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.
I find this discussion fascinating, and one player that comes to mind is Cedric Benson. He's by far the least unique player owned. But I think it's crazy to pass up a bargain like that. Honestly, I don't know how you build a team hoping you're more unique than the other contestants. What are you going to do? Pass up on a great value because he'll be widely owned?
I'm sure it's more nuanced than that. I don't think people are looking at the entry form and saying, "Benson will be on a lot of rosters. DO NOT WANT." It's more like, "Hmm, I want a RB in the $20-25 range, I have these guys all projected around the same amount of points, but I think a lot of people are going to take RBs A and B so I'm going to take RB C just to create some separation from the pack." I think in that sense there's nothing wrong with the strategy, except (1) there's probably a reason everyone's taking A and B and not taking C (perhaps they are better values for the price?) and (2) uniqueness, while potentially useful if you make the final 250, may actually work against you during the regular season when you don't need to come out on top, you just need to stay above the cut line each week.
I can't argue with that. I guess the way I like to build these teams is to look for value at the position more than wondering about ownership. I believe that Brandon Pettigrew at $15 is going to outproduce Vernon Davis at $17, and that's the only way I can imagine putting these teams together.
This. I think some people are confusing an increased uniqueness with an increased number of "flyers". When I think of someone "trying" to build in extra uniqueness to their team, I think of a person choosing a less hyped player of the same caliber. Think A.J. Green over Julio Jones. I find the discussion interesting, but it's theoretical at best. Any attempt to alter the lineup you think is the highest possible scoring lineup for the sake of uniqueness is a mistake, imo. If you truly think 2 players are equal and want to take the more unique one, fine, but don't expect that uniqueness to necessarily carry over to week 14.
I purposely chose McCoy over Foster, because A) I thought McCoy would be more unique than Foster and B) Foster has a decent chance of getting injured (IMHO) Uniqueness only came into play for just a few of my decisions.
Here's the problem with uniqueness. Green can best Jones 12 out of 13 weeks (let's imagine no byes for the sake of this discussion), but the one week Jones goes off for 40 and Green posts a 7, your lagging a huge portion of the field and staring at elimination. In a more realistic scenario where they alternate better weeks, you're playing from behind half of the time.The biggest problem with not owning these highly held players is that if they get of to a good start, their number of owners build to the point they stream roll over everyone else.
Your going to be spotting the field 5 to 10 points at kicker at least half the weeks and problem the same at defense. I would have spent another $6-$12 at K/D to pick up those extra 10-20 pts. That's more points than Steve Smith will net you this year.QBPeyton ManningJay CutlerRisky play on both accounts but both have a high enough ceiling to warrant the low price tag.RBArian Foster BenJarvus Green-Ellis Mikel Leshoure RashardMendenhall Cedric BensonSome more risk here with the exception of Foster. Gonna need all the pieces to fall into place here.WRRoddy WhitePercy HarvinBrandon LloydDez BryantEric DeckerMike WallaceSteve Smith STLDamien WilliamsPretty excited about this group especially in a ppr format. TERob HouslerMartellus Bennett
What about the TE's?
Yes, I think most have agreed that uniqueness is not desirable in elimation weeks. But in the final 3 weeks I believe it is because your concern is no longer beating enough teams to survive, but instead beating every team. In that situation whether I'm trailing 1 team by a large margin or 249 by a large margin makes no difference to me. But the difference between being a head of 249 teams or being ahead of 1 is very important to me.
