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

On this whole uniqueness debate - I took it into consideration last year and it screwed me.

I purposefully avoided Stafford last year because I thought everyone would have him and I only missed the cut line once during the first 13 weeks - that is right, a week where Stafford went off (vs. Carolina I believe). I looked at who I put on my team instead, Sanchez + throw in WR I believe and I would have been in the final 250 if I had just stayed with Stafford.

I think the emerging board consensus is right; uniqueness in the first 13 weeks is actually a slight negative, and potentially a slight positive but mostly irrelevant in the final 3 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this whole uniqueness debate - I took it into consideration last year and it screwed me. I purposefully avoided Stafford last year because I thought everyone would have him and I only missed the cut line once during the first 13 weeks - that is right, a week where Stafford went off (vs. Carolina I believe). I looked at who I put on my team instead, Sanchez + throw in WR I believe and I would have been in the final 250 if I had just stayed with Stafford.I think the emerging board consensus is right; uniqueness in the first 13 weeks is actually a slight negative, and potentially a slight positive but mostly irrelevant in the final 3 weeks.

it does matter, but i think the amount that it matters is insignificant. were talking about improving your chances to win it from 0.008% to 0.010%. its just not really worth the time to disscuss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this whole uniqueness debate - I took it into consideration last year and it screwed me.

I purposefully avoided Stafford last year because I thought everyone would have him and I only missed the cut line once during the first 13 weeks - that is right, a week where Stafford went off (vs. Carolina I believe). I looked at who I put on my team instead, Sanchez + throw in WR I believe and I would have been in the final 250 if I had just stayed with Stafford.

I think the emerging board consensus is right; uniqueness in the first 13 weeks is actually a slight negative, and potentially a slight positive but mostly irrelevant in the final 3 weeks.

it does matter, but i think the amount that it matters is insignificant. were talking about improving your chances to win it from 0.008% to 0.010%. its just not really worth the time to disscuss

It sure helps my day go faster at work, so it's worth it to me in that regard :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this whole uniqueness debate - I took it into consideration last year and it screwed me.

I purposefully avoided Stafford last year because I thought everyone would have him and I only missed the cut line once during the first 13 weeks - that is right, a week where Stafford went off (vs. Carolina I believe). I looked at who I put on my team instead, Sanchez + throw in WR I believe and I would have been in the final 250 if I had just stayed with Stafford.

I think the emerging board consensus is right; uniqueness in the first 13 weeks is actually a slight negative, and potentially a slight positive but mostly irrelevant in the final 3 weeks.

it does matter, but i think the amount that it matters is insignificant. were talking about improving your chances to win it from 0.008% to 0.010%. its just not really worth the time to disscuss

It sure helps my day go faster at work, so it's worth it to me in that regard :thumbup:

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I avoided this forum the whole time as to not influence my decision on players. (Well ok not really mostly just to avoid the time sink. I spent too many hours on this board last year). Anyways here is my team. I took the opposite strategy from last year instead of staring at the prices for hours and hours (ok maybe close to 100 hours) I spent maybe an hour and went with my gut.

Which I feel like it shows. Argh. I already want to make adjustments. Anyways, feel free to trash/thrash/praise or plunder. PocketDucks

QB:

Andrew Luck

Jake Locker

Blaine Gabbert

RB:

Jamaal Charles

Frank Gore

Peyton Hillis

Mikel Leshoure

Kendall Hunter

Cedric Benson

WR:

Julio Jones

A.J. Green

Reggie Wayne

Justin Blackmon

Kendall Wright

Danny Amendola

Leonard Hankerson

Josh Gordon

TE:

Jimmy Graham

Brandon Pettigrew

Dwayne Allen

K:

Billy Cundiff

Adam Vinatieri

TD:

San Francisco 49'ers

Seattle Seahawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised to find that nearly half of all 30-man rosters have 4+ QBs. I usually imagine a 30-man roster more like 3-7-10-4-3-3. I really think QB is one of those positions where you really don't benefit from a quantity approach. I'm a 2 QB guy, I can totally understand taking 3 QBs, but any more than that seems like overkill imo. More 30-man rosters have a 4th QB than have a 10th WR or a 4th TE or a 4th kicker, which just seems crazy to me. I think it's much more likely that you'll benefit at some point from flexing a cheap skill position player, or even getting a few extra points from a 4th kicker, as opposed to a 4th QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other comment. Are there any apps or websites tracking the real time scoring and cutoff?

