Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Ignoratio Elenchi

2018 FBG Subscriber Contest

Recommended Posts

1 Entry rolled with just Darnold at QB.

1 Entry rolled with just Bradford at QB.  - He also has Bailey as his only kicker :/

3 guys only have Flacco

-QG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, QuizGuy66 said:

Some roster minimum stats:

237 entries have 1 QB

122 entries have 2 RB

61 entries have 2 WR

947 entries have 1 TE

1626 entries have 1 PK

1591 entries have 1 TD

-QG

As others have said, many are not eligible for prizes, and simply had fun putting in a crazy lineup.  I assume about 1000 entries were for ####s and giggles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TheWinz said:

As others have said, many are not eligible for prizes, and simply had fun putting in a crazy lineup.  I assume about 1000 entries were for ####s and giggles.

Of course and those entries are great :)

Though I suspect more than a couple of these entries are in fact people thinking that they are making a :shark: move.

-QG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, QuizGuy66 said:

Of course and those entries are great :)

Though I suspect more than a couple of these entries are in fact people thinking that they are making a :shark: move.

-QG

Yes, there will certainly be a few eligible submissions that are wild, like 23-QB guy, or 16-K guy.  I just wish there were about 14,000 of them!  I think I will go back to 2017 and see if any "wild" submissions made it to week 13.  Should be fun...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got 37 points out of the first game.  Pretty happy about that.  I really hate that I feel really good about my team.  That can only mean one thing,elimination by the 3rd week.

Edited by rustycolts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone else intentionally roster a player or two because you thought they would be considered bad values and thus low ownership?  My decision for Henry was based on this. 

Value based on projections vs low ownership?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bonfire said:

Did anyone else intentionally roster a player or two because you thought they would be considered bad values and thus low ownership?  My decision for Henry was based on this. 

Value based on projections vs low ownership?

That is basically 80% of my team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to go back to last year's top 100 teams.  That's a pretty decent sample size, huh?  Of the top 100, all had 1-5 QB's, 4-11 WR's, 4-11 WR's, 1-5 TE's, 1-6 K's, and 1-4 D's.  IMO, here are the 2 most unique teams...

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2017/111946.php  This guy had only 1 QB, 1 K, and 1 D.  He was the only one in the top 100 to carry only 1 QB.  He was the "uniquest" IMO.  I am amazed he made the finals.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2017/103444.php  The only entrant with 6 kickers; all others had 4 at most.

After going over all top 100 teams, a few things were obvious:

- Common players are the way to go; uniqueness is overrated

- Carrying between 2 and 4 QB's, TE's, K's, and D's is also the way to go.  Over 90% fell into this category.

- Going stud RB outweighed stud WR by a large margin, as most would expect.

- Even though most teams were "common", it seems the low-cost WR's each person chose made the most difference.

IMO, the low-cost WR's will prove to be the difference maker again.  Are you happy with yours?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheWinz said:

I decided to go back to last year's top 100 teams.  That's a pretty decent sample size, huh?  Of the top 100, all had 1-5 QB's, 4-11 WR's, 4-11 WR's, 1-5 TE's, 1-6 K's, and 1-4 D's.  IMO, here are the 2 most unique teams...

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2017/111946.php  This guy had only 1 QB, 1 K, and 1 D.  He was the only one in the top 100 to carry only 1 QB.  He was the "uniquest" IMO.  I am amazed he made the finals.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2017/103444.php  The only entrant with 6 kickers; all others had 4 at most.

After going over all top 100 teams, a few things were obvious:

- Common players are the way to go; uniqueness is overrated

- Carrying between 2 and 4 QB's, TE's, K's, and D's is also the way to go.  Over 90% fell into this category.

- Going stud RB outweighed stud WR by a large margin, as most would expect.

- Even though most teams were "common", it seems the low-cost WR's each person chose made the most difference.

IMO, the low-cost WR's will prove to be the difference maker again.  Are you happy with yours?

 

That first team is incredible. Not only did he carry the 1 qb, k and defense. He was taking 0's from quite a few mid to high dollar players. Garcon, Montgomery, and Marshall.

I think this is why the running backs went to .5 per receptions to balance out the stud rb vs stud wr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, msudaisy26 said:

That first team is incredible. Not only did he carry the 1 qb, k and defense. He was taking 0's from quite a few mid to high dollar players. Garcon, Montgomery, and Marshall.

