brandon Marshall $22

Kenny Britt $13

Titus Young $10

Justin Blackmon $7

Vincent Brown $6

Steve Smith $5

Jon Baldwin $4

Leonard Hankerson $4

Lestar Jean $3

Eddie Royal $2

Ryan Broyles $2

I like Marshall as having great potential and being force fed by Cutler. Early bye week on week 6, but not overly concerned with the number of receivers. I focused on low cost guys that have the potential to be big throughout the year. I took a chance on vincent brown as he was the #1 target for Rivers early on. When he comes back mid-season, he should be a solid producer. Kenny Britt was stellar before his injury and if he can return to form, he should outperform his cost. Young is a solid #2 on a high passing offense. Blackmon is on a crappy team with no other receiving options, so he should have opportunities. Steve Smith or Danny Amendola... someone has to catch the passes in STL and I am gambling on Smith. Hankerson and Baldwin have opportunities. Lestar has looked great in HOU and I think will produce well. Eddie Royal... I must have been drinking. Broyles has all the skills and he's on the lions... enough said.

------------------

Antonio Gates $20

Kyle Rudolph $11

Lance Kendricks $9

I believe Gates will be TE1 by the end of the year. Rudolph/Kendricks both have tremendous ability and if they have the opportunity to go this year, I see my flex coming out of this group most of the season.

---------------------

Alex Henery $4

Jason Hanson $4

Shaun Suisham $3

--------------------

Buffalo Bills $5

New Orleans Saints $3

Miami Dolphins $3

Bought into Defense by Committee this year.

Anyway, 29 players this year. Should be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st post and 1st year with FBG...glad to be part of this great community...

Here is my team...

Matt Ryan $19

Joe Flacco $11

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darren McFadden $26

Peyton Hillis $14

Michael Bush $10

Isaiah Pead $6

Cedric Benson $3

Taiwan Jones $2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Julio Jones $23

Darrius Heyward-Bey $16

Torrey Smith $16

Kenny Britt $13

Brandon LaFell $10

Randall Cobb $9

Davone Bess $6

Devery Henderson $4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aaron Hernandez $23

Brent Celek $12

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sebastian Janikowski $6

Adam Vinatieri $3

Dan Carpenter $3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Francisco 49ers $6

New York Giants $5

New York Jets $4

Good luck everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome EddieSpaghetti. I like your team, 'cept for the runners...lotta turds. Good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Analysis: I just picked a bunch of guys that equaled 250 bucks and made sure I had no bye week problems. Then I changed it around about 30 times.

QB - Matt Ryan - ATL/7 - $19

QB - Jake Locker - TEN/11 - $9

RB - Matt Forte - CHI/6 - $27

RB - Chris Johnson - TEN/11 - $27

RB - DeMarco Murray - DAL/5 - $24

RB - Reggie Bush - MIA/7 - $20

RB - Taiwan Jones - OAK/5 - $2

WR - Julio Jones - ATL/7 - $23

WR - Antonio Brown - PIT/4 - $17

WR - Torrey Smith - BAL/8 - $16

WR - Titus Young - DET/5 - $10

WR - Kendall Wright - TEN/11 - $6

TE - Jimmy Graham - NO/6 - $29

TE - Anthony Fasano - MIA/7 - $6

PK - Robbie Gould - CHI/6 - $3

PK - Matt Prater - DEN/7 - $3

TD - San Francisco 49ers - SF/9 - $6

TD - Cincinnati Bengals - CIN/8 - $3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those who emphasize uniqueness in this contest:If I'm completely unique with 3 of the 6 most-owned PK's and 2 of the 6 most-owned D's, why do I need to worry about uniqueness for the rest of my roster?It seems like it would be pretty darn hard to come up with a roster that's not unique, so I don't get why we need to strive for uniqueness in putting together rosters. I would think it's much more important to score higher, but maybe I'm missing something... :shrug:

I'll make it simple. Say you have a totally random coin-flip contest between you and 9 other people. You all choose heads or tails and whoever chooses wrong gets eliminated. The winners flip again and start the process over. When the coin is in the air, you disclose which side of the coin you chose. Which of these would you rather have be the case?...Scenario 1:You - HeadsOther guys - Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, TailsScenario 2: You - HeadsOther guys - Tails, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads?Of course, you'd rather be the one guy whose choice was unique. Under scenario 1, you have a 50% shot at winning the contest on the first flip and 50% chance to lose. Under scenario 2, you have a 50% chance of losing on the first flip, but if you win the coin toss, you still only have a 11% chance to win the contest.Not a perfect example, but you should get the idea by now. Assuming that all else is equal (and you think your players are as good as everyone else thinks their players are), uniqueness is very very good.With that said, all that really matters is that your players are better than everyone else's players. But when the probability of you winning this contest is very very small, you want to have players that the other contestants don't have.
I didn't see this before I wrote my earlier post, this is an excellent example of the potential benefit of uniqueness.In the coin flip example, you could be the easy winner, or you could be the only guy out in round 1. I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to show off my rooster.

I'm a believer in big rosters and bye week balance. More below.

Pos	Player			Team	Bye	PriceQB	D Brees          	NO	6	$29QB	R Tannehill         	MIA	7	$4

Like many this year, I've hopped on the stud QB bandwagon. Unlike last year (Romo/Stafford) I almost went with no backup hoping the early bye for Brees doesn't kill me. Surprisingly enough, I survived week 5 last year (I believe it was, don't quote me) fairly easily with a zero QB score, so this can be done. I would like to have a better backup QB, and had one of the $11 guys in there for a long time (Fitz/Luck) but in the end believed that relying on either of them to win was a losing proposition. Thought long and hard about Stafford and Vick here, but just thought Brees was better. Not buying the Ryan hype yet, or at least not without a good quality backup - and couldn't get any combination anywhere close to the value of Brees at $29.