I know there was one last year. I hope there is one this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I dont understand the 4 QB thing at all. You're just spending money on points you'll never use, and if your first 3 QBs get hurt and you're down to Tannehill as your 1 guy, you aren't winning #### anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went with the small team approach. If I can avoid injuries and make it past week 5 which has some bye week problems, I think I should do decent:

QB: Brees, Flacco

RB: McFadden, Doug Margin, McGahee, Donald Brown (I have high hopes for McGahee this season)

WR: Marshall, Decker, T Smith, Britt, Crabs, T Young

TE: Gresham, Clark, Dreesen

K: Bryant, Tynes

DST: Pats, Redskins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this whole uniqueness debate - I took it into consideration last year and it screwed me. I purposefully avoided Stafford last year because I thought everyone would have him and I only missed the cut line once during the first 13 weeks - that is right, a week where Stafford went off (vs. Carolina I believe). I looked at who I put on my team instead, Sanchez + throw in WR I believe and I would have been in the final 250 if I had just stayed with Stafford.I think the emerging board consensus is right; uniqueness in the first 13 weeks is actually a slight negative, and potentially a slight positive but mostly irrelevant in the final 3 weeks.

it does matter, but i think the amount that it matters is insignificant. were talking about improving your chances to win it from 0.008% to 0.010%. its just not really worth the time to disscuss
That is a 25% improvement in odds. Sounds significant to me. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised to find that nearly half of all 30-man rosters have 4+ QBs. I usually imagine a 30-man roster more like 3-7-10-4-3-3. I really think QB is one of those positions where you really don't benefit from a quantity approach. I'm a 2 QB guy, I can totally understand taking 3 QBs, but any more than that seems like overkill imo. More 30-man rosters have a 4th QB than have a 10th WR or a 4th TE or a 4th kicker, which just seems crazy to me. I think it's much more likely that you'll benefit at some point from flexing a cheap skill position player, or even getting a few extra points from a 4th kicker, as opposed to a 4th QB.

do most of those include tannahill? if your going with quanity, i could see why a $4 qb would be part of the plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised to find that nearly half of all 30-man rosters have 4+ QBs. I usually imagine a 30-man roster more like 3-7-10-4-3-3. I really think QB is one of those positions where you really don't benefit from a quantity approach. I'm a 2 QB guy, I can totally understand taking 3 QBs, but any more than that seems like overkill imo. More 30-man rosters have a 4th QB than have a 10th WR or a 4th TE or a 4th kicker, which just seems crazy to me. I think it's much more likely that you'll benefit at some point from flexing a cheap skill position player, or even getting a few extra points from a 4th kicker, as opposed to a 4th QB.

:goodposting: I agree 100%. At least with the other positions, you have the ability to score as flex. having 4 QB's doesn't make sense to me at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised to find that nearly half of all 30-man rosters have 4+ QBs. I usually imagine a 30-man roster more like 3-7-10-4-3-3. I really think QB is one of those positions where you really don't benefit from a quantity approach. I'm a 2 QB guy, I can totally understand taking 3 QBs, but any more than that seems like overkill imo. More 30-man rosters have a 4th QB than have a 10th WR or a 4th TE or a 4th kicker, which just seems crazy to me. I think it's much more likely that you'll benefit at some point from flexing a cheap skill position player, or even getting a few extra points from a 4th kicker, as opposed to a 4th QB.

At one point I briefly thought about going with Tannehill, Gabbert, Sanchez, Skelton (or Kolb whomever won), Ponder and/or Locker. It would have cost either $33 or $42 depending on if you went with Ponder and Locker or just 1. My thinking was that it'd give me a very high, consistent floor as one of them is bound to throw for 2 TD's every week. You lose out on the monster games a top 3 QB would give you, but you're also covered against injury or bad performances. In the end, I couldn't convince myself there was enough benefit to warrant passing on a top 3 talent. Perhaps I'll keep track to compare how it would have worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised to find that nearly half of all 30-man rosters have 4+ QBs. I usually imagine a 30-man roster more like 3-7-10-4-3-3. I really think QB is one of those positions where you really don't benefit from a quantity approach. I'm a 2 QB guy, I can totally understand taking 3 QBs, but any more than that seems like overkill imo. More 30-man rosters have a 4th QB than have a 10th WR or a 4th TE or a 4th kicker, which just seems crazy to me. I think it's much more likely that you'll benefit at some point from flexing a cheap skill position player, or even getting a few extra points from a 4th kicker, as opposed to a 4th QB.

do most of those include tannahill? if your going with quanity, i could see why a $4 qb would be part of the plan
Of the 30-man rosters to take 4+ QBs, about half of them included Tannehill. On the other hand, when you look at the small (18-20) rosters, only about 20% of those with 4+ QBs included Tannehill (presumably because they had more money to spend at QB since they had so few players at the other positions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I dont understand the 4 QB thing at all. You're just spending money on points you'll never use, and if your first 3 QBs get hurt and you're down to Tannehill as your 1 guy, you aren't winning #### anyway.