What are you going to do on crosbys bye week? or any week he has a bad week? This is best ball, so having multiple kickers is a huge advantage. one goes off for 20 points one week and thats a huge advantage over haing even a good rb.... i have 4 kickers, thought about 5.QBPeyton ManningJay CutlerRisky play on both accounts but both have a high enough ceiling to warrant the low price tag.RBArian Foster BenJarvus Green-Ellis Mikel Leshoure RashardMendenhall Cedric BensonSome more risk here with the exception of Foster. Gonna need all the pieces to fall into place here.WRRoddy WhitePercy HarvinBrandon LloydDez BryantEric DeckerMike WallaceSteve Smith STLDamien WilliamsPretty excited about this group especially in a ppr format. TERob HouslerMartellus Bennett
See, I disagree with this a bit. You can create some "uniqueness" by doing what you said, knowing that JJones is very hyped this year so taking AJ Green instead. But I agree with those people that said by the time you get to the 250, your main guys have little uniqueness. Generally I think a couple of big guys will be common across all the rosters. So while you need those guys to do well weeks 14-16, I think what may help set you apart and give you a better chance to win is the uncommon "flyer" having a big week 14. Or 15. Or 16. Someone mentioned Spiller at less than 2% ownership last year. Of course it's hard to know who to pick in these cases. But I think you can do some things to make it a little more passable when you're just grabbing a couple of fliers to fill out the roster. The number one criteria with most fliers is their Bye week. That's why they're chosen. But lets say you have 2 bucks left and need an 8th WR with a certain Bye week and you're choosing between Donald Driver and Damien Williams. You may think that Donald Driver is the better player and will score about 6 points a game. But if you examine it more closely and see that Williams (scoring about 3-4 point for most weeks) may have a chance of better production than that later in the season, you should take him and possibly be more unique. Maybe you like TEN's late season schedule. Maybe you see that he is behind a guy who is a moron and may get in more trouble and a guy who is a rookie and may hit the wall later in the season. And that he has more time with last's year's backup QB who is the new starter. Just one example, but I think the point is that you can make your couple of flyer picks have some more meaning than just who should average the most points per game this season. Your flyers will almost never help you from getting eliminated but one big week in the playoffs could put you on top.
i think they are banking on dmacs health. not likely but i think its a fine strategy in this contest. the point of taking dmac is to get a top rb and using those extra $7 on other positions so taking a $15 3rd rb over a $9 3rd rb kind of defeats that purpose.also, if dmac gets hurt, they are out anyway. it doesn't really matter how much depth they have3,329 teams or 24% have McFadden on their roster for $26. His injury history is why they got a discount for a possible top five RB. What I don't get is the lack of depth a lot of these teams have after McFadden. Many only have him and one other top 25 RB on their roster with the rest of their roster filled in with the same flyers everyone else has on their team (Benson, Royster, Mendenhall or Dwyer, and T. Jones).This contest is not a good fit for McFadden. It will be interesting to watch how this one turns out. I could be wrong. But I'm happy to be "unique" by not having the second highest owned RB on my team. When McFadden goes down, it will be a lot easier for my team to survive....so thank you to all the McFadden owners. Thank you for helping to knock out some of the tough competition early on, then stepping to the side when he goes down.
Out of all the McFadden owners:275 have McFadden as their only top-24 RB3,329 teams or 24% have McFadden on their roster for $26. His injury history is why they got a discount for a possible top five RB. What I don't get is the lack of depth a lot of these teams have after McFadden. Many only have him and one other top 25 RB on their roster with the rest of their roster filled in with the same flyers everyone else has on their team (Benson, Royster, Mendenhall or Dwyer, and T. Jones).
This contest is not a good fit for McFadden. It will be interesting to watch how this one turns out. I could be wrong. But I'm happy to be "unique" by not having the second highest owned RB on my team. When McFadden goes down, it will be a lot easier for my team to survive....so thank you to all the McFadden owners. Thank you for helping to knock out some of the tough competition early on, then stepping to the side when he goes down.