RB	S Jackson             	STL	9	$22RB	D Martin            	TB	5	$21RB	D Wilson            	NYG	11	$9RB	R Mendenhall        	PIT	4	$4RB	J Dwyer           	PIT	4	$4RB	C Benson            	GB	10	$3

I always seem to go short on RBs in this contest. I can't tell exactly why I have that tendency, but I made an effort to take higher-rated guys rather than a smattering of lower-level guys. I'm not sure I went far enough. That said, I'm happy with this group. I believe one of the overriding lessons from last year was that the smart play in this contest is to select both properly talented players in a productive situations who are discounted by muddled "starter" information. ie: TE Gronk AND Hernandez was the play last year at their prices. This year, I think the PIT backfield of Mendy + Dwyer (assuming your perspective is the later half of the season) is a similar play. For the price, I'm surprised to see so many rosters with only one of the two. STL WRs, ARI RBs, and NE RBs might be other similar situations this year.

I felt like there was a ton of <$10 value at RB, and had to drastically cut back when I realized I had 10 rostered. Thought Martin had lots of upside and that Jackson could see a lot more work with Fisher in STL.

WR	P Harvin             	MIN	11	$20WR	D Bryant          	DAL	5	$18WR	E Decker            	DEN	7	$17WR	R Wayne             	IND	4	$15WR	T Young             	DET	5	$10WR	J Blackmon          	JAX	6	$7WR	S Smith         	STL	9	$5WR	M Manningham           	SF	9	$4

Chalk me up as another believer in quantity here. For a long time I had 10 WRs and it was the last position I trimmed back, with lots of values under $10. Honestly there were lots of values below $20, I felt. Now that I've drawn attention to the wisdom of picking both cheap STL WRs, I can't tell you why I didn't do so here. I typically like to avoid late week byes (especially week 11) but simply thought Harvin was too much of a value. Also, I'm expecting my flex to typically come from the WR/TE pool, and by week 11 I'm hoping my PIT RB investment can pick up the flex potential of Percy's bye. Strongly considered Harry Douglass, Ogletree (doh), Kenny Britt, and Mike Wallace here. In the end, thinking of Wayne/Wallace/Britt as my WR4, I went with consistency over upside. I don't know if it was a wise decision, but I do have strong belief that any of these guys could start for me any week.

TE	A Gates            	SD	7	$20TE	B Pettigrew          	DET	5	$15

I just couldn't pull the trigger on Graham/Gronk. I'm a believer in Gates as the top target in SD, and that Pettigrew's "move the chains" usage results in more TDs this year. I think he had a very quiet but extremely solid performance in this contest last year. I'm hoping for more of the same.

PK	N Kaeding             	SD	7	$4PK	R Bironas           	HOU     11	$3PK	R Lindell             	BUF	8	$3TD	Raiders                	OAK	5	$4TD	Saints           	NO	6	$3TD	Chiefs           	KC	7	$3TD	Panthers           	CAR	6	$3

APalmer said it earlier. I think K and D are underrated in this contest. Looking back, I have no idea how I ended up with these picks, but I'm a believer in a solid 3 each, and ended up with 4 D because I couldn't find any QBs $3 more expensive than Tannehill I would rather have. Naturally, now that $3 sure looks like a nice Ogletree pick, but whatever.

25 total players, which is definitely lower than usual for me.

"Stud" Byes:

4: WR Wayne5: RB Martin, WR Bryant, TE Pettigrew6: QB Brees7: WR Decker, TE Gates8: none9: RB Jackson10: none11: WR Harvin

I have definitely come to believe that if you are to have a multiple-bye week (or super stud bye week) you want it to occur as early in the season as possible. Obviously the first priority is drafting players you believe in, but for me byes are more than simply a tie-breaker. Week 5 and 7 are clearly my weakest byes, but I feel I can survive week 5 while missing a number of preseason studs as we'll still be weeding out a lot of ill-formed entries by that time. My Jackson and Harvin (top dollar players at respective positions) byes make me nervous, but I'm happy with the bye week distribution and hope that my cheaper guys (such as PIT backfield) have emerged by that time to pick up the slack.

Great contest, great thread as always. Thanks everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

387 people have Ogletree at $3. So far so good for them on that choice! Unfortunately, I am not one of them.

ETA that 34 have Romo and Ogletree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those who emphasize uniqueness in this contest:If I'm completely unique with 3 of the 6 most-owned PK's and 2 of the 6 most-owned D's, why do I need to worry about uniqueness for the rest of my roster?It seems like it would be pretty darn hard to come up with a roster that's not unique, so I don't get why we need to strive for uniqueness in putting together rosters. I would think it's much more important to score higher, but maybe I'm missing something... :shrug:

I'll make it simple. Say you have a totally random coin-flip contest between you and 9 other people. You all choose heads or tails and whoever chooses wrong gets eliminated. The winners flip again and start the process over. When the coin is in the air, you disclose which side of the coin you chose. Which of these would you rather have be the case?...Scenario 1:You - HeadsOther guys - Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, TailsScenario 2: You - HeadsOther guys - Tails, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads?Of course, you'd rather be the one guy whose choice was unique. Under scenario 1, you have a 50% shot at winning the contest on the first flip and 50% chance to lose. Under scenario 2, you have a 50% chance of losing on the first flip, but if you win the coin toss, you still only have a 11% chance to win the contest.Not a perfect example, but you should get the idea by now. Assuming that all else is equal (and you think your players are as good as everyone else thinks their players are), uniqueness is very very good.With that said, all that really matters is that your players are better than everyone else's players. But when the probability of you winning this contest is very very small, you want to have players that the other contestants don't have.
I didn't see this before I wrote my earlier post, this is an excellent example of the potential benefit of uniqueness.In the coin flip example, you could be the easy winner, or you could be the only guy out in round 1. I like it.
i don't think so. kind of.your example is great if this were a 1 week contest, or a total points over the season league but it's not. For the first 13 weeks, it's better to be an average team every week as opposed to the best team for 12 weeks and the worst team for 1.i would say uniqueness is a bad thing for the 1st 13 weeks. uniqueness is a good thing for the last 3 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

387 people have Ogletree at $3. So far so good for them on that choice! Unfortunately, I am not one of them.ETA that 34 have Romo and Ogletree.