I could sort of see doing something like Tannehill, Gabbert and Skelton and hoping you could put up 20pts/game using only $17. The problem is that it's doubtful all of them will start 16 games, even if healthy. I'm also not sure that the $10-$20 you save at the QB position would get you more points somewhere else than it would with the QB upgrade. Still... there are probably years where three cheap QBs would be a good play even if 2012 isn't that year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 158 entries that spent less than $248 or less and have fewer than 30 players. That's inexcusable. There's literally zero downside to adding another $2 player to your entry if you have the roster spots and cap space available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without even looking at potential bye week conflicts, right off the bat there are 2,617 entries that are taking a guaranteed zero at a position at least once during the year because they don't have enough players to cover byes (e.g. they only have 1 QB, or 2 RB, or 3 WR, etc.) 33 of them are taking a zero at flex every single week because they went exactly 2-3-1 at RB, WR, and TE. Obviously they're not all "junk" entries, since it's possible to build a roster where this is done purposefully as a strategic move (I even thought about rolling with just a single QB, though I didn't go through with it). But that's a lot of teams that are thin on depth at at least one position. Hopefully helps keep the rest of us that much more afloat during the bye weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this whole uniqueness debate - I took it into consideration last year and it screwed me. I purposefully avoided Stafford last year because I thought everyone would have him and I only missed the cut line once during the first 13 weeks - that is right, a week where Stafford went off (vs. Carolina I believe). I looked at who I put on my team instead, Sanchez + throw in WR I believe and I would have been in the final 250 if I had just stayed with Stafford.I think the emerging board consensus is right; uniqueness in the first 13 weeks is actually a slight negative, and potentially a slight positive but mostly irrelevant in the final 3 weeks.

Well...if it screwed one person in one year, it MUST be the wrong approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You won't be laughing when you've spent all of your salary cap in the first week of the season and he's sitting pretty with about $150 left for week 2!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this whole uniqueness debate - I took it into consideration last year and it screwed me. I purposefully avoided Stafford last year because I thought everyone would have him and I only missed the cut line once during the first 13 weeks - that is right, a week where Stafford went off (vs. Carolina I believe). I looked at who I put on my team instead, Sanchez + throw in WR I believe and I would have been in the final 250 if I had just stayed with Stafford.I think the emerging board consensus is right; uniqueness in the first 13 weeks is actually a slight negative, and potentially a slight positive but mostly irrelevant in the final 3 weeks.

Well...if it screwed one person in one year, it MUST be the wrong approach.
Well that is one data point in favor of the hypothesis that uniqueness can be detrimental in the cut weeks - never claimed anything more than that. You should pick players you think will score the most points and probably ignore uniqueness considerations.What hypothesis are you trying to support in your post here? Or is it just to get your sarcastic post count up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I readily admit not reading all of the posts on the issue, so if this is somewhat duplicative I apologize. One thing about "uniqueness" is bye weeks. One of the data guys can probably pull the actual numbers from last year, but I think a huge percentage of Stafford and/or Megatron owners were culled during Detroit's bye week.

The impact comes from the fact that even the most-owned players aren't owned with high enough frequency to constitute the entirety of the advancing teams in a particular week. If fully 50% of the teams own Stafford and he goes off while my "unique" (and $10 cheaper) Romo doesn't, it doesn't follow that I will be eliminated, because until week 11 we aren't cutting down teams by 50%. If Stafford blows chunks, or gets hurt, or is on bye a huge percentage of that 50% ownership will be filtered out.

To be sure, being "unique" in and of itself has no value -- you have to roster point-scorers first and foremost.

Just my general thoughts. And with that, I present my roster. I know you have all been anxiously awaiting it. I spent far less time on it this year than last. I generally prefer trying to work all of my byes early as opposed to late. Didn't work-out that way this time.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2012/106346.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You won't be laughing when you've spent all of your salary cap in the first week of the season and he's sitting pretty with about $150 left for week 2!
Maybe he thought he could keep the unused cash.... noob. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, speaking of bye weeks. There are a bunch of entries like this as well, which weren't picked up by my earlier query but are all but guaranteed to get eliminated during the bye weeks.

Rodgers/Brady - sheesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this whole uniqueness debate - I took it into consideration last year and it screwed me.

I purposefully avoided Stafford last year because I thought everyone would have him and I only missed the cut line once during the first 13 weeks - that is right, a week where Stafford went off (vs. Carolina I believe). I looked at who I put on my team instead, Sanchez + throw in WR I believe and I would have been in the final 250 if I had just stayed with Stafford.