If I was going to take D-Mac...and he was in my line up a few times, I felt like I would need to back him up with a couple players like F. Jackson $21 and Lynch $19. That total would have been $66. Now if you took Foster and McCoy, that total would have been $66. I like the Dmac side of it better in this scenario. But Dmac + Lynch + flyers doesn't seem wise to me. He just can't seem to stay healthy. I don't want to risk my season on my flyers coming through on the weeks that Dmac can't play....I would be more willing to do it with 2 more consistent scorers for me and hope that Dmac is back by the time the final 250 rolls around.i think they are banking on dmacs health. not likely but i think its a fine strategy in this contest. the point of taking dmac is to get a top rb and using those extra $7 on other positions so taking a $15 3rd rb over a $9 3rd rb kind of defeats that purpose.also, if dmac gets hurt, they are out anyway. it doesn't really matter how much depth they have3,329 teams or 24% have McFadden on their roster for $26. His injury history is why they got a discount for a possible top five RB. What I don't get is the lack of depth a lot of these teams have after McFadden. Many only have him and one other top 25 RB on their roster with the rest of their roster filled in with the same flyers everyone else has on their team (Benson, Royster, Mendenhall or Dwyer, and T. Jones).This contest is not a good fit for McFadden. It will be interesting to watch how this one turns out. I could be wrong. But I'm happy to be "unique" by not having the second highest owned RB on my team. When McFadden goes down, it will be a lot easier for my team to survive....so thank you to all the McFadden owners. Thank you for helping to knock out some of the tough competition early on, then stepping to the side when he goes down.
Actually, you should be surprised if you *did* have the same 5 player combination as someone else.Selecting 1 of the top 10 QB's, and 2 each of the top 10 RB's and WR's yields 20,250 possible combinationsAnd if you are selecting from 1 of 15 QB's, and 2 of the top 20 RB's and WR's, there are over half a million possible combinations.
It's group A and group B that I think took to big of a risk.Out of all the McFadden owners:275 have McFadden as their only top-24 RB GROUP A3,329 teams or 24% have McFadden on their roster for $26. His injury history is why they got a discount for a possible top five RB. What I don't get is the lack of depth a lot of these teams have after McFadden. Many only have him and one other top 25 RB on their roster with the rest of their roster filled in with the same flyers everyone else has on their team (Benson, Royster, Mendenhall or Dwyer, and T. Jones).
This contest is not a good fit for McFadden. It will be interesting to watch how this one turns out. I could be wrong. But I'm happy to be "unique" by not having the second highest owned RB on my team. When McFadden goes down, it will be a lot easier for my team to survive....so thank you to all the McFadden owners. Thank you for helping to knock out some of the tough competition early on, then stepping to the side when he goes down.
1724 have McFadden and one other top-24 RB GROUP B
1208 have McFadden and two other top-24 RBs
83 have McFadden and three other top-24 RBs
1 has McFadden and four other top-24 RBs (this guy)
FlyjetzThis entry is still alive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matt Ryan $19 0.00 bye Jake Locker $9 0.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Arian Foster $34 0.00 bye Cedric Benson $3 0.00 bye Evan Royster $3 0.00 bye Taiwan Jones $2 0.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Brandon Marshall $22 0.00 bye Dwayne Bowe $17 0.00 bye Torrey Smith $16 0.00 bye Kenny Britt $13 0.00 bye Michael Crabtree $11 0.00 bye Titus Young $10 0.00 bye Justin Blackmon $7 0.00 bye Steve Smith $5 0.00 bye Harry Douglas $3 0.00 bye Josh Gordon $3 0.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Brandon Pettigrew $15 0.00 bye Tony Gonzalez $13 0.00 bye Heath Miller $7 0.00 bye Kellen Davis $4 0.00 bye Dwayne Allen $2 0.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Nate Kaeding $4 0.00 bye Jason Hanson $4 0.00 bye Rob Bironas $3 0.00 bye Matt Prater $3 0.00 bye Mike Nugent $3 0.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Philadelphia Eagles $6 0.00 bye Carolina Panthers $3 0.00 bye Cincinnati Bengals $3 0.00 bye New Orleans Saints $3 0.