I predict that all 387 of them will survive this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

387 people have Ogletree at $3. So far so good for them on that choice! Unfortunately, I am not one of them.ETA that 34 have Romo and Ogletree.

I predict that all 387 of them will survive this week.
:goodposting: From the rules: "Week 1 trim to 13,500 teams (all advance if we have less entries)"Total entries = 13318. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This year, I think the PIT backfield of Mendy + Dwyer (assuming your perspective is the later half of the season) is a similar play. For the price, I'm surprised to see so many rosters with only one of the two.

Nice writeup, our philosophies are pretty similar. :thumbup:Regarding the Steeler RBs, it was an intriguing consideration to lock up 2/3s of their backfield for $8.But there were reasons to take 1 and not the other...Take Dwyer if you want the chance Mendy's knee doesn't hold up or he's not effective running on it, ditto with Redman and his injuries, making Dwyer their RB1 for big chunks of this season.Take Mendy if you like the odds his knee does hold up and he is RB1 for Pittsburgh for the last 12+ games of the season.Taking both covers both scenarios, but at the expense of one of the 2 definitely not contributing points to your contest team.As with just about every roster decision in this contest, it comes down to risk/reward, plus the cap space and position slots you have available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those who emphasize uniqueness in this contest:

If I'm completely unique with 3 of the 6 most-owned PK's and 2 of the 6 most-owned D's, why do I need to worry about uniqueness for the rest of my roster?

It seems like it would be pretty darn hard to come up with a roster that's not unique, so I don't get why we need to strive for uniqueness in putting together rosters. I would think it's much more important to score higher, but maybe I'm missing something... :shrug:

I'll make it simple. Say you have a totally random coin-flip contest between you and 9 other people. You all choose heads or tails and whoever chooses wrong gets eliminated. The winners flip again and start the process over. When the coin is in the air, you disclose which side of the coin you chose. Which of these would you rather have be the case?...

Scenario 1:

You - Heads

Other guys - Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails

Scenario 2:

You - Heads

Other guys - Tails, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads

?

Of course, you'd rather be the one guy whose choice was unique. Under scenario 1, you have a 50% shot at winning the contest on the first flip and 50% chance to lose. Under scenario 2, you have a 50% chance of losing on the first flip, but if you win the coin toss, you still only have a 11% chance to win the contest.

Not a perfect example, but you should get the idea by now. Assuming that all else is equal (and you think your players are as good as everyone else thinks their players are), uniqueness is very very good.

With that said, all that really matters is that your players are better than everyone else's players. But when the probability of you winning this contest is very very small, you want to have players that the other contestants don't have.

I didn't see this before I wrote my earlier post, this is an excellent example of the potential benefit of uniqueness.

In the coin flip example, you could be the easy winner, or you could be the only guy out in round 1. I like it.

i don't think so. kind of.

your example is great if this were a 1 week contest, or a total points over the season league but it's not. For the first 13 weeks, it's better to be an average team every week as opposed to the best team for 12 weeks and the worst team for 1.

i would say uniqueness is a bad thing for the 1st 13 weeks. uniqueness is a good thing for the last 3 weeks.

In general I agree with the bolded.

Not that uniqueness is categorically bad for the first 13 weeks, but in general it does expose you more when the simple goal is to make the cut each week.

Of course uniqueness from the get go can help too, e.g. the Ogletree owners are starting out on the right uniqueness foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Steeler RBs, it was an intriguing consideration to lock up 2/3s of their backfield for $8.But there were reasons to take 1 and not the other...

Entirely fair points, and you are completely correct on the opportunity cost of the risk/reward you see elsewhere in the roster choices. I feel that people tend to "put blinders on" across positions to some extent. ie: "Here are my RB byes, they're balanced. Oops, I forgot to look at the combination of WR + RB byes" sort of thing. I know I do this, and I get the sense from many posts here that others do the same. That said, that's entirely what I did when evaluating the Mendy/Dwyer picks... If either one becomes the main RB in PIT, I think we all believe they are both vastly more talented than $4 (or even $8). My bet was simply that I wanted the PIT backfield for $8 versus any other RB I could pick up for that price. Obviously I'm discounting Redman, but I simply don't see the talent with him. But your point is well taken - saving $4 on one of the runners plus one of my 4 defenses, and suddenly I can afford one of the better backup QBs I would have liked to have - and that's simply a risk/reward calculation I didn't make because of my "RB blinders" when making the evaluation. Thanks for the helpful post.Edit:Not arguing the point one way or the other, but I found this interesting:
Total teams with Mendenhall: 2,426Total teams with Dwyer: 1,637Total teams with both: 338
So there are 4k+ people who believe the PIT RB situation is likely to have good production later in the season. (I didn't look at Redman ownership and if any of these rosters were handcuffing him) But only 338 who thought the opportunity cost of $4 was worth getting both backs on their team. The PIT RB situation is more muddled with 3 RBs, but I'm curious if this selection trend holds in other situations where there are only two players to consider. If I get around to looking at it, I'll post something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on uniqueness, which certainly could be wrong, was that it was "bad" in the regular season (weeks 1-13) but "good" in the playoffs (weeks 14-16). In the regular season, with eliminations, you want the guy that everyone owns. If Benson goes for 30, you need that to avoid elimination. But in the playoffs, although you'd like Benson's 30, it's cumulative score over 3 weeks so you'd rather hope that Emmanuel Sanders goes for 30 on your team. So you want a lot of the common guys on your roster, but you'd like to have several that you don't think other teams have AND that you think could do well in weeks 14-16. That's how I approach it anyway.