I think the emerging board consensus is right; uniqueness in the first 13 weeks is actually a slight negative, and potentially a slight positive but mostly irrelevant in the final 3 weeks.

it does matter, but i think the amount that it matters is insignificant. were talking about improving your chances to win it from 0.008% to 0.010%. its just not really worth the time to disscuss
I'm glad you and hopefully many others feel this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, speaking of bye weeks. There are a bunch of entries like this as well, which weren't picked up by my earlier query but are all but guaranteed to get eliminated during the bye weeks.

He thought he'd get an early start on the Playoff Contest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You won't be laughing when you've spent all of your salary cap in the first week of the season and he's sitting pretty with about $150 left for week 2!
What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaron Rodgers $31

Andrew Luck $11

Last year, I chose Orton as a backup with "a slight chance of getting benched" and so took a zero during Rodgers's bye. Not this time! But I may be counting on a good game from Luck @JAX to keep me alive in Week 10. QB is the only position where I paid for a megabucks stud. I don't like having more than 2 QBs even on a large roster.

Darren McFadden $26

Steven Jackson $22

LeGarrette Blount $6

Shane Vereen $6

Dexter McCluster $3

Montario Hardesty $3

Cedric Benson $3

I don't love the S-Jax pick as he may have less upside than others at that price. I think McFadden will be the #1 RB this year but only got him in one redraft. My backups currently look like scrubs. McCluster counted many weeks for me last year at WR so maybe he'll be a lucky charm again.

Brandon Marshall $22

Brandon Lloyd $18

Mike Wallace $16

Pierre Garcon $14

James Jones $3

Donald Driver $2

Eddie Royal $2

I agree that WR is not a position where I want to pay top dollar. Jones/Driver scored 11 TDs last year (and 33 over the last 3 years) so I like a possible 20% of Rodgers's TD targets at only $5.

Jermichael Finley $16

Brandon Pettigrew $15

Heath Miller $7

I wanted 3 TEs last year, and at 1.5 PPR I think that's necessary now. Finley was probably a bad pick because I have so many other Packers on a Week 10 bye.

4x Kicker for $12

4x Defense for $12

Perhaps superstitiously, I cling to 4 at K and D/ST, but I don't see any reason to pay more than $3 each at these positions.

I like a lot of other people's teams posted here more than I like my own, but I didn't like my team last year either. Welp, see ya later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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 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.
Fair enough. I may have misunderstood you. Small differential but worth pursuing in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like my team this year. Ogletree and Bennett started well for me.

Stafford, Alex Smith, Gabbert

Arian Foster, SJAX, Ridley, Dwyer, Benson, Royster

Andre Johnson, Decker, Garcon, Lance Moore, Blackmon, Ogletree, Royal

Jimmy Graham, Martellus Bennett

Gould, Prater

Broncos, Redskins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a good example to use in this uniquness debate is julio vs roddy. both are the same price and (imo) will put up about the same numbers. julio is owned in 27.6% of teams and roddy is owned in 3%

there are other factors in play here, like roddy's durability and julios upside, but one of the reasons i would choose roddy is his low rostered rate. lets pretend all of these factors are equal for the sake of argument.

if you choose julio and he gets hurt, you loose

if you choose roddy and he gets hurt, you loose

if you choose julio and roddy gets hurt, you gain a significant advantage over 3% of teams

if you choose roddy and julio gets hurt, you gain a significant advantage over 27.6% of teams

its not worth that much, if you think julio will score 17 ppg and roddy will get 16 ppg, i would say to take julio but all things equal, i think it is a bit better to own roddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised to find that nearly half of all 30-man rosters have 4+ QBs. I usually imagine a 30-man roster more like 3-7-10-4-3-3. I really think QB is one of those positions where you really don't benefit from a quantity approach. I'm a 2 QB guy, I can totally understand taking 3 QBs, but any more than that seems like overkill imo. More 30-man rosters have a 4th QB than have a 10th WR or a 4th TE or a 4th kicker, which just seems crazy to me. I think it's much more likely that you'll benefit at some point from flexing a cheap skill position player, or even getting a few extra points from a 4th kicker, as opposed to a 4th QB.

I'm one of those 4-QB squads. Honestly, I was only going to roll with Vick, Skelton, and Tannehill, until I realized that that meant having to rely on Skelton to get me through Vick's bye. So I added Locker. I should have ditched Skelton when I added Locker, to be honest, but I'm not losing sleep over it- 2-QB makes sense with Aaron Rogers, but with Vick, I prefer the security of the third QB, because he's more likely to miss minor time- not enough to sink your team, but a half here, a game there. I'm really surprised more squads didn't wind up with Tannehill. A starting QB with major mobility available for $4? Seems like the perfect "what the hell" flyer, especially since 2-QB (and even 1-QB) rosters are so common. The chances that he goes full-Tebow (crappy passer finding fantasy relevance through his legs) is non-negligible, while his price is definitely negligible. I don't even consider myself a 4-QB squad- I consider myself a 3-QB squad with a $4 "why the hell not?" flyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went with a strategy to try to be pretty solid at every position except WR. At WR I went with cheap guys I like and quantity.