I think this is why the running backs went to .5 per receptions to balance out the stud rb vs stud wr

The stud wrs were injured or missing their qb at the end of the year.  More likely the change was made by dodds to give the sharks paying attention a leg up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, QuizGuy66 said:

Some roster minimum stats:

237 entries have 1 QB

122 entries have 2 RB

61 entries have 2 WR

947 entries have 1 TE

1626 entries have 1 PK

1591 entries have 1 TD

-QG

Not sure if this has been covered, but there are at least 104 teams that can't get a full roster's worth of scoring players in week 1. Some of that's due to suspensions, injuries, and rostering free agents, retirees or guys who have already gone on IR. But there are 45 teams that simply didn't roster 7 RB+WR+TE, so they can never get a full team's worth of scoring players. Obviously, this includes a lot of throwaway teams (all three 22-kicker teams, all five teams with 20 or more QBs).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun fact from last year's contest...

- Of the top 10 finishers, 3 had a $5 RB and never once used his score.  The RB's name was... James Conner!

This year he is only $4, go figure

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your team was eliminated week one and wasn't a joke entry, would/should you be embarrassed?  If not placing in the prizes it's all the same outcome, but still.  Clicked through a few teams currently at bottom of standings and they seem like legit entries and not all jokes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bonfire said:

If your team was eliminated week one and wasn't a joke entry, would/should you be embarrassed?  If not placing in the prizes it's all the same outcome, but still.  Clicked through a few teams currently at bottom of standings and they seem like legit entries and not all jokes.

It’s halftime of the 1pm games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TheWinz said:

 

IMO, the low-cost WR's will prove to be the difference maker again.  Are you happy with yours?

 

So far I can't complain

Jo Brown WR BAL6 13.50FL

C Godwin WR TB6 13.10FL

K Cole WR JAX7 8.40

J Ross WR CIN5 7.30

M Gallup WR DAL6 0.00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

152.45 + (Rivers/Stafford - 23.95) + (Freeman/Kelly/Zeke/McCaffrey - 6.90/10.10/13.10/33.70) + (M Jones/Gallup/Chad Williams - 10.10/13.10/13.50/19.60) + (Burton/Seals-Jones/Vannett - 5.80/10.10/13.10) + (Butker - 9.80) + (Jets/Raiders - 16)

-QG

Edited by QuizGuy66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 4pm games (no Mia/Ten players on my team):

178.9 + (Stafford - 38.20) + (J Kelly/ Marvin Jones - 12.50/13.10) + (Burton - 6.40) + (Raiders/Jets - 16)

-QG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally I’d be an alright week so far but 160 with Burton-3.5, Howard-6.5 and Rodgers -33 lol...

Well love week one where you wanna swap your whole roster after just the 1st quarter(looking at you Kelce and Goodwin) ... I still like my team and feel they can put up decent numbers week over week...

the insaine scores this week will defiantly skew things though. Also Cheap QB’s well out preforming their $ value and possibly putting up the best week they will see all year drug a lot of teams along.

best early season picks.... easily Grant and Stills. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mahomes

Conner

Tyreek

Gronk

Browns defense - might be the best $2 spent in this contest

:thumbup:

Edited by -OZ-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vegas123 said:

148.4 and Jimmy Graham -7,30 need Graham to do something or it would be like the walk of shame in collage, out week one

I had it happen once thanks to a freakishly bad week one - shout out to Brandon Jacobs.

Good luck!

-QG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, cockroach said:

LOL @ anyone getting excited over a high week 1 score in this contest. 

I don't know I would feel a lot better about my team if they had scored a lot more points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, rustycolts said:

I don't know I would feel a lot better about my team if they had scored a lot more points.

Won't help you next week. Turk DGAF 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rustycolts said:

in task bar address?

Yep was just coming to say nm it is in the url.

I think I have had to ask the same damn question for years and years in a row. :bag:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty happy with my team.

Not the fact that I am having a good week, but because the players I didnt use would have made the cut too.

Thinking this team has a pretty high floor.

Edited by matuski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matuski said:

Yep was just coming to say nm it is in the url.

I think I have had to ask the same damn question for years and years in a row. :bag:

yea thats what I meant I'm tech impaired.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When using calcomatic, Is there a way to see other entries if we don’t know their number? I would like to see who is near me, the highest scorer and/or the lowest 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chocula said:

When using calcomatic, Is there a way to see other entries if we don’t know their number? I would like to see who is near me, the highest scorer and/or the lowest 

Check the standings page from the menu on the left.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steeler said:

Check the standings page from the menu on the left.

 

Thank you. I kept going to that page and it was always blank except for two ads. I saw it was blank and clicked back on my team. It takes a couple of seconds to load. 

BTW... do you get revenue if we click on the ads?

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20.6 above the cut line.  Man it would suck to be put out the first week.  I still have Jordy (-11.4) and Cook (-8.4) so maybe I can get a few more points.  That's what I get for liking my team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.