Agree that uniqueness is "bad" in the regular season (weeks 1-13), and can be "good" in the playoffs, but I'm not sure it's very easy to pick a unique player that will explode in the playoffs that's still unique by then (uniqueness for a player that outproduces will decrease as his owners survive), and far outscores players for similar cost on other teams.If Benson goes for 30 in the playoffs, you'd still better have him for the $3 it would have cost. Having a pretty unique player go for 30 is great if he's far outscoring other players for the same cost, but if it's $23 Philip Rivers (0.7% owned) while $19 Matt Ryan goes for 40 (34.8% owned), you're behind those Matt Ryan owners, who have 10 extra points and $4 extra for other players. The Ryan/Benson owner would be way ahead of the Rivers owner in this example, with $1 to spare.On the other hand, if that 30 comes from $7 Emmanuel Sanders (1.9% owned), and other receivers score much less than 30 that week, you have a big advantage. However, if others used that $7 on Blackmon (28.1% owned), and he also scores 30, that advantage is gone (unless you also have and used Blackmon's 30). There's a good reason $7 Blackmon is more commonly owned than $7 Sanders, as most entrants think Blackmon is likely to score more than Sanders. I tend to agree with the owners of Blackmon and most of the higher-owned players, so finding unique players that will far outproduce the heavily-owned players for the same price is not very easy.So bottom line is I agree that uniqueness can be good in the playoffs if you have someone who will outscore others at the same price, but I think that will be rare, and it's more likely that uniqueness will help get you eliminated in the first 13 weeks (e.g., Rivers' week 7 bye while more common Rodgers/Brees/Brady/Stafford go off).Thanks for the explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Steeler RBs, it was an intriguing consideration to lock up 2/3s of their backfield for $8.But there were reasons to take 1 and not the other...

Entirely fair points, and you are completely correct on the opportunity cost of the risk/reward you see elsewhere in the roster choices. I feel that people tend to "put blinders on" across positions to some extent. ie: "Here are my RB byes, they're balanced. Oops, I forgot to look at the combination of WR + RB byes" sort of thing. I know I do this, and I get the sense from many posts here that others do the same. That said, that's entirely what I did when evaluating the Mendy/Dwyer picks... If either one becomes the main RB in PIT, I think we all believe they are both vastly more talented than $4 (or even $8). My bet was simply that I wanted the PIT backfield for $8 versus any other RB I could pick up for that price. Obviously I'm discounting Redman, but I simply don't see the talent with him. But your point is well taken - saving $4 on one of the runners plus one of my 4 defenses, and suddenly I can afford one of the better backup QBs I would have liked to have - and that's simply a risk/reward calculation I didn't make because of my "RB blinders" when making the evaluation. Thanks for the helpful post.Edit:Not arguing the point one way or the other, but I found this interesting:
Total teams with Mendenhall: 2,426Total teams with Dwyer: 1,637Total teams with both: 338
The PIT RB situation is more muddled with 3 RBs, but I'm curious if this selection trend holds in other situations where there are only two players to consider. If I get around to looking at it, I'll post something
I think the recent big thread about Dwyer is what spiked interest in people taking a flyer on him in this contest.I really wanted Mendy but I didn't like the uncertainty of how his knee will hold up, so ultimately I didn't keep him.On the plus side, I think it's a contract year for him too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made it pretty far last year but got killed by injuries late. I had a small roster last year so decided to go bigger this season. I expect to do worse this season:

Ryan - 19

Sanchez - 7

Tebow - 6

I took a wild shot with the jets crew figuring one of them will score week to week.

Ridley - 16

Spiller - 15

P thomas - 10

M leshore - 9

Benson - 3

Royster - 3

Brown - 2

Nothing flashy, just lots of hoping for a couple to emerge

AJ greene - 22

Harvin - 20

Brown - 17

Washington - 12

L Moore - 11

Collie - 9

blackmon - 7

j baldwin - 4

Jones- 3

J Gordon - 3

some high profile guys and a lot of longshots

FInley - 16

Cook - 11

K Davis - 4

Weaksauce

Rackers - 3

Barth - 3

Tynes - 3

Seatke - 4

Denver - 4

Bengals - 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple posts earlier showed how uniqueness can be desirable.It has to do with the risk/reward of being different from the crowd when it gets down to the final 250.It's clear that every team that makes the final 250 is a good team - one way or another they've consistently scored good point totals.Here's a simple example to illustrate the reasoning behind why uniqueness can be a desirable roster characteristic:Final 250 teams, 249 teams have RB-A, 1 team has RB-B. These 2 RBs have been nails all year, scoring high consistently and a key part of why each of the 250 teams are in the finals.In the final 3 weeks of the season, there is always a chance that one of these RBs will get injured, or have a bad game, or will only play half a game because his team has clinched a playoff spot, etc.... Or conversely will go nuts with a 250 yard game and 4 TDs.It could be either of these RBs that has a great week or a poor week, or perhaps even a good or bad 3 week stretch.If it is RB-A that suffers misfortune, the RB-B owner disproportionately BENEFITS and has a leg up on the ENTIRE field. On the flip side if RB-B is the one that finds the Hawaiian idol on game day and gets injured that day, the RB-B owner disproportionately suffers and is at a severe disadvantage to the other 249 teams.So if right now you were told your team is in the final 250, and you can have the same high scoring RB as 249 other teams, or you can have an equally high scoring RB that no one else has, which would you choose?If you agree with this concept, then just back the numbers down to more reasonable ratios to see that it would still be true... e.g. you get to have a RB that 200 other teams have, or one that only 50 other teams have.Uniqueness is yet another little risk/reward advantage you can use (or avoid) when constructing your team.