Drew Brees $29

Matt Schaub $13

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

Ray Rice $33

Reggie Bush $20

Marshawn Lynch $19

Rashard Mendenhall $4

Cedric Benson $3

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

Mike Wallace $16

Justin Blackmon $7

Kendall Wright $6

Alshon Jeffery $6

Steve Smith $5

Jonathan Baldwin $4

Rueben Randle $4

Devery Henderson $4

James Jones $3

Andre Roberts $3

Lestar Jean $3

Josh Gordon $3

Louis Murphy $2

Eddie Royal $2

Ryan Broyles $2

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

Jimmy Graham $29

Tony Gonzalez $13

Dwayne Allen $2

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

Robbie Gould $3

Matt Prater $3

Lawrence Tynes $3

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

Cincinnati Bengals $3

New Orleans Saints $3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a good example to use in this uniquness debate is julio vs roddy. both are the same price and (imo) will put up about the same numbers. julio is owned in 27.6% of teams and roddy is owned in 3%

there are other factors in play here, like roddy's durability and julios upside, but one of the reasons i would choose roddy is his low rostered rate. lets pretend all of these factors are equal for the sake of argument.

if you choose julio and he gets hurt, you loose

if you choose roddy and he gets hurt, you loose

if you choose julio and roddy gets hurt, you gain a significant advantage over 3% of teams

if you choose roddy and julio gets hurt, you gain a significant advantage over 27.6% of teams

its not worth that much, if you think julio will score 17 ppg and roddy will get 16 ppg, i would say to take julio but all things equal, i think it is a bit better to own roddy

Roddy is 31, when most WR's start to decline, Julio is 23, when many WR's start to emerge. Julio was drafted a round earlier than Roddy in many/most drafts, which is why more people picked him in this contest -- he was seen as a better value for that same price, as he's expected by most to score more points.

If the 3% are right and the 27.6% are wrong, and Roddy outscores Julio, the Roddy owners will be proven right. If the 27.6% are right, and Julio outscores Roddy, as most experts expect, too, the Julio owners will be proven right.

As for uniqueness, if Julio blows up and has an enormous week each non-bye week 1-13, it will be much harder for the Roddy owners to make the cut every week, especially on a week where he scores 4 points like last year week 6, since 27.6% of the owners will have a big leg up and raise the cut level. If Roddy blows up and has an enormous week each non-bye week 1-13, it won't make too much difference to the Julio owners, since the 3% who own Roddy won't change the cut level much.

I think there's a higher likelihood of Julio blowing up and having a huge year than of him getting hurt, which is why I chose him. Also, IMO he's likely to score higher in the playoffs than Roddy, as well as the regular season, which explains why he's usually selected earlier in regular drafts.

Once again, the uniqueness seems more likely to hurt during the first 13 weeks, though it can help in the playoffs, but only if Roddy does the unexpected according to the experts and average drafter, and outscores Julio. If Julio outscores Roddy in the playoffs, the Roddy owners will have a very hard time winning with that handicap against so many owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really surprised more squads didn't wind up with Tannehill. A starting QB with major mobility available for $4? Seems like the perfect "what the hell" flyer, especially since 2-QB (and even 1-QB) rosters are so common. The chances that he goes full-Tebow (crappy passer finding fantasy relevance through his legs) is non-negligible, while his price is definitely negligible. I don't even consider myself a 4-QB squad- I consider myself a 3-QB squad with a $4 "why the hell not?" flyer.

I considered using Tannehill, but decided to use the extra $2 on Gabbart, who IMO has more upside. Gabbert looked horrible last year, but he had no training camp and his receiving corps was weak. This year, he's had a full offseason and has Blackmon and Laurent Robinson to throw to, along with Jones-Drew and Marcedes Lewis coming back, and he's looked much better in preseason. I think his receiving corps is much better than Tannehill's, and during Rodgers' bye week (my QB1) he plays Indy's soft D instead of Tennessee, whom Tannehill faces.Also, this is one case where I think uniqueness can help during the regular season. I figured Tannehill would be owned more by people just adding the cheapest starting QB without giving it much more thought, and many would be scared away from Gabbert because of his poor season last year. With those receiving targets, I think it's more likely that Gabbert, who's only owned by 3.7% of teams, has a couple of multi-TD games that might occur during Rodgers' bye or injured/off weeks than is Tannehill, and those extra points could help help me survive weeks where many other Rodgers owners don't. I may only use Gabbert the one week, but I could easily see games where MJD gets a receiving TD or 2 and maybe Blackmon gets a TD or 2, with Gabbert maybe outscoring Rodgers on a down week -- not expecting it, but possible.Usually, I wouldn't think having a lesser-owned player have a big week would help much during the regular season, but if that lesser-owned player is a backup to a more commonly-owned stud like Rodgers, him having a better week/matchup than a more commonly-owned backup to Rodgers during his bye week can be significant. The Rodgers/Tannehill combo is owned by 295 teams, whereas the Rodgers/Gabbert combo is only owned by 108. If Rodgers has a huge week every week, so many of the Rodgers owners make it to be among the 2300 week 10 players, and Gabbert does much better against Indy during Rodgers' week 10 bye than Tannehill does against Tennessee's stronger defense, that could really help me survive that week when I'll be weakened by missing my stud QB and a couple of other guys.I consider my team to be a 2-QB squad with a stud and a scrub who has a good bye week matchup, very good receiving options, and a good amount of upside potential, which was enough for me to pay the extra $2 over rookie Tannehill with poor receiving options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a good example to use in this uniquness debate is julio vs roddy. both are the same price and (imo) will put up about the same numbers. julio is owned in 27.6% of teams and roddy is owned in 3%