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly. I mean, you have to take some form of risk in this contest. You could argue that placing $60+ in three players is its own kind of risk. This year is also kind of strange because you have a $3 guy in Benson who's already a starter on a high-powered offense, and several other single-dollar guys that are significantly likely to be starters this season (e.g. Mendenhall, or hell, just get the Dwyer/Mendenhall combo for $8). In other words, for a total $11 you can pretty much get the starting RBs for both Green Bay and Pittsburgh. Normally that would cost like $50. So it's not necessarily like these teams have McFadden and a bunch of fliers - if we're being honest, many of the teams in groups A and B have McFadden and at least two other quality starting RBs.If McFadden goes down for a while, most McFadden owners will be in some trouble. That's a big chunk of your budget to lose in one fell swoop. You may think having two or three other high-priced RBs on your roster protects you, but that also means you spent that much less at other positions. If not at RB, your team will have a weakness somewhere which will likely be exposed, one way or another.It's group A and group B that I think took to big of a risk.Out of all the McFadden owners:275 have McFadden as their only top-24 RB GROUP A3,329 teams or 24% have McFadden on their roster for $26. His injury history is why they got a discount for a possible top five RB. What I don't get is the lack of depth a lot of these teams have after McFadden. Many only have him and one other top 25 RB on their roster with the rest of their roster filled in with the same flyers everyone else has on their team (Benson, Royster, Mendenhall or Dwyer, and T. Jones).
This contest is not a good fit for McFadden. It will be interesting to watch how this one turns out. I could be wrong. But I'm happy to be "unique" by not having the second highest owned RB on my team. When McFadden goes down, it will be a lot easier for my team to survive....so thank you to all the McFadden owners. Thank you for helping to knock out some of the tough competition early on, then stepping to the side when he goes down.
1724 have McFadden and one other top-24 RB GROUP B
1208 have McFadden and two other top-24 RBs
83 have McFadden and three other top-24 RBs
1 has McFadden and four other top-24 RBs (this guy)
I like your philosophy of letting the numbers dictate your roster choices. I'm not sure I love the 2-4-10-5-5-4 breakdown, though. I feel like I'd love this team a lot more if you got rid of your bottom defense ($3), your bottom two kickers ($6), your bottom TE ($2) and bottom two WRs ($6) and used that $17 in some fashion to bulk up at RB. I know how important quantity is in season-long best ball, but I wonder if guys like Douglas, Gordon, and Allen will really contribute enough (or at all) to justify being so thin at RB.
As a DMC owner, I think y'all are just haters.Possibly. I mean, you have to take some form of risk in this contest. You could argue that placing $60+ in three players is its own kind of risk. This year is also kind of strange because you have a $3 guy in Benson who's already a starter on a high-powered offense, and several other single-dollar guys that are significantly likely to be starters this season (e.g. Mendenhall, or hell, just get the Dwyer/Mendenhall combo for $8). In other words, for a total $11 you can pretty much get the starting RBs for both Green Bay and Pittsburgh. Normally that would cost like $50. So it's not necessarily like these teams have McFadden and a bunch of fliers - if we're being honest, many of the teams in groups A and B have McFadden and at least two other quality starting RBs.If McFadden goes down for a while, most McFadden owners will be in some trouble. That's a big chunk of your budget to lose in one fell swoop. You may think having two or three other high-priced RBs on your roster protects you, but that also means you spent that much less at other positions. If not at RB, your team will have a weakness somewhere which will likely be exposed, one way or another.I think that's ok, though. You have to assume guys will stay healthy, it's the only way to build a winning roster. As a fellow non-McFadden owner, though, I'm not going to shed a tear if he does end up missing time again.
In all seriousness, while DMC has had his share of injury concerns, his upside in a PPR format (especially with Bush now gone) is tremendous. He has the talent to be Top 5 for $10 less than what you are spending on other RBs. If he's healthy for a full-year, then I think the DMC owners win. If he's not, well then we're no better off and probably out of the contest.Personally, I wanted him on my roster in the last few weeks of this pool as I felt he gives the best chance at scoring points in the format. Swinging for the fences here. 