But this works both ways and that's the point. Say your team is the one with e unique RB in your example. If that RB is the one that gets hurt or suffers a bad 3 week stretch, then to the other 249 teams, it might not seem like a big deal. BUT it is a big deal to you, which is what you care about, your team. Now if that other RB has his normally solid stretch of 3 games then your in a hole to 249 teams because you we're unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those who emphasize uniqueness in this contest:If I'm completely unique with 3 of the 6 most-owned PK's and 2 of the 6 most-owned D's, why do I need to worry about uniqueness for the rest of my roster?It seems like it would be pretty darn hard to come up with a roster that's not unique, so I don't get why we need to strive for uniqueness in putting together rosters. I would think it's much more important to score higher, but maybe I'm missing something... :shrug:

I'll make it simple. Say you have a totally random coin-flip contest between you and 9 other people. You all choose heads or tails and whoever chooses wrong gets eliminated. The winners flip again and start the process over. When the coin is in the air, you disclose which side of the coin you chose. Which of these would you rather have be the case?...Scenario 1:You - HeadsOther guys - Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, TailsScenario 2: You - HeadsOther guys - Tails, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads?Of course, you'd rather be the one guy whose choice was unique. Under scenario 1, you have a 50% shot at winning the contest on the first flip and 50% chance to lose. Under scenario 2, you have a 50% chance of losing on the first flip, but if you win the coin toss, you still only have a 11% chance to win the contest.Not a perfect example, but you should get the idea by now. Assuming that all else is equal (and you think your players are as good as everyone else thinks their players are), uniqueness is very very good.With that said, all that really matters is that your players are better than everyone else's players. But when the probability of you winning this contest is very very small, you want to have players that the other contestants don't have.
I didn't see this before I wrote my earlier post, this is an excellent example of the potential benefit of uniqueness.In the coin flip example, you could be the easy winner, or you could be the only guy out in round 1. I like it.
i don't think so. kind of.your example is great if this were a 1 week contest, or a total points over the season league but it's not. For the first 13 weeks, it's better to be an average team every week as opposed to the best team for 12 weeks and the worst team for 1.i would say uniqueness is a bad thing for the 1st 13 weeks. uniqueness is a good thing for the last 3 weeks.
:goodposting: Exactly. The problem with this example is that it's not an all or nothing proposition. Uniqueness, IMO, isn't a good thing or a bad thing. Our teams are unique enough or will become so as you move down to the final 250. there is no need to purposely seek out additional uniqueness. Think about it this way, say you had only one unique player. You'd need him to outperform the common player. Now, add a 2nd unique player, he still needs to outperform the common player because if he doesn't, you lose the edge you gained from the first unique player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no illusions that I have a winning team, so I went with one that I would enjoy having on my roster with teams I enjoy watching on Sunday ticket. If I make it to week 9 I feel like I did great this year, week 8 is my best finish so far.

Tom Brady

Jake Locker

I am a M#######, so had to take Brady this year

Chris Johnson

Darren McFadden

Stevan Ridley

Cedric Benson

Hoping these three RB's will keep me in it for at least 8 weeks...

Andre Johnson

Julio Jones

Dez Bryant

Kenny Britt

Santana Moss

Moss is my sleeper this year, I think he performs like a WR 45 this year!

Antonio Gates

Jermichael Finley

Want that 1.5 pts per reception to push me to week 9

Rob Bironas

Robbie Gould

Matt Prater

Atlanta Falcons

New York Jets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've rethought my stance on uniqueness, specifically referring to the final 3 weeks. And I think that IF the following condition is met, uniqueness is a good thing. That condition is that you don't give up any (or not much) production in order to be unique. Here's a brief example, I won't show my work but can if anyone disagrees with the numbers:

Let's assume there's only 5 teams in this thing (for simplicity). The differences between the teams are made up in 3 positions, QB, RB, WR. They share every other player in common (again for simplicity).

Team A: Rodgers, Foster, Calvin

Team B: Rodgers, Foster, Julio

Team C: Rodgers, Foster, Fitz

Team D: Rodgers, Foster, Andre Johnson

Team E: Brees, Rice, Marshall

Now, if we assume (this is the condition I mentioned), that each player is equally likely to outscore it's peers at the same position (we'll use by 5). So theres a 50% chance that Rodgers = Brees + 5, and vice versa. Same with Foster/Rice, and the % for the WR's are 20%.

So there are 20 possible combinations:

If Rodgers > Brees and Foster > Rice (25% chance of happening) then whoever has the best WR of Team A through D wins. So A through D have a 6.25% chance of winning.

If Brees > Rodgers and Rice > Foster (also 25% chance) then Team E wins no matter which WR is best. So E gets a 25% chance of winning.

There is a 50% chance that the QB's and RB's cancel each other out, so the net for them is 0. It then comes down to whoever WR does best, and each has a 20% chance, so each team gets an additional 10% chance of winning. Final winning % are:

Team A: 16.25%

Team B: 16.25%

Team C: 16.25%

Team D: 16.25%

Team E: 35%

I haven't tried extending this to more teams, so I'm not positive if it holds or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. The problem with this example is that it's not an all or nothing proposition. Uniqueness, IMO, isn't a good thing or a bad thing. Our teams are unique enough or will become so as you move down to the final 250. there is no need to purposely seek out additional uniqueness.

:goodposting:

Where you fall on uniqueness partially goes back to your philosophy for this contest. I believe in doing what's best for the first 13 weeks, and taking my chances in the final 3 weeks, so I tend to believe that uniqueness is an unimportant consideration. If you fall on the other side of the former debate, then you may also align with those who believe uniqueness is important.

I'll start by saying I believe it's probably true that, all else being equal, it's better to be more unique than less unique in the final 250, if your goal is to win the grand prize. This is similar to the idea that small rosters are better because they exhibit greater variance - with a more unique team, you're more likely to end up at the extreme ends of the final standings. You're either going to be near the top, or near the bottom. With a less unique team, you may be more likely to finish in the money, maybe in the top 50, but less likely to be the #1 overall team. I don't know if that's actually true, but it's my intuition. This is where the earlier coin flipping example is somewhat appropriate - if everyone picks heads, they'll all be huddled around each other in the standings, so to speak; if you go against the grain and pick tails, then you're either going to win the thing right away or lose right away. From a contest perspective, if you only care about winning the $20,000, and have no interest in winning $25-50 for coming in the top 100 or whatever, then uniqueness is probably your friend. I think most people probably fall in this boat.