there are other factors in play here, like roddy's durability and julios upside, but one of the reasons i would choose roddy is his low rostered rate. lets pretend all of these factors are equal for the sake of argument.

if you choose julio and he gets hurt, you loose

if you choose roddy and he gets hurt, you loose

if you choose julio and roddy gets hurt, you gain a significant advantage over 3% of teams

if you choose roddy and julio gets hurt, you gain a significant advantage over 27.6% of teams

its not worth that much, if you think julio will score 17 ppg and roddy will get 16 ppg, i would say to take julio but all things equal, i think it is a bit better to own roddy

Roddy is 31, when most WR's start to decline, Julio is 23, when many WR's start to emerge. Julio was drafted a round earlier than Roddy in many/most drafts, which is why more people picked him in this contest -- he was seen as a better value for that same price, as he's expected by most to score more points.

If the 3% are right and the 27.6% are wrong, and Roddy outscores Julio, the Roddy owners will be proven right. If the 27.6% are right, and Julio outscores Roddy, as most experts expect, too, the Julio owners will be proven right.

As for uniqueness, if Julio blows up and has an enormous week each non-bye week 1-13, it will be much harder for the Roddy owners to make the cut every week, especially on a week where he scores 4 points like last year week 6, since 27.6% of the owners will have a big leg up and raise the cut level. If Roddy blows up and has an enormous week each non-bye week 1-13, it won't make too much difference to the Julio owners, since the 3% who own Roddy won't change the cut level much.

I think there's a higher likelihood of Julio blowing up and having a huge year than of him getting hurt, which is why I chose him. Also, IMO he's likely to score higher in the playoffs than Roddy, as well as the regular season, which explains why he's usually selected earlier in regular drafts.

Once again, the uniqueness seems more likely to hurt during the first 13 weeks, though it can help in the playoffs, but only if Roddy does the unexpected according to the experts and average drafter, and outscores Julio. If Julio outscores Roddy in the playoffs, the Roddy owners will have a very hard time winning with that handicap against so many owners.

you completely missed the entire point of my post. :loco:

i already answered this post before you posted it.

If the 3% are right and the 27.6% are wrong, and Roddy outscores Julio, the Roddy owners will be proven right. If the 27.6% are right, and Julio outscores Roddy, as most experts expect, too, the Julio owners will be proven right.

there are other factors in play here, like roddy's durability and julios upside, but one of the reasons i would choose roddy is his low rostered rate. lets pretend all of these factors are equal for the sake of argument.

and...

I think there's a higher likelihood of Julio blowing up and having a huge year than of him getting hurt, which is why I chose him. Also, IMO he's likely to score higher in the playoffs than Roddy, as well as the regular season, which explains why he's usually selected earlier in regular drafts.

if you think julio will score 17 ppg and roddy will get 16 ppg, i would say to take julio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a good example to use in this uniquness debate is julio vs roddy. both are the same price and (imo) will put up about the same numbers. julio is owned in 27.6% of teams and roddy is owned in 3%

there are other factors in play here, like roddy's durability and julios upside, but one of the reasons i would choose roddy is his low rostered rate. lets pretend all of these factors are equal for the sake of argument.

if you choose julio and he gets hurt, you loose

if you choose roddy and he gets hurt, you loose

if you choose julio and roddy gets hurt, you gain a significant advantage over 3% of teams

if you choose roddy and julio gets hurt, you gain a significant advantage over 27.6% of teams

its not worth that much, if you think julio will score 17 ppg and roddy will get 16 ppg, i would say to take julio but all things equal, i think it is a bit better to own roddy

Roddy is 31, when most WR's start to decline, Julio is 23, when many WR's start to emerge. Julio was drafted a round earlier than Roddy in many/most drafts, which is why more people picked him in this contest -- he was seen as a better value for that same price, as he's expected by most to score more points.