I agree that he has the potential to be elite, but let's not exaggerate here. He's only $2 less than the 5th highest-priced RB, and $6-8 less than the big three. He's basically already being priced for his top-5 potential, and only getting a slight discount due to his perceived higher injury risk; at his price the amount of upside he has is limited. It's not like he's a mid-priced flier.
To be honest, I'm just trying to make myself feel better about my own swing for the fences move. I have both Foster and Rice on my team. I'm one of the few who do. Dmac going down with an injury right around week seven would be wonderful.As a DMC owner, I think y'all are just haters.Possibly. I mean, you have to take some form of risk in this contest. You could argue that placing $60+ in three players is its own kind of risk. This year is also kind of strange because you have a $3 guy in Benson who's already a starter on a high-powered offense, and several other single-dollar guys that are significantly likely to be starters this season (e.g. Mendenhall, or hell, just get the Dwyer/Mendenhall combo for $8). In other words, for a total $11 you can pretty much get the starting RBs for both Green Bay and Pittsburgh. Normally that would cost like $50. So it's not necessarily like these teams have McFadden and a bunch of fliers - if we're being honest, many of the teams in groups A and B have McFadden and at least two other quality starting RBs.If McFadden goes down for a while, most McFadden owners will be in some trouble. That's a big chunk of your budget to lose in one fell swoop. You may think having two or three other high-priced RBs on your roster protects you, but that also means you spent that much less at other positions. If not at RB, your team will have a weakness somewhere which will likely be exposed, one way or another.I think that's ok, though. You have to assume guys will stay healthy, it's the only way to build a winning roster. As a fellow non-McFadden owner, though, I'm not going to shed a tear if he does end up missing time again.
I agree to a point, but the $6-8 less was able to be used elsewhere (namely Mendenhall/Benson who give you 2 other starters for the price of Foster or Rice). So rather than having my eggs in one basket with Foster, I end up with a guy that can put Foster-type numbers up, as well as have backup insurance by two other starters on a weekly basis who could surprise. That discount was worth it to me and in best ball format seemed to be the best choice to make.
You're one of 20 teams with Foster and Rice and only 1 QB.
Disagree big time here. The upside a fully healthy McFadden has is huge. Like Chris Johnson 2009 huge. Huge enough to almost singlehandedly carry you to a title. We can argue about how likely he is to reach that upside, but IMO outside of a healthy AP there is not RB in football with as much talent and upside as McFadden. Getting a guy like that at a price of $26 offers tremendous upside. It all boils down to if you are willing to roll the dice or not, and in a contest like this I think he is the kind of guy who you need to take the chance on.
With the benefit of two days worth of hindsight, I'm still happy with my team, but I do wish that I hadn't spent that money on Turbin and Wilson. Realistically, Martin, Stewart, MenDwyerHall, Benson, and Royster already gave me 4-5 starting NFL jobs. Turbin and Wilson have a much lower chance of ever posting a startable score over that corps than an extra kicker or defense might. I could have axed those two, added a pair of $3 kickers or Ds, and still had $9 left over to upgrade one of my other positions. Maybe rearrange some cash and turn Lance Kendricks into Antonio Gates, or Steve Johnson into Calvin Johnson. I think my rapid reactions did a great job of identifying underpriced players, and a not-so-great job at deciding how likely I was to ever count a score from those undervalued players.
No one player can "singlehandedly carry you to a title" in this contest. To use your own example, the team that won the whole contest in 2009 didn't own Chris Johnson. Neither did the team that came in 2nd. Neither did the team that came in 3rd. To win, you pretty much need a minimum of 600 points scored over a three week span. Realistically, what's the most a single player will score in that span? 100? 120? You still need a lot else to go right to win.I'm not saying he's not likely to be one of the best players in the entire pool, but he's also one of the top 15 highest-priced players in the pool. He's not the most expensive player, but you're paying for a lot of his "upside." When I think "upside" in this context, I think of a lower-priced guy that can perform like a high-priced guy, not a high-priced guy who can perform like, well, a high-priced guy.