But as with many other contest discussions we've had in the past, we need to remember what we do and don't control. You don't get to pick a new lineup leading in to week 14. You have to make your selections in August. While it's occasionally obvious that some players will have relatively high ownership percentages (Benson this year, Foster a couple years ago, etc.), for the most part you don't actually know how heavily owned a player will be. Furthermore, unlike the hypotheticals that are often presented in this debate, it's never actually the case that 99.9% of the teams own Player A, and you're the only team with Player B, at least not in August when you're making your picks. It's both far more complex and unpredictable than that.

The fact is, as I've said here before, some teams are more unique than others, depending on how you define such a metric, but all teams are sufficiently unique to win the contest. There are no duplicates. There are no rosters that are completely covered by others. You need to put up a string of 200 point weeks in the end - if your players do this, you'll finish near the top. If they don't, you won't. Whether or not they do score that many points for you is independent of how commonly owned they are. Darren Sproles won't be sitting on the sidelines in week 14, checking how many teams still own him in the contest before he decides whether or not to go off for 50 points that week. Besides, if there is a correlation, I'd suspect that the more commonly-owned players are more likely to score a ton of points, since they presumably carried more teams to the final 250, and have therefore been better players during the season. I said uniqueness is good, all else being equal, but all else isn't equal. If Player A wound up on most of the final 250 teams, he must be a pretty good player. He may in fact be more likely to put up a ton of points than Player B who's only on a handful of final 250 rosters - not because he's on more rosters, of course, but simply because he's a better player that year.

Similarly, at the outset of the contest, the most commonly-owned players probably present the greatest value ("wisdom of the crowds" and all that). If everyone identified $3 Benson as the player most likely to outperform his price this year, what does it say about the entries that don't have him? The goal is to load up on as many players that will vastly outperform their price as possible - Benson is the prime example this year, and if you agree, why would you leave him off just to be more "unique?" You'd just be shooting yourself in the foot by intentionally passing on a guy who has the exact attributes you should be looking for.

So when people argue about whether or not uniqueness is good in the final 250, they may be right, but it's sort of uninteresting (to me, at least) because that's something you have pretty much no control over. All of the really good strategy discussion that has taken place over the years deals with the things we do have control over - roster size, budget allocation, bye week strategies, etc. Uniqueness in the final 250 falls pretty far outside that scope. Build your roster with the intention of scoring the most points you can, and let the uniqueness part of it sort itself out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always looking for the best values for determing my roster. I have always advocated a 30 man roster with lots of value plays. But in analyzing the cost this year, it looked like studs were a lot more affordable that before. Specifically, Arian Foster, Ray Rice, Calvin Johnson, and Julio Jones all looked like really good value plays. So unlike other years, I have two bonafide studs on my roster.

Full roster is:

Joe Flacco $11

Ryan Fitzpatrick $11

Jake Locker $9

-----------------------------

Ray Rice $33

Doug Martin $21

Rashard Mendenhall $4

Jonathan Dwyer $4

Cedric Benson $3

Evan Royster $3

Taiwan Jones $2

-----------------------------

Julio Jones $23

Dez Bryant $18

Kenny Britt $13

Titus Young $10

Justin Blackmon $7

Alshon Jeffery $6

Steve Smith $5

Harry Douglas $3

Ryan Broyles $2

-----------------------------

Brandon Pettigrew $15

Tony Gonzalez $13

Greg Olsen $11

Dwayne Allen $2

-----------------------------

Rob Bironas $3

Matt Prater $3

Mike Nugent $3

-----------------------------

Cincinnati Bengals $3

New Orleans Saints $3

Carolina Panthers $3

Washington Redskins $3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Ryan $19

Ryan Fitzpatrick $11

-------------------------

Darren Sproles $23

Fred Jackson $21

Doug Martin $21

Robert Turbin $6

Jonathan Dwyer $4

Cedric Benson $3

-------------------------

Brandon Lloyd $18

Eric Decker $17

Torrey Smith $16

Reggie Wayne $15

Pierre Garcon $14

Jonathan Baldwin $4

Juron Criner $3

-------------------------

Jimmy Graham $29

Jared Cook $11

-------------------------

Rob Bironas $3

Matt Prater $3

-------------------------

Cincinnati Bengals $3

New Orleans Saints $3

Kansas City Chiefs $3

I think my WR & RB depth will give me good competitive games every week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay Cutler

Alex Smith

Joe Flacco

-----------------

Darren McFadden

Mark Ingram

Jacquizz Rodgers

Bilal Powell

Jonathan Dwyer

Cedric Benson

Evan Royster

-----------------

Victor Cruz

Brandon Lloyd

Malcom Floyd

Titus Young

Randall Cobb

Danny Amendola

-----------------

Brandon Pettigrew

Fred Davis

Greg Olsen

Marcedes Lewis

-----------------

Matt Prater

Shaun Suisham

Josh Scobee

-----------------

Buffalo Bills

Denver Broncos

Washington Redskins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess who had Ogletree on every roster iteration except the final submission?That's right, this guy right here.

Great Job Butcher, well done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've rethought my stance on uniqueness, specifically referring to the final 3 weeks. And I think that IF the following condition is met, uniqueness is a good thing. That condition is that you don't give up any (or not much) production in order to be unique. Here's a brief example, I won't show my work but can if anyone disagrees with the numbers:Let's assume there's only 5 teams in this thing (for simplicity). The differences between the teams are made up in 3 positions, QB, RB, WR. They share every other player in common (again for simplicity). Team A: Rodgers, Foster, CalvinTeam B: Rodgers, Foster, JulioTeam C: Rodgers, Foster, FitzTeam D: Rodgers, Foster, Andre JohnsonTeam E: Brees, Rice, MarshallNow, if we assume (this is the condition I mentioned), that each player is equally likely to outscore it's peers at the same position (we'll use by 5). So theres a 50% chance that Rodgers = Brees + 5, and vice versa. Same with Foster/Rice, and the % for the WR's are 20%. So there are 20 possible combinations:If Rodgers > Brees and Foster > Rice (25% chance of happening) then whoever has the best WR of Team A through D wins. So A through D have a 6.25% chance of winning. If Brees > Rodgers and Rice > Foster (also 25% chance) then Team E wins no matter which WR is best. So E gets a 25% chance of winning. There is a 50% chance that the QB's and RB's cancel each other out, so the net for them is 0. It then comes down to whoever WR does best, and each has a 20% chance, so each team gets an additional 10% chance of winning. Final winning % are:Team A: 16.25%Team B: 16.25%Team C: 16.25%Team D: 16.25%Team E: 35%I haven't tried extending this to more teams, so I'm not positive if it holds or not.