If the 3% are right and the 27.6% are wrong, and Roddy outscores Julio, the Roddy owners will be proven right. If the 27.6% are right, and Julio outscores Roddy, as most experts expect, too, the Julio owners will be proven right.

As for uniqueness, if Julio blows up and has an enormous week each non-bye week 1-13, it will be much harder for the Roddy owners to make the cut every week, especially on a week where he scores 4 points like last year week 6, since 27.6% of the owners will have a big leg up and raise the cut level. If Roddy blows up and has an enormous week each non-bye week 1-13, it won't make too much difference to the Julio owners, since the 3% who own Roddy won't change the cut level much.

I think there's a higher likelihood of Julio blowing up and having a huge year than of him getting hurt, which is why I chose him. Also, IMO he's likely to score higher in the playoffs than Roddy, as well as the regular season, which explains why he's usually selected earlier in regular drafts.

Once again, the uniqueness seems more likely to hurt during the first 13 weeks, though it can help in the playoffs, but only if Roddy does the unexpected according to the experts and average drafter, and outscores Julio. If Julio outscores Roddy in the playoffs, the Roddy owners will have a very hard time winning with that handicap against so many owners.

you completely missed the entire point of my post. :loco:

i already answered this post before you posted it.

If the 3% are right and the 27.6% are wrong, and Roddy outscores Julio, the Roddy owners will be proven right. If the 27.6% are right, and Julio outscores Roddy, as most experts expect, too, the Julio owners will be proven right.

there are other factors in play here, like roddy's durability and julios upside, but one of the reasons i would choose roddy is his low rostered rate. lets pretend all of these factors are equal for the sake of argument.

and...

I think there's a higher likelihood of Julio blowing up and having a huge year than of him getting hurt, which is why I chose him. Also, IMO he's likely to score higher in the playoffs than Roddy, as well as the regular season, which explains why he's usually selected earlier in regular drafts.

if you think julio will score 17 ppg and roddy will get 16 ppg, i would say to take julio

Nope -- didn't miss the point of the post. Was just adding some different angles. You mentioned what happens if Julio or Roddy gets hurt, but not if they have huge years, which I think is more likely. Most think Julio will outscore Roddy, which is why the ownership % is much higher for Julio, but they may be wrong.

As you say, I'll take the higher expected scorer (Julio in this case) over the "more unique" older receiver expected to score less. I have a hunch many who selected Roddy White are thinking back to past years when he was a stud, and not projecting to the potential for Julio to outscore him this year. If Favre were still listed here, I bet some would select him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope -- didn't miss the point of the post. Was just adding some different angles. You mentioned what happens if Julio or Roddy gets hurt, but not if they have huge years, which I think is more likely. Most think Julio will outscore Roddy, which is why the ownership % is much higher for Julio, but they may be wrong. As you say, I'll take the higher expected scorer (Julio in this case) over the "more unique" older receiver expected to score less. I have a hunch many who selected Roddy White are thinking back to past years when he was a stud, and not projecting to the potential for Julio to outscore him this year. If Favre were still listed here, I bet some would select him...

but i already covered that. i already said if you think julio will outscore roddy, you should take him. your 'different angle' is worthless in this discussion about my first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Schaub $13 0.00 bye

Joe Flacco $11 0.00 bye

Sam Bradford $10 0.00 bye

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

Darren McFadden $26 0.00 bye

DeMarco Murray $24 0.00 bye

Ryan Williams $12 0.00 bye

Mikel Leshoure $9 0.00 bye

David Wilson $9 0.00 bye

Jonathan Dwyer $4 0.00 bye

Taiwan Jones $2 0.00 bye

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

Antonio Brown $17 0.00 bye

Jeremy Maclin $17 0.00 bye

Torrey Smith $16 0.00 bye

Kenny Britt $13 0.00 bye

Austin Collie $9 0.00 bye

Justin Blackmon $7 0.00 bye

Jonathan Baldwin $4 0.00 bye

Mike Thomas $2 0.00 bye

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

Antonio Gates $20 0.00 bye

Jared Cook $11 0.00 bye

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

Robbie Gould $3 0.00 bye

Matt Prater $3 0.00 bye

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

New York Giants $5 0.00 bye

Cincinnati Bengals. $3. 0.00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope -- didn't miss the point of the post. Was just adding some different angles. You mentioned what happens if Julio or Roddy gets hurt, but not if they have huge years, which I think is more likely. Most think Julio will outscore Roddy, which is why the ownership % is much higher for Julio, but they may be wrong. As you say, I'll take the higher expected scorer (Julio in this case) over the "more unique" older receiver expected to score less. I have a hunch many who selected Roddy White are thinking back to past years when he was a stud, and not projecting to the potential for Julio to outscore him this year. If Favre were still listed here, I bet some would select him...