In hindsight, I'm regretting my Doug Wilson choice, and wish I'd gone with this. Not because I'm overreacting to last night's game, but for the same money, the odds of having a true starter for most of the season is probably higher.
To clarify, when I said singlehandedly carry you to a title, I was referring to a redraft league. Obviously here you need a bit more. In hypothetical world, if you knew every player was going to remain healthy for the entire year, how many players would you take before McFadden? For me, I am taking Foster, Calvin, Graham and maybe Rice and that is it. I look at McFadden as a high priced guy who has the potential to perform like the highest priced guy in the league. But obviously everyone weighs the risks differently.
I agree. But it's essentially the same thing that I said. I don't see the disagreement. I used green and Julio as examples, you used driver and Williams. The point remains he same, when selecting uniqueness you're generally choosing between 2 like quantities. You're not saying I think Torrey smith is going to be atop 5 Wr but I'm gonna pass on him and take a bunch of $4 guys to be unique. There are exceptions, but I believe this to generally be the case.
Agreed. You need a lot to go right to win this contest. Playing it safe is a worse strategy than Taking risks. Hairy, your team could be in some serious trouble if "when McFadden goes down" never happens.i think they are banking on dmacs health. not likely but i think its a fine strategy in this contest. the point of taking dmac is to get a top rb and using those extra $7 on other positions so taking a $15 3rd rb over a $9 3rd rb kind of defeats that purpose.also, if dmac gets hurt, they are out anyway. it doesn't really matter how much depth they have3,329 teams or 24% have McFadden on their roster for $26. His injury history is why they got a discount for a possible top five RB. What I don't get is the lack of depth a lot of these teams have after McFadden. Many only have him and one other top 25 RB on their roster with the rest of their roster filled in with the same flyers everyone else has on their team (Benson, Royster, Mendenhall or Dwyer, and T. Jones).This contest is not a good fit for McFadden. It will be interesting to watch how this one turns out. I could be wrong. But I'm happy to be "unique" by not having the second highest owned RB on my team. When McFadden goes down, it will be a lot easier for my team to survive....so thank you to all the McFadden owners. Thank you for helping to knock out some of the tough competition early on, then stepping to the side when he goes down.
I agree....I guess I didn't expect that many people to select McFadden. With ownership so high, one of three things need to happen for teams without McFadden:1) McFadden gets hurt2) McFadden under performs3) One of my selections needs to consistently out perform McFaddenNumber 2 isn't going to happen imo. Number 3 is likely to happen most weeks for me with Rice and Foster (except week 8 when both are on byes)....which is where I'm in serious trouble. So that leaves Number 1....there is a high probability that my team exits this contest week 8 unless McFadden gets hurt. The other position players on my team will not be enough to get me through because many of those players are owned by the McFadden owners. I feel like the success of my team hinges on McFadden even though he isn't on my team.Agreed. You need a lot to go right to win this contest. Playing it safe is a worse strategy than Taking risks. Hairy, your team could be in some serious trouble if "when McFadden goes down" never happens.i think they are banking on dmacs health. not likely but i think its a fine strategy in this contest. the point of taking dmac is to get a top rb and using those extra $7 on other positions so taking a $15 3rd rb over a $9 3rd rb kind of defeats that purpose.also, if dmac gets hurt, they are out anyway. it doesn't really matter how much depth they have3,329 teams or 24% have McFadden on their roster for $26. His injury history is why they got a discount for a possible top five RB. What I don't get is the lack of depth a lot of these teams have after McFadden. Many only have him and one other top 25 RB on their roster with the rest of their roster filled in with the same flyers everyone else has on their team (Benson, Royster, Mendenhall or Dwyer, and T. Jones).This contest is not a good fit for McFadden. It will be interesting to watch how this one turns out. I could be wrong. But I'm happy to be "unique" by not having the second highest owned RB on my team. When McFadden goes down, it will be a lot easier for my team to survive....so thank you to all the McFadden owners. Thank you for helping to knock out some of the tough competition early on, then stepping to the side when he goes down.