Seems nice in theory. But, it only plays out in that scenario - where there is a 50% chance of one player outscoring another by 5 points. If you think there is a 75% chance that Rodgers outscores Brees, then picking Brees to be unique is a losing proposition.The goal here is to pick the team that will score the most points. Trying to be "unique" will have a much higher fail rate than trying to pick popular players. Sure, Ogletree might blow up and be the #1 WR this year, and the players that picked him will be rewarded - but if they also chose 4 busts, while trying to be unique, they will be punished. The results tell us there are many more busts than top-10 picks. So, to hit on all good plays, and try to be unique, is a bit like finding a needle in the haystack. It can be done, but the odds are stacked against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't try to be unique, i try to pick the best team, and i'm happier if after all submissions i am unique instead of having a lot of commonly owned players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've rethought my stance on uniqueness, specifically referring to the final 3 weeks. And I think that IF the following condition is met, uniqueness is a good thing. That condition is that you don't give up any (or not much) production in order to be unique. Here's a brief example, I won't show my work but can if anyone disagrees with the numbers:Let's assume there's only 5 teams in this thing (for simplicity). The differences between the teams are made up in 3 positions, QB, RB, WR. They share every other player in common (again for simplicity). Team A: Rodgers, Foster, CalvinTeam B: Rodgers, Foster, JulioTeam C: Rodgers, Foster, FitzTeam D: Rodgers, Foster, Andre JohnsonTeam E: Brees, Rice, MarshallNow, if we assume (this is the condition I mentioned), that each player is equally likely to outscore it's peers at the same position (we'll use by 5). So theres a 50% chance that Rodgers = Brees + 5, and vice versa. Same with Foster/Rice, and the % for the WR's are 20%. So there are 20 possible combinations:If Rodgers > Brees and Foster > Rice (25% chance of happening) then whoever has the best WR of Team A through D wins. So A through D have a 6.25% chance of winning. If Brees > Rodgers and Rice > Foster (also 25% chance) then Team E wins no matter which WR is best. So E gets a 25% chance of winning. There is a 50% chance that the QB's and RB's cancel each other out, so the net for them is 0. It then comes down to whoever WR does best, and each has a 20% chance, so each team gets an additional 10% chance of winning. Final winning % are:Team A: 16.25%Team B: 16.25%Team C: 16.25%Team D: 16.25%Team E: 35%I haven't tried extending this to more teams, so I'm not positive if it holds or not.

Seems nice in theory. But, it only plays out in that scenario - where there is a 50% chance of one player outscoring another by 5 points. If you think there is a 75% chance that Rodgers outscores Brees, then picking Brees to be unique is a losing proposition.
Not sure what you mean it only plays out in that scenario. The whole premise of the argument clearly states that it's only valid IF one specific condition is met, and that condition is that you aren't giving up too much production in order to become unique. Even if you think Rodgers is 75% chance to outscore Brees and everything else in my example remains the same, you're still better off picking Brees. Team's A through D now each have a 19.375% chance of winning, while team E has a 22.5% chance. Of course there is a crossing point where if you lose too much production (in this case, you have too little chance of outscoring common player) that you're better off being common. The point I've stated all along AND am sticking to, is that you don't need to go out of your way to become unique. Each team will become unique enough to win through attrition of the contest. The part of my opinion I've changed is that once in the top 250, I'd rather have a more unique team than a less one.

The goal here is to pick the team that will score the most points. Trying to be "unique" will have a much higher fail rate than trying to pick popular players.

I agree. I'm not arguing against this. In fact, I've already stated that there is no need to try to be more unique. You're best strategy in this contest is to pick players you think will do the best. Uniqueness will take care of itself.

Sure, Ogletree might blow up and be the #1 WR this year, and the players that picked him will be rewarded - but if they also chose 4 busts, while trying to be unique, they will be punished. The results tell us there are many more busts than top-10 picks. So, to hit on all good plays, and try to be unique, is a bit like finding a needle in the haystack. It can be done, but the odds are stacked against you.

It's way more complicated than that. And way more complicated than my example. It seems like you're reading unique as picking low cost players that are not owned with a high %. But cost doesn't have anything to do with it. Tom Brady and Drew Brees believe it or not are more unique than Matt Ryan. So I'm not sure I agree that trying to be unique will necessarily lead to a higher chance of your unique player being a bust. Not to mention that my argument is specifically to the Final 250, where if you've made it that far, you've probably hit on most of your unique plays anyway. Plus, even if one of them turns out to be a dud, we haven't even factored (and I'm not exactly sure how you would/could) in the fact that if they are a dud, they don't count toward your score anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. The problem with this example is that it's not an all or nothing proposition. Uniqueness, IMO, isn't a good thing or a bad thing. Our teams are unique enough or will become so as you move down to the final 250. there is no need to purposely seek out additional uniqueness.

:goodposting:

Where you fall on uniqueness partially goes back to your philosophy for this contest. I believe in doing what's best for the first 13 weeks, and taking my chances in the final 3 weeks, so I tend to believe that uniqueness is an unimportant consideration. If you fall on the other side of the former debate, then you may also align with those who believe uniqueness is important.

I'll start by saying I believe it's probably true that, all else being equal, it's better to be more unique than less unique in the final 250, if your goal is to win the grand prize. This is similar to the idea that small rosters are better because they exhibit greater variance - with a more unique team, you're more likely to end up at the extreme ends of the final standings. You're either going to be near the top, or near the bottom. With a less unique team, you may be more likely to finish in the money, maybe in the top 50, but less likely to be the #1 overall team. I don't know if that's actually true, but it's my intuition. This is where the earlier coin flipping example is somewhat appropriate - if everyone picks heads, they'll all be huddled around each other in the standings, so to speak; if you go against the grain and pick tails, then you're either going to win the thing right away or lose right away. From a contest perspective, if you only care about winning the $20,000, and have no interest in winning $25-50 for coming in the top 100 or whatever, then uniqueness is probably your friend. I think most people probably fall in this boat.