but i already covered that. i already said if you think julio will outscore roddy, you should take him. your 'different angle' is worthless in this discussion about my first post.
Yep -- "As you say, I'll take the higher expected scorer (Julio in this case) over the "more unique" older receiver expected to score less."Ok, sorry I touched a nerve by posting worthless info... :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone else take both J Graham and Gronkowski? WIth 1.5 ppr for TE, it just seemed like a no-brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone else take both J Graham and Gronkowski? WIth 1.5 ppr for TE, it just seemed like a no-brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1347091684' post='14730447']Did anyone else take both J Graham and Gronkowski? WIth 1.5 ppr for TE, it just seemed like a no-brainer.

Yes. 135 teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1347091684' post='14730448']Did anyone else take both J Graham and Gronkowski? WIth 1.5 ppr for TE, it just seemed like a no-brainer.

Yes. 135 teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made the final 250 last year, this year lets see if I can take it home, comments:

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

Matt Ryan $19

Jay Cutler $17

I usually roll just 2 QBs in this thing. last year I was on the Stafford train, these two QBs possess great value in cost and have that monster game potential

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

Steven Jackson $22 0.00

Marshawn Lynch $19 0.00

Jacquizz Rodgers $10 0.00

David Wilson $9 0.00

Kendall Hunter $6 0.00

Jonathan Dwyer $4 0.00

Cedric Benson $3 0.00

Evan Royster $3 0.00

Ronnie Brown $2 0.00

9 RBs, with 2 really good fair priced options in Lynch & S.Jacskon. Im sure alot of rosters have Benson at that price, Quizz & Wilson and Hunter all represent big game potential. Royster was cheap and should score.

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

Antonio Brown $17 0.00

Jeremy Maclin $17 0.00

Torrey Smith $16 0.00

Kenny Britt $13 0.00

Titus Young $10 0.00

Justin Blackmon $7 0.00

Jonathan Baldwin $4 0.00

Devery Henderson $4 0.00

Eddie Royal $2 0.00

Seemed like there were tons of great options at the 17-15 range, Kenny Britt after 1 week off should be great value. Titus & Blackmon are both too good to be that cheap. Devery will score 3 or times and with V.brown going down Eddie Royal seems like a no brainer

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

Antonio Gates $20 0.00

Greg Olsen $11 0.00

gates is a great deal at 20 bucks, and Olsen at 11 is too

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

Robbie Gould $3 0.00

Lawrence Tynes $3 0.00

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

Cincinnati Bengals $3 0.00

New Orleans Saints $3 0.00

Kansas City Chiefs $3 0.00

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Flacco

Andrew Luck

Jack Locker

Ray Rice

Doug Martin

Peyton Hillis

Robert Turbin

Dexter McCluster

Evan Royster

Taiwan Jones

Julio Jones

Eric Decker

Reggie Wayne

Pierre Garcon

Nate Washington

Kendall Wright

Steve Smith (STL)

Fred Davis

Greg Olsen

Kellen Davis

Neil Rackers (yup screwed that one)

Josh Scobee

Lawrence Tynes

Jets

Redskins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Ryan $19

Robert Griffin III $17

Joe Flacco $11

Although I hate them both based on past performance, I think Ryam and Flacco may break out with new offensive packages.

Steven Jackson $22

Fred Jackson $21

Marshawn Lynch $19

David Wilson $9

Rashard Mendenhall $4

Cedric Benson $3

Not glamorous choices at the top, but usually workmen. Wilson based on probable Bradshaw injury. Mendenhall on recovery.

Calvin Johnson $29

Titus Young $10

Randall Cobb $9

Justin Blackmon $7

Jerome Simpson $7

Danny Amendola $6

Devery Henderson $4

James Jones $3

Josh Gordon $3

Lots of love for Lions - no dependable run game. Cobb, Henderson & James Jones will hit occassional home runs - hope they are in weeks when I need them. Simpson, Amendola, and Gordon - somebody has to catch a few passes on those teams.

Fred Davis $14

Tony Gonzalez $13

Hope that Davis becomes a security blanket and red zone target for Griffin. Gonzo still has a little left in his tank for the swan song.

Mason Crosby $5

Jason Hanson $4

Rob Bironas $3

Crosby and Hanson will get lots of chances. Bironas always seems to score 15+ one week late in the season.

Buffalo Bills $5

Miami Dolphins $3

Purely based on FBG's strength of schedule analysis. Jets X3, Miami X2, Jacksonville X2, Indy X2, St Louis X2, Tennessee X2, Arizona, Cincy, KC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.