I think you're vastly overstating the impact of a single player. Ownership is relatively high, but he's still on only a quarter of the entries in the contest. Teams without McFadden don't need any of those three things to happen. If McFadden stays healthy all year and performs as well as expected, that's great for the McFadden owners but all the non-McFadden owners have 18-30 players of their own to keep up. Someone earlier referenced what a dominant year Chris Johnson had in 2009, and yet none of the top three teams owned him. You don't need any single selection to consistently outperform McFadden. You just need a well-constructed roster (which, in hindsight, may involve avoiding two top-priced players at the same position with the same late-ish bye week) that scores enough points consistently to stay above the cutline every week. You could not have a single player that ever outscores McFadden on a single week all year and you could still win the contest. Your success or failure has just about everything to do with how all your players perform, not how McFadden performs.I agree....I guess I didn't expect that many people to select McFadden. With ownership so high, one of three things need to happen for teams without McFadden:1) McFadden gets hurt2) McFadden under performs3) One of my selections needs to consistently out perform McFaddenNumber 2 isn't going to happen imo. Number 3 is likely to happen most weeks for me with Rice and Foster (except week 8 when both are on byes)....which is where I'm in serious trouble. So that leaves Number 1....there is a high probability that my team exits this contest week 8 unless McFadden gets hurt. The other position players on my team will not be enough to get me through because many of those players are owned by the McFadden owners. I feel like the success of my team hinges on McFadden even though he isn't on my team.Agreed. You need a lot to go right to win this contest. Playing it safe is a worse strategy than Taking risks. Hairy, your team could be in some serious trouble if "when McFadden goes down" never happens.i think they are banking on dmacs health. not likely but i think its a fine strategy in this contest. the point of taking dmac is to get a top rb and using those extra $7 on other positions so taking a $15 3rd rb over a $9 3rd rb kind of defeats that purpose.also, if dmac gets hurt, they are out anyway. it doesn't really matter how much depth they have3,329 teams or 24% have McFadden on their roster for $26. His injury history is why they got a discount for a possible top five RB. What I don't get is the lack of depth a lot of these teams have after McFadden. Many only have him and one other top 25 RB on their roster with the rest of their roster filled in with the same flyers everyone else has on their team (Benson, Royster, Mendenhall or Dwyer, and T. Jones).This contest is not a good fit for McFadden. It will be interesting to watch how this one turns out. I could be wrong. But I'm happy to be "unique" by not having the second highest owned RB on my team. When McFadden goes down, it will be a lot easier for my team to survive....so thank you to all the McFadden owners. Thank you for helping to knock out some of the tough competition early on, then stepping to the side when he goes down.
Your going to be spotting the field 5 to 10 points at kicker at least half the weeks and problem the same at defense. I would have spent another $6-$12 at K/D to pick up those extra 10-20 pts. That's more points than Steve Smith will net you this year.QBPeyton ManningJay CutlerRisky play on both accounts but both have a high enough ceiling to warrant the low price tag.RBArian Foster BenJarvus Green-Ellis Mikel Leshoure RashardMendenhall Cedric BensonSome more risk here with the exception of Foster. Gonna need all the pieces to fall into place here.WRRoddy WhitePercy HarvinBrandon LloydDez BryantEric DeckerMike WallaceSteve Smith STLDamien WilliamsPretty excited about this group especially in a ppr format. TERob HouslerMartellus Bennett
No wonder I suck at magic football.Surely every thing will have to fall in place. Bump this post if I even make it to week 10.