But as with many other contest discussions we've had in the past, we need to remember what we do and don't control. You don't get to pick a new lineup leading in to week 14. You have to make your selections in August. While it's occasionally obvious that some players will have relatively high ownership percentages (Benson this year, Foster a couple years ago, etc.), for the most part you don't actually know how heavily owned a player will be. Furthermore, unlike the hypotheticals that are often presented in this debate, it's never actually the case that 99.9% of the teams own Player A, and you're the only team with Player B, at least not in August when you're making your picks. It's both far more complex and unpredictable than that.

The fact is, as I've said here before, some teams are more unique than others, depending on how you define such a metric, but all teams are sufficiently unique to win the contest. There are no duplicates. There are no rosters that are completely covered by others. You need to put up a string of 200 point weeks in the end - if your players do this, you'll finish near the top. If they don't, you won't. Whether or not they do score that many points for you is independent of how commonly owned they are. Darren Sproles won't be sitting on the sidelines in week 14, checking how many teams still own him in the contest before he decides whether or not to go off for 50 points that week. Besides, if there is a correlation, I'd suspect that the more commonly-owned players are more likely to score a ton of points, since they presumably carried more teams to the final 250, and have therefore been better players during the season. I said uniqueness is good, all else being equal, but all else isn't equal. If Player A wound up on most of the final 250 teams, he must be a pretty good player. He may in fact be more likely to put up a ton of points than Player B who's only on a handful of final 250 rosters - not because he's on more rosters, of course, but simply because he's a better player that year.

Similarly, at the outset of the contest, the most commonly-owned players probably present the greatest value ("wisdom of the crowds" and all that). If everyone identified $3 Benson as the player most likely to outperform his price this year, what does it say about the entries that don't have him? The goal is to load up on as many players that will vastly outperform their price as possible - Benson is the prime example this year, and if you agree, why would you leave him off just to be more "unique?" You'd just be shooting yourself in the foot by intentionally passing on a guy who has the exact attributes you should be looking for.

So when people argue about whether or not uniqueness is good in the final 250, they may be right, but it's sort of uninteresting (to me, at least) because that's something you have pretty much no control over. All of the really good strategy discussion that has taken place over the years deals with the things we do have control over - roster size, budget allocation, bye week strategies, etc. Uniqueness in the final 250 falls pretty far outside that scope. Build your roster with the intention of scoring the most points you can, and let the uniqueness part of it sort itself out.

I don't like uniqueness for uniqueness's sake, but I definitely believe in having a plausible narrative. I want to look at my team and ask "what has to happen for me to win this thing?". The less complicated and more plausible the answer, the better. That was the philosophy behind my team- lots of commonly owned players (because they're good value), plus a Vick + Stewart kicker. My narrative is "If Vick and Stewart go off, I've got this sewn up". In my opinion, that is a plausible enough narrative (both players have talent and a history of going off), so I'm happy with my squad. I don't think it's very likely, but in a contest of 13,000, even a 0.1% chance to win it all is huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like uniqueness for uniqueness's sake, but I definitely believe in having a plausible narrative. I want to look at my team and ask "what has to happen for me to win this thing?". The less complicated and more plausible the answer, the better. That was the philosophy behind my team- lots of commonly owned players (because they're good value), plus a Vick + Stewart kicker. My narrative is "If Vick and Stewart go off, I've got this sewn up". In my opinion, that is a plausible enough narrative (both players have talent and a history of going off), so I'm happy with my squad. I don't think it's very likely, but in a contest of 13,000, even a 0.1% chance to win it all is huge.

I think that's a healthy approach, though I'm sure I can look at any entry (well, any reasonably well-constructed entry) and construct a plausible narrative for them to win. If there was some issue with a bunch of entries all being remarkably similar, then uniqueness might play more of a role in determining a winner. But I'm convinced that every entry is sufficiently unique to win, even if it contains many commonly-owned players. The guy who won the $20,000 last year did so in part because Matt Stafford put up ridiculous numbers in weeks 15 and 16, and he was the #1 most commonly-owned player to start the year and was on over 50% of the final 250 rosters. He used Aaron Hernandez all three weeks in the finals, the 15th most popular choice last year and on a third of the final 250 rosters. Roddy White and Calvin Johnson made significant contributions and they were found on 12.4 and 9.2% of the final rosters, respectively. When Antonio Brown went off for 26 points in week 14, 53% of the field owned him. When Lance Moore matched that total in week 15, 35% of the field owned him. Of course, he also got points from lesser-owned players as well, but they didn't count any extra. He won because he put up a cumulative total of over 600 points - 80 of which came from Stafford, 80 from Roddy White, 60 from Hernandez, 60 from Calvin, etc. to go along with the 50 he got from Spiller (1.2% owned) and 35 from Deangelo (3.2% owned). Obviously this is just a single example, but I think it highlights that it's not critical to go out of your way to ensure uniqueness on your team, especially when you can't predict ownership stats anyway. He won, not because he was "more unique" than any other entry in the contest, but because the players he chose happened to put up a bunch of points when he needed them to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Ryan $19

Joe Flacco $11

Darren Sproles $23

Marshawn Lynch $19

Willis McGahee $16

David Wilson $9

Cedric Benson $3

Evan Royster $3

Ronnie Brown $2

Julio Jones $23

Jordy Nelson $20

Antonio Brown $17

Danny Amendola $6

Devery Henderson $4

Donald Driver $2

Eddie Royal $2

Jimmy Graham $29

Brandon Pettigrew $15

Zach Miller $6

Garrett Hartley $6

Jason Hanson $4

San Francisco 49ers $6

Houston Texans $5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.